I have been informed by people who are opposed to I-695 that if I vote for this initiative that there would have to be a vote in order to raise the price of a hotdog at a school football game. I beleive (after reading the verbage of the actual initiative on the wa.gov website) that the term "state" applies to any government entity who would impose a tax. I didn't see anything that said "fee", only the word "tax". Please give me some concrete evidence to throw back at the high and mighty people who feel that this is too radical of a thing to do!

Thanks!!!!!!!

-- Chris Humann (humannc@ieway.com), September 17, 1999

Answers

Totally correct Chris. And a vote will be required to raise the price of the school yearbook and school photos. And those candy bars that kids sell outside of grocery stores? We'll have to vote on the prices for them too.

And school books. If they want to raise the prices on them we gotta vote.

And the soda machines in the schools. well don't look for the prices to change there either.

Aren't the hotdogs too expensive already? Who would want to vote to make them cost more?

The only way you can convince these people with the tiny minds is to give them more examples that point out just how ridiculous their statements are.

Why do they want the school lunches or the hotdogs to cost MORE?

The requirement for a vote to raise fees, taxes etc is a mechanism to stop the government from just upping prices on anything without consultation so they can't screw us anymore.

Some people cannot be convinced because they have been brainwashed into compliant stupidity for so long that there is no hope for them.

The rest of the people can be swayed by appealing to their logic and common sense.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 17, 1999.

Sorry to get all "high and mighty" with you Chris, but re-read Section 2 subsection 2. At the end it includes " any monetary charge by government" as a tax. So yes, if it is being sold by the school, it would have to go to a vote of the people in that school district.

I guess maddjak is unaware of a little thing called inflation, which tends to increase the cost of items like hot dogs, yearbook printing, and school lunches. Apparently he's under the impression that schools aren't adjusting the price to cover costs, they're just trying to screw us by constantly jacking up the prices on things like school lunches. You know, those complete meals that they have the nerve to charge $1.25 for.

What I have a problem with is having to take a vote on something as insignificant as raising the price of a hot dog at a high school football game from $.75 to $1 when it costs the taxpayers $10,000 just to put the thing on the ballot.

I dunno, last time I went to a high school football game and had a hot dog it cost about $.75. Last time I went to a pro football game and had a hot dog it cost about $3.50. I guess I've been brainwashed into believing that a $.75 hot dog sold by a school costs less than a $3.50 hot dog sold by a private vender.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.

The reason the hot Dog at the High school football game only costs $.75 instead of $3.50 is because other people, who are not eating the $.75 hot dog, are forced to pay the difference in the form of a subsidy. Socialist redistribution schemes have even gotten into our hot dogs. Any wonder why the pendulum is starting to swing back the other way? GOVERNMNENT IS OUT OF CONTROL. A private vendor should supply the food! The dog may cost more, but at least the consumer pays for his own lunch and I won't have to vote on any increases for something the govenment DOESN'T NEED TO PROVIDE ANYWAY.

-- SP (sp@hotmail.com), September 17, 1999.

Yeah right SP. Priced hot dogs lately? Figure $.50 tops for a standard hot dog. So the school (usually a fund raiser for a club) pockets about a quarter of profits (again usually for a club). While the vendor in the Kingdome is making a $3 profit.

Keep dreaming about those socialist weiner theories.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.

SP:

Do you actually believe any of what you wrote? Read it again, and think about your answer. Then ask the school district how much a hotdog actually costs, and where any profit from the concession stand is used. They do make a little profit even at .75; and an increase to $1.00 may increase the profit but it also supports youth activities.

The basic issue is that the initiative defines every monetary charge by government as a tax; even if logic, your experience, and existing court decisions define them as not a tax. The reason we get into these absurd discussions, is that the initiative was poorly drafted. It may not make sense, but that is what the initiative would require. And when you point out it doesn't make sense, someone tries to justify it by claiming that $1.00 is to much to pay for a hotdog at a game, or that we should pay $3.50 to prevent a government subsidy that does not exist. It just shows that, in spite of anything, those who want the initiative to pass don't care what damage is being done. I begin to suspect they support it, simply because they simply WANT to incapacitiate government.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 17, 1999.