J. A. | Indy Week

J. A. 
Member since Oct 15, 2008


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “State regulators OK Durham developer's version of Jordan Lake map

Sign the online petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/jrdnsrvy/petition.html

Posted by J. A. on 02/16/2009 at 7:54 PM

Re: “Durham prepared foods tax

I'm not sure where Dan got that data; perhaps he is relying on DDI's press releases(?). The actual BLS data can be found here, and it refutes what the pro-food-tax advertising has been saying:

Consumer Expenditure Survey http://www.bls.gov/cex/

And they have a database that provides data cutting and graphing capabilities: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cx

The data suggest that lower income households spend a *HIGHER* percentage of their income on restaurant meals than higher income households do.

Here is their latest annual report: http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann05.pdf

It says spending on food away from home rose across all income quintiles. Ditto the previous year's annual report. Using the figures they give on p. 7, Table 1, shows the lowest income quintile spends 11% of their annual income on food away from home. The highest quintile spends 3.4% Therefore, the tax is regressive.

The information disseminated from "Downtown Durham, Inc." (DDI), is false or misleading. Their "about" page is here: http://www.downtowndurham.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=31

The food tax is inappropriate. Restaurants -- fast-food, grocery deli, and otherwise -- and poor people should not bear the burden of paying for a minor league baseball "fan experience" museum. Most of the public works that would be funded are fine and worthwhile endeavors. But they should not be funded by this particular tax, which will have several unpredicted consequences. There are more appropriate ways to fund these works.

Posted by J. A. on 10/17/2008 at 11:46 AM

Re: “Durham prepared foods tax

As it is obscene, there's no reason to vote for it. Find other, more appropriate ways to fund these projects. This regressive tax is not the appropriate way. I hope you do not feel forced to vote for it. Please consider alternatives.

Posted by J. A. on 10/16/2008 at 12:48 PM

Re: “Durham prepared foods tax

> "Proponents estimate 60 percent of the tax > burden would be borne by commuters and visitors." This is incorrect. Proponents estimate *40* percent of the tax burden would be borne by commuters and visitors. *Sixty* percent would be borne by Durham residents.

Posted by J. A. on 10/15/2008 at 2:43 PM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Newsletter (Wednesday) - The stories in this week's issue
  • Weekly Events Newsletter - Our picks for your weekend and beyond

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation