KY House Bill 368 PROPOSED 3% Restaurant Tax

The title of HB368 is "AN ACT relating to restaurant taxes." Kind of says it all. Knowing that many of you are in or associated with the the industry, I thought you would find this interesting. We are all also consumers who are being told to pay yet another tax on an activity we all enjoy...Dining out at our favorite restaurants.

I hadn't read or heard about this proposed tax anywhere except in Kent Taylor's (Louisville's Texas Roadhouse Founder) Editorial in this weeks Business 1st. You can find Kent's full article at: http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/print-edition/2012/02/24/we-are-texas-roadhouse-not-taxes.html or if you have a copy Business 1st, it's in the Editorial Section. Since Business 1st is copyright I can't repeat it, but I did search and find a statement from the Kentucky Restaurant Association which sums it up very well.

According to the Kentucky Restaurant Association. A bill has been introduced in the state legislature to allow a new tax to be levied on Kentucky families and the Kentucky Restaurant Association is actively working to defeat it. HB 368 would authorize every city in Kentucky to impose a tax of up to three percent on the meals you eat in a local restaurant or the carryout orders you pick up. The legislation would effectively increase the tax you pay on food and beverages by 50 percent, by adding a three percent local restaurant tax on top of the six percent state sales tax.

If you would like to voice your opinion further on this, call your legislator in Frankfort at (502) 564-8100 and ask him or her to vote as you see fit on House Bill 368. You can find yours at: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legislators.htm I just emailed my representative Ernie with my feelings. It was easy and only took a few minutes from the link.

Eating prepared food makes you part of the 1%. Pay up and keep quiet.

Gotta pay the man your fare share!

Eating prepared food makes you part of the 1%. Pay up and keep quiet.

Okay. I don't like it, and as a non-procreator I'd rather have a tax break for my environmental protection (borrowed from Sex In The City, I wish I could register for an "I'm not having a baby or getting married!" shower, but I digress...) and it is what it is. I dare you, Steve, to find a city as amicable as Louisville with lower and less complicated sales taxes (than our current 'flat 6%'). 3% of $10 is 30 cents. I bet I can make it work, and I have a dollar that says I don't make half of what you do, in my single income household.

Okay. I don't like it, and as a non-procreator I'd rather have a tax break for my environmental protection (borrowed from Sex In The City, I wish I could register for an "I'm not having a baby or getting married!" shower, but I digress...) and it is what it is.

Really didn't see this topic going here, but I'm game.

I only have one child, and have come to the opinion over time that not having more children was a selfish mistake. Anyone who plans to live into dotage will require care and services from others who were not even around when they were born. So, if you don't have children, or enough children, you are counting on the efforts of other's who did, sacrificing to raise them into responsible adulthood. I did not hold up my end of the bargain.

I dare you, Steve, to find a city as amicable as Louisville with lower and less complicated sales taxes (than our current 'flat 6%').

It's not flat. There are many items and services not taxed at all. But, the specifics of these taxes are really not my point here.

Taxes like this are a divide and conquer strategy. They get passed because more folks don't eat out regularly than do. It's a way out for cowardly politicians. It's the same issue with my beloved bourbon, wine, and beer. They also get picked out for special taxing attention because they are considered "luxury" goods, as is dining out.

This bothers me as a consumer of these products and services, but if I made my living in these industries, I surely wouldn't appreciate this special attention from the taxman .

3% of $10 is 30 cents. I bet I can make it work, and I have a dollar that says I don't make half of what you do, in my single income household.

All other things remaining equal, means 3% less money from the available pool to be spent in our favorite dining establishments. I'm sure that our hospitality industry friends aren't looking forward to tightening their belts just a little more.

I suppose they must suffer, so we can have more vital government services like Cordish subsidies, or maybe homemade school lunch inspections. It's almost guaranteed that none of it will go toward pothole repair.

Gotta pay the man your fare share!

I missed this the first time through, so I thought it needed to be highlighted!

Okay. I don't like it, and as a non-procreator I'd rather have a tax break for my environmental protection (borrowed from Sex In The City, I wish I could register for an "I'm not having a baby or getting married!" shower, but I digress...) and it is what it is.

Really didn't see this topic going here, but I'm game.

I only have one child, and have come to the opinion over time that not having more children was a selfish mistake. Anyone who plans to live into dotage will require care and services from others who were not even around when they were born. So, if you don't have children, or enough children, you are counting on the efforts of other's who did, sacrificing to raise them into responsible adulthood. I did not hold up my end of the bargain.

