No, you don't need to pick up after yourself

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a proposed ordinance in Oakland aimed at taxing fast-food businesses to address the city's litter problem. Participants explore the implications of this approach, the responsibilities of citizens versus corporations, and the effectiveness of government interventions in managing littering.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the proposed tax unfairly shifts the responsibility for littering from individuals to corporations, suggesting that customers should be held accountable for their actions.
  • Others express skepticism about the effectiveness of government spending, questioning whether the funds collected will be used as intended and whether the tax will remain even after the litter problem is resolved.
  • A few participants propose that increasing the number of trash cans and ensuring they are emptied regularly could reduce littering more effectively than taxing businesses.
  • Some participants note that the approach taken by the city may be politically motivated, as it is easier to target businesses than to enforce littering laws against individuals.
  • There is a suggestion that a small sales tax could be a more equitable solution, as it would distribute the burden across a wider population rather than targeting specific businesses.
  • One participant humorously comments on the cultural attitudes in the Bay Area, implying a tendency to blame corporations for societal issues.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no consensus on the effectiveness or fairness of the proposed tax. Some agree on the need for better waste management solutions, while others disagree on the responsibility for littering and the role of government intervention.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions about government spending, the effectiveness of littering fines, and the behavior of citizens regarding trash disposal. The discussion reflects differing perspectives on accountability and the role of local government in addressing public issues.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those concerned with urban policy, environmental management, public accountability, and community responsibility regarding littering and waste management.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap02-05-124620.asp?t=apcom&vts=2520061631

Oakland officials are so fed up with fast-food trash that they want to tax the businesses they blame for much of the city's garbage woes, then use the money to clean up the streets.
''It's not fair that the residents have to clean up after a fast-food establishment that's making a profit,'' said Councilwoman Jane Brunner, who proposed the new ordinance. ''A city is judged by how clean it is, and Oakland definitely has a major litter problem. It's time to clean up.''

Because as we all know, customers don't toss trash on the ground, corporations do :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe the idiots should put their trash in the trash cans, and not in the streets to begin with! Remember your thread about debt Pengwuino. This is what I mean by wasting government money.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
Maybe the idiots should put their trash in the trash cans, and not in the streets to begin with! Remember your thread about debt Pengwuino. This is what I mean by wasting government money.

This isn't government money though, its the restaurants money being specifically taken away for a specific, stupid stupid stupid reason. Is it just me or is this country coming to a point where no one is allowed to actually blame citizens for anything. Everything the citizen does it is right, they are perfect, governments and corporations are to blame for everything.
 
What do you think government money is? Its money taken from taxes. And more than likely, that money won't actually go where it was intended. This councilwoman sounds pretty stupid. In maryland, the fine for littering is $1000 bucks, we keep our trash in the trash cans.
 
Last edited:
Well i treat money differently when its like this, taken from a specific place to be used at a specific time. Money put into a general fund to distribute out i have more leeway with because when, for example, i pay 8% sales tax, i don't really expect it to go to any specific place. I would like to see where this money ACTUALLY goes though too!

I wonder what my uncle says about this. He's ultra-left, ultra-liberal, and even he is disgusted when Oakland does crap like this.
 
That’s what all politicians tell you until you realize where the money really goes, somewhere it was not originally intended. Another problem with things like this is that after the litter problem has been taken care of, the government isn't going to get rid of that tax bill on the resturants. They will still collect on the now clean streets so they can use the money in other areas. .....Man, I am salivating for a whopper from burger king with pickles and mayo on it right now......
 
Last edited:
Pengwuino said:
Because as we all know, customers don't toss trash on the ground, corporations do :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
I see what you mean. It's like the city government lost their mind and think the actual people doing the littering somehow don't figure into the equation.

I suppose what's behind that is the unconscious realization of how much harder it would be to police all the people doing the littering, and how much more unpopular that would make them, than it is to blame the restaurants and try to make them handle it.
 
I think they should have added a 0.001% sales tax or something like that. Traditionally, if a government can't precisely target certain members of the population, they just make it an inconvenience to everyone like some governments are doing with certain OTC medicines such as sudafed or whatever everyone was complaining about a few months ago.
 
Something I've noticed about clean city sidewalks and streets...they put out lots of trash cans in convenient locations! Littering usually only gets out of hand when people are walking for three blocks with an empty food wrapper without seeing a single trash can, and get tired of carrying it. If there are trash cans on every corner, and they aren't left to overflow, most people will use them. I also always liked it when the trash cans available had two compartments, one for regular trash, and one for recyclables so you didn't feel bad about tossing that soda can or water bottle in the regular trash. Then the only littering left are the infernal cigarette butts. I've never understood why it is that you'll see an ashtray outside a building, and the ground around it is still covered with cigarette butts. How hard is it to use the ashtray if you're standing right next to it?
 
  • #10
Pengwuino said:
I think they should have added a 0.001% sales tax or something like that. Traditionally, if a government can't precisely target certain members of the population, they just make it an inconvenience to everyone like some governments are doing with certain OTC medicines such as sudafed or whatever everyone was complaining about a few months ago.
If the problem is too common to resolve by putting a few extra cops out to start issuing tickets with sufficient fines to cover the cost of the extra cops and then some, then a general tax would make more sense than targetting just one group of businesses that aren't personally responsible for the littering. Then use the money for more trash cans and more frequent street-cleaning.
 
  • #11
It's the Bay area. All those hippies just want to blame the corporations for all their woes. ;-p