I drink a great deal of coffee and I'm exceptionally lazy. This results in me buying a great deal of coffee from Starbucks or whatever Starbucks like place is around. To be honest it could be a bleeding lepper selling iced coffee out of an old oil drum, it doesn't matter to me.
Since I've been in LA I've noticed that the Starbucks actor/model/director/toga instructor/screenwriters have been asking me if my one cup of coffee is "here or to go". At first this just seemd to be a typical quirk of the average idiot Californian mentality. Just garnering uselss information for no apparent reason. So, being an inquisitve and outgoinng sort of guy I asked one why the hell they ask.
"Does it come in a diffrent container if it's for here or something?"
"No, you have to pay taxes if you drink it here."
"What?"
"You pay taxes if you drink it here, but not if it's 'to go'."
"Let me get this straight. If I buy a cup of coffee and tell you it's to go and then decide to drink it here I don't pay taxes."
"Well, no, you wouldn't."
"But if I tell you I'm drinking it here then I have to pay taxes."
"Yes."
"Does anyone ever say they're drinking it here?"
"People from out of state sometimes."
"Ahh, thanks."
What kind of idiot lawmakers do you have in this ********* GEE I WONDER WHY YOU CAN'T GET ENOUGH INCOME TO RUN THE STATE.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- California Tax Structure made me cry tears of bloody rage.
California Tax Structure made me cry tears of bloody rage.Follow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Good, good. More reasons to hate California. Ehhhhhhxcellent.
Ahnuld urges everyone to eat their food on-the-go, it goes along with his physical fitness agenda. And don't forget to order your steroids "to go" as well.
Edited, Thu May 13 21:38:15 2004 by trickybeck
I guess you must have found that desolate portion of California where there are no 7-Elevens or Dunk'n Donuts around.
But, as for your point, yeah, the tax system is dumb.
But, as for your point, yeah, the tax system is dumb.
Lol! I've been saying that California is the most screwed up state in terms of it's taxing methodologies for years. But do you believe me? NO....
The "logic" behind that is one of service. If you are consuming something in an environment where you are being served (like a restarant), then the food is taxed. If you are just buying food that you'll prepare yourself (like in a grocery store), it's not.
That's a reasonable enough start, right? After all, eating out is a luxury that should be taxed (remember, liberals have run the legistlature in California for like 30 years, so we tax pretty much anything that a wellfare mom doesn't have to do to survive). Buying groceries for your family should not. But the whole fast food situation kinda screws things up. Is it food that should be taxed? Or not. Then there's the matter of preparation. Is fast food really taxible? And what about coffee?
I think the conclusion they came to is that they didn't want to prevent the poor wellfare mom from being able to get McDonalds for her 6 kids, but they certainly wanted to hurt those "rich folks" sitting for a meal at Gionettis, so the "eat here, or take home", tax was instituted.
Interestingly enough, most fast food places just roll some average amount of "tax" into their normal prices and don't bother with determining whether you are taking something to-go, or eating here. Probably has to do with only having one tax button on the register. Of course, those are usually places were those aforementioned wellfare moms take their kids anyway (like McDonalds), so they get to eat in while the cost of their service is absorbed by everyone who buys food there. The upscale places just put the tax into their cost since people don't generally show up just to take stuff home to eat (and if they do, then they deserve to get screwed). I'm kinda surprised that Starbucks actually charges a different price. Most place dont bother.
And yeah. It's dumb. And just another example of liberal tax policies gone horribly wrong. But hey. It's the price of freedom, or something like it...
The "logic" behind that is one of service. If you are consuming something in an environment where you are being served (like a restarant), then the food is taxed. If you are just buying food that you'll prepare yourself (like in a grocery store), it's not.
That's a reasonable enough start, right? After all, eating out is a luxury that should be taxed (remember, liberals have run the legistlature in California for like 30 years, so we tax pretty much anything that a wellfare mom doesn't have to do to survive). Buying groceries for your family should not. But the whole fast food situation kinda screws things up. Is it food that should be taxed? Or not. Then there's the matter of preparation. Is fast food really taxible? And what about coffee?
