The Granite State Fair Tax Coalition, discovering that it’s "percentage of income model" argument against property taxes really applies to all things, and that lower income people pay a higher percentage of their income on everything, (a problem resolved through hard work and perseverance to which we apparently do not have a right) has announced that it is looking for a way to make "Rich BastardsTM" pay more for everything.
One example?
How about Marriage. Now that we’ve determined that Marriage is a civil right, (unless you are too young, too closely related, are already married, to uncivil to be or stay married, or want to remain single) why does a decent wedding (or any wedding) have to cost low income workers as much as 100% of their annual income while "Rich BastardsTM" only have to pay 25% to as little as 2% of theirs? The answer is of course a Statewide wedding tax on higher income wage earners to subsidize the constitutionally protected right of marriage–because you can’t help who you fall in love with.
The plan could create a State Bureau of Weddings and Funerals, staffed by at least a dozen bureaucrats, (with taxpayer supported wages, benefits, pensions, office space, paid vacations, supplies, and protest signs that actually come with sick notes attached; for days when they need to go the State House and make demands of the taxpayers elected-officials on matters of workers rights etc,). These fine individuals would be charged with handling questions and processing the paperwork and fees related to the weddings and funerals tax placed upon job creators, and the Rich Bastard population in general, (“Rich” to be defined by the collectors of the tax based on their perception of revenue needed) for the distribution of said revenues to those less fortunate seeking lavish weddings that have nothing to do with love, everything to do with impressing people whom you never see, and who are really just there for the free meal, and with any luck, an open bar.
One potential issue to the new Bureau’s mandate, however, is the rights of single people who would not benefit from the tax, or maybe this is just a rhetorical device on my part to segue into my next sarcastic rant.
It’s no secret that I’m not in favor of speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, here in NH. No one has ever presented me with statistical evidence to me that high speed alone on the Big Lake have resulted in the accident rates that the "It’s just a liquid road" crowd would have you believe. Trust me, it’s not a small lake by ANY means, like Squam Lake, where the "shhh, quiet!" crowd won the fight of "Your noisy boats offend me; I will get Government to outlaw anything bigger than a putt-putt".