• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maryland decides to tax residents when it rains

No, there is no logic behind the idea that people are better off with the government protecting the people against themselves by punishing them for behavior the government doesn't agree with. Just like the people are not better off by the government subsidizing market activity so that people do what the government wants them to do.

There's a difference between something that "the government disagrees with" (i.e. censorship) and something that has been objectively been empirically demonstrated to be harmful to the populace (i.e. pollution).
 
Actually, it's both. The pollutant itself is a problem, but it's effect would be far less magnified if surface runoff didn't concentrate its effects. Not to mention that even in the absence of pollution, runoff contributes to erosion and deposition.

The runoff is just how the pollutant is moving into the water supply. It is not the problem and therefore it makes no sense to fight against it. You appear to have a big problem with nature. You need to work on that. I'm sorry you don't like run off, but its a natural occurrence of the world. Cry to mother nature about it.
It's only nonsense to you because my conception of "liberty" isn't so narrow as to only include freedom from government coercion, but also the realization that infringements on freedom can occur from private entities as well, market activity often being one of them.

Business practices can violate the rights of people, and people can violate the rights of people, but market activity can not violate the rights of people. I realize liberals want to tax people when they buy certain things, but there is no justification behind it.
 
Last edited:
From a number of posts it was pretty apparent that people were confused due to the misleading and biased blog post title and led to believe that this is actually a tax on rain. It is not.

Correct. It's a tax on impermeable surfaces but I'm not sure how these cause pollution.
 
What about the air we breath?

Certainly that deserves a tax of some sort.

Let's call it the "respiratory usage fee."

You make a joke, but people HAVE proposed carbon emission fees for breathing. They, of course, were singular idiots, but it's been proposed.
 
Correct. It's a tax on impermeable surfaces but I'm not sure how these cause pollution.

It's inaccurate to say that impervious surfaces CAUSE pollution, but they contribute massively to it. Think about it, in the absence of impervious surfaces, the effects of pollutants (lets used pesticides herbicides and fertilizers for example) are generally diluted because for the most part they just sink into the ground. Now of course it still reaches the water table and the rest of the ecosystem, but what impervious surfaces do is they allow enable rainwater to pool together and collect all the pollutants on the ground in their path and concentrate it, so that when that rainwater reaches the rivers and watershed the effect of the pollution is magnified exponentially. Essentially what this does is concentrate the effect of pollution on bodies of water like rivers and bays rather than allowing the pollution to be dispersed.
 
Last edited:
The runoff is just how the pollutant is moving into the water supply. It is not the problem and therefore it makes no sense to fight against it. You appear to have a big problem with nature. You need to work on that. I'm sorry you don't like run off, but its a natural occurrence of the world. Cry to mother nature about it.

This is about the dumbest post I have seen in weeks. Runoff is a product of impervious surfaces, which unless we are talking about rocks is by definition man-made and not natural. In fact the vast majority of runoff is the product of roads, streets, driveways, roofs, and manmade drainage systems. Runoff itself is a natural process, but the degree to which it is happening and its effects is ultimately manmade.

Business practices can violate the rights of people, and people can violate the rights of people, but market activity can not violate the rights of people. I realize liberals want to tax people when they buy certain things, but there is no justification behind it.

There IS a justification behind it. There are real economic costs to pollution that the private market doesn't account for. Just because you think that nobody should be allowed to make up the difference doesn't mean that there is no justification behind it.
 
Last edited:
It's inaccurate to say that impervious surfaces CAUSE pollution, but they contribute to it.

And yet that is what is taxed. Without rain there are no problems with run off from them.

Of course in many of the places this tax is being put the entity with the largest amount of impervious surfaces is the government. But they don't get taxed, the people who own property do even if nothing runs off their property.
 
And yet that is what is taxed. Without rain there are no problems with run off from them.

Yes, but due to Mother Nature there IS rain, so this is irrelevant.

Of course in many of the places this tax is being put the entity with the largest amount of impervious surfaces is the government. But they don't get taxed, the people who own property do even if nothing runs off their property.

I understand what you're getting at, but to tax government is to be redundant.

And the amount of tax you pay is directly correlated with how much runoff your property generates.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/13701-maryland-rain-tax-will-calculate-rainfall-on-houses/

The fees will be calculated on square footage of surfaces on a property. Backers of the tax say that driveways, roofs, parking lots, and other surfaces create more potential for water contamination and drainage issues.
 
Last edited:
And yet they specifically excluded government roads,buildings and other property in the bill.

Because ultimately TAXPAYERS pay for the government to own and operate those properties. Which is what I meant by redundant. It is redundant for the government to tax itself - those costs ultimately will be passed down to the taxpayer anyway.
 
Yes, but due to Mother Nature there IS rain, so this is irrelevant.

So it is not necesssarily wrong to call it a rain tax since that is what causes the run off (well except when it drizzles or only lightly rains which is most of the time) and is the logic behind them taxing roofs, driveway, patios and other objects.

Since the bill is designed to reduce nitrogen and phosphate run off taxing people who don't have yards (2nd floor condo owners for example) or people who don't put any chemical on their yards or have buildings with storm water capture systems seems a bit harsh.

