Wal-Mart Creating Its Own Tax?

According to some logic out there, if you buy a good voluntarily and some portion of that money goes to the state, then it is a tax. Well, sure that makes sense. Of course, you can avoid the item, but let's forget about that for a moment. I think this raises many good questions, after the break.

Here are some additional taxes that I have discovered.

1. The Durham Library is holding a book sale!!! Imagine that. They are selling books and if you buy them, a percentage of the profits will go to support a government institution!!! Disgusting.

2. McDougle Middle School in Chapel Hill is holding a bake sale!!! They are selling addicting, tasty treats and if you buy them, a percentage of the profits will go to support a government institution!!! Disgusting.

Folks these things just go on and on. Bakes sales, book sales, plant sales, and on and on and on. Taxes, taxes, taxes.

Now, about Wal-Mart. This is a little bit of twisted logic, I'll admit it, but hey, everyone else does it.

You go to Wal-Mart and buy a 200 oz. soda with artificial colors (petroleum) and artificial colors (corn), both of which are subsidied by the federal government. Wal-Mart takes those profits and pays its employees, barely, but it does pay them. Now, according to a report in the New York Times "*A North Carolina hospital found that 31 percent of 1,900 patients who described themselves as Wal-Mart employees were on Medicaid, while an additional 16 percent had no insurance at all*."

So, when you buy a product at Wal-Mart, a portion of your money goes to subsidize the product you purchased and another part goes to pay employees that are covered by Medicaid. Both of these programs are paid for out of tax monies. Therefore, for each dollar you spend at Wal-Mart, a part of that money causes you to be taxed for Medicaid, and subsidies. What is unusual in this case is that you are not taxed directly. When you spend a dollar at Wal-Mart, they don't add on a penny in taxes for Medicaid and subsidies, they have the state do it for them later.

Thus, I think those who believe we should boycott the lottery as a tax should also boycott bake sales, book sales, plant sales, and Wal-Mart.


I can see it now . . .

"Librul wacko sez 'Boycott bake sales'"

The sad fact is, we need to boycott just about everything these days. The corporate takeover of society is so complete that almost anything we do leads to money being spent on things many of us find abhorent. (I know this isn't your point, but I can't bring myself to engage on the 'lotter as tax' issue. No one hates the lottery more than I do, but the 'tax' thing is just plain silly.)


I don't support the current lottery, as too much money goes to the corporation running it.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.

Robert I was thinking of posting to Hood

that it's profit, not tax and that free enterprise thing is something they should be all over...I just...well...you are really good at responding with such great examples and in such great detail.

I just don't see how a voluntary purchase is a tax...not in any way shape or form.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.


It is a tax if you look at the business of the lottery as a business separate from the state. For example, if the state declared that it would be taking 33% of all future hamburger sales, that would be a hamburger tax.

But the lottery isn't a McDonalds--it is a creation of the state. When the state parks service charges you $8 to put up a tent in their campground, nobody calls that a tax.

Either of these views could prevail in alternate universes; they both hold water. The question that the NCICL brought to the NC courts, though, was this: is this a tax as "tax" is meant in a particular section of the NC Constitution? I have a lot of respect for Justice Orr, but the NCICL's argument here was a non-starter. That's not because of the arguments above, but because of the way that NC courts had interpreted that section of the constitution over the years.