You think children are a wise insurance plan for old age Steve? Look around and tell me how many people you know who are being cared for by their children (in the literal sense). Our societal morays seemed to have strayed from that “family takes care of its own” model over the last several decades. It's been supplanted by the state (Medicare/aide) which is funded by taxes.

You say having only one child was a selfish mistake. If you are that selfish, what makes you think your children would be more generous? A calculated decision by you to have more children so that they could take care of you later in life might not have worked out for you either.

The realities of our economic world also work against the idea that your children will be in a financial position to take charge of your care as you transition into your dotage. If your lone child feels the familial responsibility to care for you late in life, can they afford to to so? Do they have the ability? They may only be 20 to 30 years younger than you with their own issues relating to age. It's more likely they are waiting around for your ultimate demise so they can assume whatever assets you leave behind. If your children are your insurance plan for managing old age, I would suggest you're a long shot gambler by nature.

I dare you, Steve, to find a city as amicable as Louisville with lower and less complicated sales taxes (than our current 'flat 6%').

It's not flat. There are many items and services not taxed at all. But, the specifics of these taxes are really not my point here.

Taxes like this are a divide and conquer strategy. They get passed because more folks don't eat out regularly than do. It's a way out for cowardly politicians. It's the same issue with my beloved bourbon, wine, and beer. They also get picked out for special taxing attention because they are considered "luxury" goods, as is dining out.

This bothers me as a consumer of these products and services, but if I made my living in these industries, I surely wouldn't appreciate this special attention from the taxman .

3% of $10 is 30 cents. I bet I can make it work, and I have a dollar that says I don't make half of what you do, in my single income household.

All other things remaining equal, means 3% less money from the available pool to be spent in our favorite dining establishments. I'm sure that our hospitality industry friends aren't looking forward to tightening their belts just a little more. I suppose they must suffer, so we can have more vital government services like Cordish subsidies, or maybe homemade school lunch inspections. It's almost guaranteed that none of it will go toward pothole repair.

Mr Taylor's proud assertions about how cheaply customers can eat at Texas Roadhouse makes it pretty difficult for me to get anxious about an additional 3%. Of course I want my taxes to be used in a responsible manner but that is why the people making the decisions about how they are used are elected. Most big cities already have a restaurant tax. I'm surprised that Louisville doesn't.

This anti-tax mantra that has been championed by the “Tea Party” is the main reason that the Republican candidates running for president are such a joke (IMO). Any Republican candidate responsible enough to propose the tough steps it will likely take to turn our economic situation around have no chance of getting the nomination. They can not now oppose the extremist dogma (no tax increases of any kind) that the Republican party so foolishly adopted.

Of course most Americans don't bother to make the effort to become informed about issues. Their opinions are shaped mainly by their long held ideology and sound bites that are paid for by the SuperPacs, funded by giant corporations and the 1% ers.

You think children are a wise insurance plan for old age Steve?

Who knows? But if they are working, they would be providing goods and services for old farts to buy. A person that never exited doesn't generate any goods or services. So, if you got old, you better hope there are some younguns around to do the work that needs to get done, whether they bother to care for you directly or not..

Look around and tell me how many people you know who are being cared for by their children (in the literal sense). Our societal morays seemed to have strayed from that “family takes care of its own” model over the last several decades. It's been supplanted by the state (Medicare/aide) which is funded by taxes.

Who do you think will pay the taxes to pay for the Social Security or Medicare for you when you are old? Do you think it might be someone's children? This is simple demographics. You can look it up.

You say having only one child was a selfish mistake. If you are that selfish, what makes you think your children would be more generous? A calculated decision by you to have more children so that they could take care of you later in life might not have worked out for you either.

They might be total bastages. But if they have a job, or they start a company, or they work on a farm, then their goods and services are available to me and the other codgers, and their taxes will be available to smooth over the rough spots.

The realities of our economic world also work against the idea that your children will be in a financial position to take charge of your care as you transition into your dotage. If your lone child feels the familial responsibility to care for you late in life, can they afford to to so? Do they have the ability? They may only be 20 to 30 years younger than you with their own issues relating to age. It's more likely they are waiting around for your ultimate demise so they can assume whatever assets you leave behind. If your children are your insurance plan for managing old age, I would suggest you're a long shot gambler by nature.

Where did I say that children would only be good for their own parents, and not for society in general? This is not my position. It's more accurate to say that collectively, our children are our society's insurance policy.