I think the conclusion they came to is that they didn't want to prevent the poor wellfare mom from being able to get McDonalds for her 6 kids, but they certainly wanted to hurt those "rich folks" sitting for a meal at Gionettis, so the "eat here, or take home", tax was instituted.
Interestingly enough, most fast food places just roll some average amount of "tax" into their normal prices and don't bother with determining whether you are taking something to-go, or eating here. Probably has to do with only having one tax button on the register. Of course, those are usually places were those aforementioned wellfare moms take their kids anyway (like McDonalds), so they get to eat in while the cost of their service is absorbed by everyone who buys food there. The upscale places just put the tax into their cost since people don't generally show up just to take stuff home to eat (and if they do, then they deserve to get screwed). I'm kinda surprised that Starbucks actually charges a different price. Most place dont bother.
And yeah. It's dumb. And just another example of liberal tax policies gone horribly wrong. But hey. It's the price of freedom, or something like it...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
That is one poorly thought out law. Make a service tax and then not have enough brains to limit it the way they would like it too. If they wanted a service tax that would only effect all they had to do is tax it by the staff the business uses, after all I have yet to see a McDonalds with coat check, host/hostess, or a waiter/waitress. But what would I know about laws, I am not smart enough to think them out I can bearly understand the first paragraph.
Quote:
If you are consuming something in an environment where you are being served (like a restarant), then the food is taxed.
If you're being served, does that mean it's on?
On a serious note, I don't think anyone at any Starbuck's could be guilty of providing service, unless 'service' = bored hauteur.
Quote:
remember, liberals have run the legistlature in California for like 30 years, so we tax pretty much anything that a wellfare mom doesn't have to do to survive
Ahh... Jim Edgar. You silly liberal!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
So what you're saying, Smash, is that in keeping with your liberal-lefty taxation philosophy you not only cheerfully told him you would drink your coffee in-house, but you'd like to pay an additional 50% more, so as to help the more needy among us, right? Hopefully you tipped him in as liberal a manner as the way you vote.
Shame on you if you assumed the cruel and heartless position that our tax structure is out of whack! More tax = good policy, correct?
Totem
Edited, Fri May 14 00:50:43 2004 by Totem
Shame on you if you assumed the cruel and heartless position that our tax structure is out of whack! More tax = good policy, correct?
Totem
Edited, Fri May 14 00:50:43 2004 by Totem
Quote:
More tax = good policy, correct?
That is true only for the ever-shrinking middle class. The poverty-stricken and wealthy are exempt.
Don't rock the boat man! I'm addicted to Coffee Bean and Tea leaf's Large Extreme Ice blended mochas and I sure as hell don't want to pay the taxes on it. That would be like.... .3335 cents fer bob's sake! I would have to pay more than 5 dollars for damn thing!
Something similar to this is happening in Seattle, something about Taxing coffee specifically, Seattle being the coffee mecca that it is. Dont know why, its pretty far from Juan Valdez and all.
[link=]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3113716.stm[/link]
[link=]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3113716.stm[/link]
I have heard this before at a coffee shop and thought it was a bunch of crap. The taxes here in Cali suck, as if you all did'nt know that already.
Here is a copy of the law regarding taxing food. Got it from the website in case anyone cares.
Here is a copy of the law regarding taxing food. Got it from the website in case anyone cares.
Quote:
SECTION A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS (BY CATEGORY) I. NECESSITIES OF LIFE — Provisions that exempt property necessary to the sustenance of life. A. Food • FOOD PRODUCTS — Sales of food for human consumption are generally exempt from tax unless sold in a heated condition (except hot bakery items or hot beverages, such as coffee, sold for a separate price), served as meals, consumed at or on the seller’s facilities, ordinarily sold for consumption on or near the seller’s parking facility, or sold for consumption where there is an admission charge.
Quote:
So what you're saying, Smash, is that in keeping with your liberal-lefty taxation philosophy you not only cheerfully told him you would drink your coffee in-house, but you'd like to pay an additional 50% more, so as to help the more needy among us, right? Hopefully you tipped him in as liberal a manner as the way you vote.
I mailed a $100 to Sacramento immediately.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 288
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (288)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- California Tax Structure made me cry tears of bloody rage.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC