I can’t help but wonder if we’ve gone a bit crazy lately with our rush to tax Nestle for the water it bottles in Maine. In our zeal to create more revenue to spend, it seems our legislators will do anything to make a buck.
Water is a resource, but should we tax Nestle for developing that resource? If yes, why limit it to Nestle? There are other bottlers here in Maine. Let’s also tax the paper companies and other manufacturers for taking water out of the system. Lastly, let’s tax everyone on town water or with a well; after all, they’re taking away a natural resource from our state.
Let’s face it, in Maine, no one pays for water, currently. While you might think you get a water bill from the city or town, in reality your bill is for delivery of the product and the cost to test the water and add those pesky chemicals required by the federal and state governments. No one actually pays for the water, including Nestle.
In fact, I think Nestle could argue the water in the bottle is free. When you buy the product, you’re only paying for everything from acquisition to production, delivery, marketing and sales, plus markups from each level of retail operations along the way.
Instead of being in such a rush to tax them, why not simply have a bottling fee to allow regulatory agencies to monitor operations and ensure the resource is not over-utilized?
Robert A. Reed, Lewiston
Report a correction
well,
good morning veritas...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Good Afternoon!!!
How ya been??
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.big difference
tron big difference I use money I earn to pay taxes on products I buy..you use state and federal handouts to buy everything you get and if you've ever paid attention, when you use yourr EBT card in Maine the system automatically deducts the tax back out so you pay nothing as the state doesn't want to use its own dollars on tax back to them. But then again you want us all to believe you live a life of luxury on just a disability check you earned working minimum wage in a shoe shop 35 years ago....you've had numerous opportunities to open your files and prove me wrong, but you steadfastly refuse...what exactly are you hiding...you're not getting rich off some illegal enterprise are you? Don't bother to answer, I'm still cleaning my hip waders from last time we discussed this one....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Bob relies on Personal Attack as his argument holds no Water...
Bob relies on Personal Attack as his argument holds no Water...
And we didn't even ask him to pay for a drop of it!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Okay, final exam time....a
Okay, final exam time....a couple questions for all of you whiners...
1. Do you wish to tax only Poland Springs or all bottlers/users of water? Lets be fair if we're going to do this...
2. Are we going to tax other natural resources in maine being used at no cost to the business?
Bottom line is you don't use the product thus its okay to tax just them.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Bob - You're the one not 'Thinking
1. - Charge all resellers of bottled water if their aquifers draw raw product from under any public land.
2. - Charge all businesses for any public natural resources sold at profit.
The alternative is government subsidy of private business.
You are the whiner complaining that business should be free to exploit public property for it's own private gains.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.LET NESTLE PASS ON ANY "TAX" TO THE CONSUMER --
Maybe more people will think twice before they buy that worthless crap. -- Does anyone know how much petroleum is used to produce those 2 billion water bottles that they use for water from Maine for the "Poland Spring" brand?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.RIGHT, MR. REED, NESTLE SHOULDN'T PAY ANY TAXES --
the taxpayers of Maine should just continue to subsidize them through TIF funds. Let them keep mining our water and continue (according to Kim Jeffrey - Nestle CEO) to build their "$4 billion business." Why should the biggest food and beverage corporation in the world (and also one of the most despised) pay any taxes for the obscene profit they make on bottled water? Let's just continue to keep supporting "Poland Spring." After all, according to Jeffrey, all those discarded empty Poland Spring bottles in Manhattan are really good advertising for Maine! Thanks, Nestle!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Monopoly
So Maine Ken and thinkingman you agree that Nestle is a monopoly. Only a monopoly can pass on costs to the consumer. If they are not a monopoly, then they have to absorb the added cost in lower profits which means their management and stockholders pay the tax. Can't have it both ways is Nestle a monopoly or do their owners pay the tax.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.jon, thanks for reinforcing
jon, thanks for reinforcing my theory that you can't fix stupid....any business which is suddenly hit with fees, taxes, permitting costs, in fact any new cost is going to pass them on to the consumer, and any business not doing so will probably eventually go broke...this has nothing to do with monopolies, and Poland springs is NOT a monopoly, they are just bigger than the others. The owners may pay the tax, but exactly where do you think they get the money to pay the tax - duh! Lets take it a step further, lets say the state enforced a surcharge/tax/fee on the water and PS passes it on to consumers...suddenly their product costs more than a competitor and guess what - yup, you've just driven another business out of maine, congratulations!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Hint to all the boneheads who
Hint to all the boneheads who think the state would suddenly get new revenue from all greedy out of state companies...even with a tax you're not getting One penny from the company - they simply increase the cost of the product and those who purchase it will be the ones paying the tax...one more way to screw the taxpayers through another tax mechanism that no one seems to understand. Companies don't make a profit by giving away the product....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Except these taxpayers
are mostly from out of state, and we're just doing the same to them as they do to us. Imagine how much WE pay Alaska to use their oil.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Water is reconstitued when
Water is reconstitued when you sweat, urinate, cooking, and doing many other things and the time it takes to reconstitute is pretty minimal..oil takes thousands of years to develop and once used you cannot regenerate the same oil...I really wish you had a brain and could understand this simple concept..... people are telling us most oil will have been used in about 75-100 years and we'll need other energy sources, but not one scientist has come out and said we're gonna run out of water...droughts occur but are seasonal or for a shorter time period and the earth recovers. The oceans and lakes are NOT dropping worldwide in depth. It rains, we collect the water naturally, we use it, then through evaporation it goes back, becomes rain again and bingo, more water....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If only booby had his facts straight
"Let’s face it, in Maine, no one pays for water, currently" is a lie. Just ask any of the swimming pool services in Maine that line up at various ponds and lakes to draw water to fill swimming pools. They pay for the water they remove. Why should Nestle be different?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Hey tron, keep it between the
Hey tron, keep it between the lines here...swimming pool companies sometimes pay a FEE to a TOWN, and only if that town is smart enough to capture that revenue, but NONE of them pay a tax to the state for taking water.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I guess a fee is a tax ONLY
when you're opposed to the fee.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Robert, you missed one very
Robert, you missed one very clear distinction-Nestle is not paying one cent for the water that they are taking and selling. Sure, they are paying the costs of pumping it our of the ground and putting it in bottles, but so are the homeowners. The difference is that the homeowners are not turning around and SELLING the water for a profit. If they did, then they should be taxed for that priviledge as well. As for everyone on town water, here's a clue-they ARE taxed whether it's for the delivery and chemicals, they are still taxed.
I realize that it's going to be a long time, if ever, before Maine's population density approaches that of Florida. However, because of all those people who want to live where they can be out in the warm sunshine all year round (or at least in the winter), Florida has a water problem. The aquifers are being depleted. As of 1990, salt water has intruded into the aquifer 15 miles inland all around the state. Given that the state averages about 90 miles wide, that's 1/3 of their fresh water aquifer has been depleted, so the point is, it CAN happen. Why not be pro-active and take some small steps now to preserve the water quality and preserve the aquifer in Maine. I know, you think tax is a four-letter word. Okay, fine. You want safe, pot-hole free roads, you want the police and fire department to come when you call, you want good schools, and all the other stuff while at the same time giving businesses a tax-free, free ride. Guess who gets to make up for what the businesses, which usually impact all of those services harder than the average citizen, don't pay in taxes? Yup, you and me. Time for them to pay their share.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Feel free to tell me which
Feel free to tell me which homeowners are paying for it, other than those who get home water delivered....you are ONLY paying for the cost to deliver, monitor/test and maintain the system, the water itself is free, feel free to ask your local water department. Should we now tax people who cut down trees on their own property? People who filter our air to bottle and sell the oxygen? People who own a gravel pit and take it and sell? Oh my gosh, I alsmost forgot, i saw a guy picking Mushrooms in the woods this weekend...better get him taxed too. Those are ALL natural resources in this state. This whole argument is a bunch of BS by people who are nothing but (a) jealous of the success of one company or (b) concerned that they need more tax dollars collected to support them in a manner that means they dont have to work.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.There you go again... there's
There you go again... there's a business thriving in Maine, so let's tax it some more. Before you know it they'll be taxing the shells tourists pick up on our beaches. Keep it up and soon there won't be enough of us working to support the entitled class the Dems love so well.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Learn the difference between a 'Tax'
And subsidizing a business's raw material.......
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.veritas, if health care were
veritas, if health care were free I'd be all for it, unfortunately the plan you espouse will NOT be free unless you already get free health care, and someone has to pay for all the people who will get that care - yes they already get it but at drastically reduced service levels and lower reimbursement so there will be an additional cost...and then add to that the level of bureaucracy added into the bill with new employees and new regulations. All you need to do is look at France, Spain and even Greece to see how this can end badly.
As to natural resources, or trees are a natural resource and yet we don't tax companies per tree for what they cut down ON THEIR PROPERTY? Is there any difference? Like trees water comes back...and given Poland Springs lng time in Maine with no harm to our aquafers I think we're doing pretty well. Water is NOT a limited resource, it can be rejuvenated simply by rain and snow, and currently in Maine we have NO ISSUES with water shortages other than the occasional well going dry because its not dug deep enough by someone trying to save a buck. Our rivers and lakes have as much water as they have had in 50 years - its simply a non-issue you canot debate.
Whats next, do we tax the companies who use scrubbers to take air out of the system and filter it to bottle perfect oxygen and other products?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Rob - Merely look at the U.S. the see how it goes badly....
Nothing has 'ended' for any of the countries that you've mentioned, and it certainly hasn't ended for the U.S.
You refer to France, Greece, and Spain.
France has the 10th highest life expectancy of all countries, Spain is 21st, and Greece is 26th.
Where must we be with our world class health care system?? How about 49th. There's something to be proud of!! USA! USA! USA!
This according to our own CIA - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/21...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Veritas, not even remotely
Veritas, not even remotely possible to conclude where the US is in terms of comparing to the rest of the world. The rest of the industrialized world uses a system called ICD-10 to classify all disease and service provided, the US is still stuck on ICD-9. The two systems are not compatible so much of the US data that would have been used for the comparison is thrown out as inconclusive....because of this there is no way to really know where we are in terms of health care provided. Call the folks at CMS in baltimore who are the decision makers nationwide on this and they will tell you exactly that - they frequently mention it when asked. In truth we could be #1 or we could be #151 (total number of countries identified). Oh and as to the countries i mention, they are all financially on unstable ground due to the large cost of socialized medicine brought on. Getting your info from the CIA is probably about the dumbest place to look at health care In my humble opinion. Funy how suddenly you trust the CIA.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Nice Smoke-Screen, Bobbie
No wonder you were a politician.
Refute the data, if you can. Don't pretend it means nothing.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So much confusion from the
So much confusion from the tax'em croud. Do you think for one second that Nestle would pay any new taxes?? Of course they wouldn't. Any new tax will be shifted to the end consumer, along with an added cost for administering the new tax! No company pays these taxes. They all pass them onto consumers!!!
Some people wonder why Maine is considered to be unfriendly to business. It is not just Augusta, there are many around the State that feel we should tax, tax and tax (as long as it is not them paying!!!!)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Nestle
Bob,
How can you be so short sighted I agree with Veitas 100%; do you think Nestle walks on water?A small tariff forusing Maines'natural resources could asist many layers of MaINE government, and still allowtem to flourish!
Bob Mennealy
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Bob, please re-read my letter
Bob, please re-read my letter - you'll see that I have no problem with fees for monitoring conditions being attached to them as a principal pf protecting our state, however when 90% of the tax to be imposed would be spent on things other than that I do have a problem and see this as just one more tax grab and the liberals on this blog don't use the product therefore they are okay with the state taxing it. If I suddenly said lets raise the tax on items they consume you think they might be upset a bit?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Specious argument again,
We liberals tried to raise taxes on things we used all the time, however you, and your right wing wacko buddies, lead a successful campaign to thwart the effort. Guess you failed to remember the recent past, normal for those with limited IQ's.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Nestle
I apologize to all for my misspellings!, my concern to gain acess thru the LSJ's filter un nerves my composition skills at times!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Bob - Does Free Health Care fit in with your Free Water plan?
Bob - Does Free Health Care also fit in with your Free Water plan?
My guess is not. But the 'Everyone' you mention in your letter with a well taking this natural resource aren't in the business of selling that resource. Even you should figure that one out.
If Nestle wants to sell a product, they - like other manufacturers, should pay for their raw materials. Not take limited resources gratis.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.