Without them, there is no Social Security, no Medicare, no goods and services for oldsters to buy. So, yeah, if you don't raise children, then you are planning on eventually freeriding on the child rearing efforts of those do, even if your retirement plan is Social Security. Your geriatrician will be someone's child. That dude growing your food will have to come from somewhere.

Mr Taylor's proud assertions about how cheaply customers can eat at Texas Roadhouse makes it pretty difficult for me to get anxious about an additional 3%. Of course I want my taxes to be used in a responsible manner but that is why the people making the decisions about how they are used are elected. Most big cities already have a restaurant tax. I'm surprised that Louisville doesn't.

It just looks like 3% less money in the pockets of restaurants to me.

This anti-tax mantra that has been championed by the “Tea Party” is the main reason that the Republican candidates running for president are such a joke (IMO). Any Republican candidate responsible enough to propose the tough steps it will likely take to turn our economic situation around have no chance of getting the nomination. They can not now oppose the extremist dogma (no tax increases of any kind) that the Republican party so foolishly adopted.

Taxes have been raised many, many times, and the result is always more and more government When was the last time there was a year-over-year drop in government spending? The end of WW2?

It's not fair to call the Tea Party extremist, anti-tax, or even anti-government. They are just asking why the government must always, ALWAYS, grow larger and larger. You could call them anti-more-and-more taxes. What's extreme about that? Reducing government can grow the economy. This is not an extreme position.

Of course most Americans don't bother to make the effort to become informed about issues. Their opinions are shaped mainly by their long held ideology and sound bites that are paid for by the SuperPacs, funded by giant corporations and the 1% ers.

Yeah, everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist, or a dupe.

I dare you, Steve, to find a city as amicable as Louisville with lower and less complicated sales taxes (than our current 'flat 6%'). 3% of $10 is 30 cents.

Where we lived previously, Greenville South Carolina would certainly fit that category. Same sales tax, same state income tax, lower property taxes (greatly reduced greatly reduced for the first $100,000 of value) and no local income tax! They also have a pretty decent restaurant scene.

Yeah, everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist, or a dupe.

Not at all. You began by saying you were "game" for discourse. That's all this is. I completely misunderstood your original premise though. It never occurred to me that you were saying you should have provided more children for the common good. I obviously thought you wanted more children of your own who would presumably take care of you in your old age.

So, we need more new people to take care of all of the old people! That's one I haven't heard before.

Look, I'm a life long registered Republican who is so disgusted with the Rep party and the political situation in general that I get depressed just thinking about it. It seems both parties only concern is gaining/retaining power and the plight of the country be damned. Wanting to be in control is not reprehensible, but doing whatever it takes regardless of how it affects the country is.

When congressional votes are nearly 100% along party lines on all issues it can't any longer be that our representatives are voting for what they believe is best for the country; only what is best for their party. Signing on to the Contract with/for America whatever it was called has tied the hands of any Republican who would do anything other than continue the ruiness policy of more/extended tax cuts.

I honestly don't have time today to devote more time to a thoughtful discourse here and I'm sure this isn't the most appropriate venue for this wider discussion anyway. I did not mean any offense by my rebuttal of your original post. I just had a few minutes during lunch. I would enjoy talking this more people is better theory over with you over an adult beverage of your choice. If you want to do so, just PM me and we'll sort all this out. Cheers!

we'll sort all this out. Cheers!

Please do let the rest of us know what you all come up with. Our nation's politics could definitely use some sorting out, and you two might be just the ones for the job, with enough beer.

Yeah, everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist, or a dupe.

Not at all. You began by saying you were "game" for discourse. That's all this is.

I promise you, nothing on this forum will ever offend me personally. It is an absolute impossibility. I does raise my hackles a bit when words like "extremist" and such get thrown around.

So, if someone talks in terms that starkly black and white, it seems fair to respond in kind.

And I remain game for discourse, and your response leaves me with hope that it might even be fruitful.

I completely misunderstood your original premise though. It never occurred to me that you were saying you should have provided more children for the common good. I obviously thought you wanted more children of your own who would presumably take care of you in your old age.

So, we need more new people to take care of all of the old people! That's one I haven't heard before.

My thoughts run deeper than this, but yeah, children are needed to take care of old people. This is something that anyone who plans on being an old person should think about.

Look, I'm a life long registered Republican

And I am a life long registered Democrat.

who is so disgusted with the Rep party and the political situation in general that I get depressed just thinking about it. It seems both parties only concern is gaining/retaining power and the plight of the country be damned. Wanting to be in control is not reprehensible, but doing whatever it takes regardless of how it affects the country is.

There's a lot of disgust going around. It's the selective disgust that I find interesting, and the disgust aimed at fellow citizens who's only offense is a differing opinion.

When congressional votes are nearly 100% along party lines on all issues it can't any longer be that our representatives are voting for what they believe is best for the country; only what is best for their party. Signing on to the Contract with/for America whatever it was called has tied the hands of any Republican who would do anything other than continue the ruiness policy of more/extended tax cuts.

Alas, the politics in this case are mirroring our divided society at the moment. And it takes at least two sides to have a standoff, why is none of your ire reserved for Democrats?

I honestly don't have time today to devote more time to a thoughtful discourse here and I'm sure this isn't the most appropriate venue for this wider discussion anyway. I did not mean any offense by my rebuttal of your original post. I just had a few minutes during lunch. I would enjoy talking this more people is better theory over with you over an adult beverage of your choice. If you want to do so, just PM me and we'll sort all this out. Cheers!

Well, I really don't have a more people is better theory, but I do have a shrinking society isn't really that great theory, especially if folks are thinking they might want to retire instead of working till they drop. FWIW, I'm pretty sure that I will be in that later group.

we'll sort all this out. Cheers!

Please do let the rest of us know what you all come up with. Our nation's politics could definitely use some sorting out, and you two might be just the ones for the job, with enough beer.

I like beer. I like discussions. It's the giving up time with my sweetie, that's the monkey wrench in this machine.

we'll sort all this out. Cheers!

Please do let the rest of us know what you all come up with. Our nation's politics could definitely use some sorting out, and you two might be just the ones for the job, with enough beer.

I like beer. I like discussions. It's the giving up time with my sweetie, that's the monkey wrench in this machine.

OK, I really shouldn't be doing this because I've got to be at the Fireside tonight and I still have another report to complete. (Sigh) I just can't help myself it seems.

Of course everyone looks at life through their own filter (paradigm) and the same words can carry different connotations. So “extremist” carries an objectionable meaning to you and my position which was very off the cuff seemed black and white? I've spent my life in communications and it is still the most challenging thing I do on a day to day basis. This real-time on-line posting is by far the hardest format for me. I'm going to try to address some of your points and clarify my own but then I have to withdraw from the discourse for now.

I see the “Tea Party,” which self-identifies with the Republican party, as the far right. How's that? The extreme right. Their proclamations appear to be unbending in all respects. It's their way or no way. No compromise allowed. That's how it seems to me, extreme and untenable in any form of government that I want to live under.

Now I read, I watch the news, I listen to talk radio (mostly NPR) and that makes me no kind of expert. It gives me some inkling of how much I don't/can't know about what's going on and that in itself is frustrating. I am frustrated with the whole situation. I voted for our current president without hesitation the last time and I will do so again. I want our government to work. If there were a Republican president I would want the same thing. The Republican majority is preventing government from working for the sole purpose of bringing the president down (IMO). This is reprehensible to me. If the shoe were on the other foot, I would feel the same about the Democrats.

I direct no ire towards any citizen (non-politician). I have never met any person who claims to be a “Tea Party” member so to speak. Have you? If I met such a person, I would respect their beliefs and know that their opinions were no less valid than my own. I do not think less of a person just because I disagree with them. That way lies madness. I question if the self avowed “Tea Party” member would feel the same way?

Finally, I don't believe that our society is nearly so divided as our political parties. I do think that we are becoming more polarized though and it should be our leaders that rise above that rather than foment it.

Ok Steve, Donna and I will be at the Fireside tonight at 6:00. I will be attending the Frenchman’s Beer Dinner tomorrow night from 7:00 to ? I believe there are some open seats available. Friday night is so far uncommitted but is often the Fireside. Saturday I will likely drop by the New Albany bridge celebration. Sunday I will watch IU crush Purdue at a bar yet to be determined. Then there is next week assuming the earth isn't destroyed by an asteroid. If that happens it will prove one thing......

Okay. I don't like it, and as a non-procreator I'd rather have a tax break for my environmental protection (borrowed from Sex In The City, I wish I could register for an "I'm not having a baby or getting married!" shower, but I digress...) and it is what it is.

Really didn't see this topic going here, but I'm game.

Just wanted to give you something fun to play with, Steve . I really don't even care that much about this issue - it was just my mediocre effort to stir the pot.