I am ever fearless in the face of lunacy:

Paul,
Thanks for writing. You should be able to comment on Stan's Blog.
Here's my point with the 4 percent tax on food versus the 1.5 percent increase in the wage tax. I won't have a choice with the 1.5 percent. It will be taken out of my paycheck like clock work. I will, however, have a choice with the 4 percent tax on food. I can put back the bag of chips or the six pack of soda. If you subtract the 1.5 from the 4 we're talking about only a 2.5 percent increase in the food tax. There are a lot of different ways to slice up the numbers.
Stan

So cordial, Stan! Maybe he should just choose to not eat? I respond:

Stan,

You didn’t post this to your blog, so I couldn’t comment there.

As for your “choice”? Choose to spend less on food? My wife just came back from the store – shopping for the week – and spent $65. That’s for two people. That’s working under a single income (my wife is a Master’s student at Penn). That’s being extremely frugal. That’s shopping in bulk at BJs. That’s clipping coupons. Two people, $65, and let’s call that a baseline. But it doesn’t matter. Even if we spent $2 a week on food, your proposed tax increase still costs us two weeks more in food than we’re currently spending. How about this, Stan. How about you “chose” to simply make less money? Then you wouldn’t have to worry about your wage tax increase. Pretty simple, right?

-pb

As a follow-up to my last post, I decided to send yet another shot across Herr Huskey's bow, and fired him off this letter:

Hi Stan,

We’ve been down this road before, but since you’ve taken away commenting on your site, I’m left with simply emailing you and hoping beyond hope that my views are aired. Out of your latest missive concerning Act 1, I found a point that’s either an error in logic or an out-and-out diversion:

“If we put a 4-percent sales tax on food we could all but wipe out the property tax.

Now think about this for a minute. You’re in the grocery store and you’ve just bought $100 worth of food. Do you really think that $4 tax is going to prevent you, or anyone else, from eating a meal? It’s ludicrous if you do.”

Ludicrous, indeed? Four dollars doesn’t seem like much to you (or even most people), but it’s not just four dollars, is it? Let’s say someone spends $100/week to feed their family. My wife and I, without children, can come close to that. Even though we tend to be thrifty shoppers, we’ve both got dietary restrictions that tend to limit us to more expensive alternatives (one of these ‘restrictions’ is a simple desire to eat healthy, which is not cheap). Regardless, let’s go with the $100/week number because it’s nice and round and very accurately illustrates my point. As I was saying, it’s not just four dollars. Over the course of a month, it’s $16. Over the course of a year, that added 4% turns into over $200. So, under your plan, people wind up paying for two weeks more food every year than they actually bring home. Whatever numbers you plug into that equation, you get the same statistics: Your four percent increase costs people two weeks of food every year. Two weeks of meals, just so you can eliminate property taxes.

I’d rather shoulder a greater part of the burden myself than reducing the buying power of those who can least afford it, especially on necessities. But, I guess that’s what separates us.

-pb

Stan Huskey hates poor people. We've pretty much determined that. But, just for the record, here's his justification for proposing a 4% sales tax on food:

Now think about this for a minute. You’re in the grocery store and you’ve just bought $100 worth of food. Do you really think that $4 tax is going to prevent you, or anyone else, from eating a meal? It’s ludicrous if you do.

Ludicrous? Let's think about that.

Say you spend $100/week on food for your family. Add 4% to that. Ok, $104/week. How's that look for the year? $5,200 vs $5,408. Over the course of a year, you'd have spent your weekly budget on food 54 times instead of 52. Or, your money goes to feed your family two weeks less per year under Anti-Poor Stan's brilliant plan. Way to go, Stan. Advocating eliminating your property taxes in favor of starving the poor.

-pb

A few days ago, I posted about my response to more anti-taxation rhetoric from the editor of the local Time Herald. They actually approved the post! Check that out, something of mine slipped past their censors.

-pb

In an editorial penned by someone named "In Our View" that smacks of Stan Huskey's "my pocketbook comes before your starving kid" mentality, the Times Herald has reminded readers that Governor Ed Rendell isn't the tooth fairy:

We will remind our readers once again that we were all told by Gov. Rendell that if our state legislators would approve gambling in Pennsylvania, we would receive a $1 billion for property tax relief from the revenues. We're still waiting.

To which I responded:

14 Slots licenses were awarded last year. Since then, two casinos have opened, the first in January, the second in February. Did you expect nickels placed in the slots to magically drop right into state coffers? Maybe you were hoping for little gambling elves to advance the State Treasury the cash right away? Perhaps you were expecting all fourteen casinos to simply cough up the billion dollars before they opened?

Sounds more like a partisan jab at Governor Rendell to point out that his plan isn't working two months after it has officially begun. I guess he just misplaced his wand that turns slots licences into piles of gold coins while he was off working to raise the minimum wage and securing better health care for older Pennsylvanians.

But, the Times Herald screens all comments for views that tend to support their positions, so I doubt it will be posted to the site.

-pb

Hrm. Maybe I shouldn't have sent that last letter:

Pisces : We all get rattled now and then, whether or not for rational or justified reasons. It's your turn now, but don't worry: You're probably quite justified. Take a break from all parties concerned until they work it out peaceably.

Virgo : A dispute is showing signs of escalating into a very serious argument, and soon, too. Your best bet is to put some distance between yourself and all parties concerned, as quickly as possible for as long as possible.


Oh well, what's done is done.

( Stan Huskey: Tit )

----

( Me: Tat )

-pb

( More insinuations, more hatred of the poor. )

----

( More of me calling him on it, and even throwing in a subtle 'Why do you hate America?' )

This guy is my new favorite bugbear. I tried to be nice before, but now it's on...

-pb

( Wherein Stan Huskey, he-who-shall-not-be-naming-me, proposes raising the taxes on bread and milk and cutting property taxes altogether. )

( Wherein I call him out on his past transgression, and then point out that he hates poor people, just like is idol, George W. Bush. )

-pb