Better not have your car parked in the yard when they do the satellite survey, you'll pay more in taxes!
 
It's inaccurate to say that impervious surfaces CAUSE pollution, but they contribute massively to it. Think about it, in the absence of impervious surfaces, the effects of pollutants (lets used pesticides herbicides and fertilizers for example) are generally diluted because for the most part they just sink into the ground. Now of course it still reaches the water table and the rest of the ecosystem, but what impervious surfaces do is they allow enable rainwater to pool together and collect all the pollutants on the ground in their path and concentrate it, so that when that rainwater reaches the rivers and watershed the effect of the pollution is magnified exponentially. Essentially what this does is concentrate the effect of pollution on bodies of water like rivers and bays rather than allowing the pollution to be dispersed.

Impermeable surfaces only have a strong impact as you are suggesting in areas that use pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers heavily. Those would be farm areas...with less impermeable surfaces. Im sorry Im not buying that Maryland has massive concetrations of pollutants from suburban lawns and townships. And farms are such that the polutants would be dispersed. This is a bad law SB. Keep tackling the industrial misuse but this doesnt pass the smell test.
 
And the amount of tax you pay is directly correlated with how much runoff your property generates.

No it not, it's calculated on the surface area of the roof, driveway and other things. It has nothing to do with how much actually runs off your property and ends up in the bay. Just have a potential drainage issue doesn't mean you have a drainage issue.
 
Impermeable surfaces only have a strong impact as you are suggesting in areas that use pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers heavily. Those would be farm areas...with less impermeable surfaces. Im sorry Im not buying that Maryland has massive concetrations of pollutants from suburban lawns and townships. And farms are such that the polutants would be dispersed. This is a bad law SB. Keep tackling the industrial misuse but this doesnt pass the smell test.

OC - Maryland like most other coastal areas has a lot of water. No matter where you live, whether that be in the countryside or in the suburbs, you're going to have a creek or a river basically running through your backyard - all part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And people here love their lawns. And yes, based on what i've observed over time looking at the creeks near where I've lived and gone to school, it's progressively gotten worse. Not so much because suburbanites are using more pesticides than farmers, but more because there's been much more development going on. And I live in the suburbs.
 
Last edited:
The less it rains the higher the concentrations of the stuff they're complaining about actually get into the watershed when it does rain. So they're taxing that which they should pray for more of, causing higher taxes. So, rather than take action to reduce the pollutants, they're taxing the natural means of abatement. All of us should pray it rains like hell in MD.

The tax isn't based on the amount of rain, it is based on the size of buildings and pavement on a property. I believe the idea is that buildings and pavements prevent water from seeping underground where natural processes can filter out many toxics. Rain water that runs off into storm drains that do not not connect to a sewage treatment facilities end up washing toxics into the bay. Presumably the tax will be used to treat the storm water before it enters the bay.
 
No it not, it's calculated on the surface area of the roof, driveway and other things. It has nothing to do with how much actually runs off your property and ends up in the bay. Just have a potential drainage issue doesn't mean you have a drainage issue.

The more square footage of runoff surfaces your property has the more runoff it generates. It's not an exact calculation by any means of course, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than an across the board income tax increase.
 
Impermeable surfaces only have a strong impact as you are suggesting in areas that use pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers heavily. Those would be farm areas...with less impermeable surfaces. Im sorry Im not buying that Maryland has massive concetrations of pollutants from suburban lawns and townships. And farms are such that the polutants would be dispersed. This is a bad law SB. Keep tackling the industrial misuse but this doesnt pass the smell test.

It's just another tax, it will have no impact on the Bay. There have been gobs of grants and taxes to 'heal' the Bay, they just get wasted like these taxes will be wastedbeacuse ~80% of the flow into the Bay doesn't originate in Maryland. In 2004 they passed the Flush tax to do basically the same thing this is suppose to do. The flush tax was recently doubled to $60 per account. It has raised billions and has done nothing. This tax is estimated to raise $14 billion and will have the same effect, nada. It's standard procedure for Maryland.

Most politicians use the phrase 'it's for the children' when they want something unpopular and stupid rammed through. In Maryland it 'save the Bay'.
 
The more square footage of runoff surfaces your property has the more runoff it generates. It's not an exact calculation by any means of course, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than an across the board income tax increase.

What if the only thing that runs off is the actual rain water?

This bill makes NO sense as it excludes the entire Eastern shore where most of the harmful runoff that is generated in Maryland comes from. It does keep MOM from raising income taxes in the same year he is raising the gasoline tax, along with numerous other taxes and fees.
 
OC - Maryland like most other coastal areas has a lot of water. No matter where you live, whether that be in the countryside or in the suburbs, you're going to have a creek or a riving basically running through your backyard - all part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And people here love their lawns.

SB...I live in the heart of farm country in central Illinois (part of the Mississippi River watershed), I understand runoff.

I also understand that the purpose of fertilizing a lawn is to have it absorbed by the grass. Im not buying the creek in every backyard thats anecdotal evidence you can't possibly support and seems pretty far fetched. If you care to post something supporting that suburban pollutant use is causing significant harm to the watershed and water table to support this crappy law, it would do a lot more to convince me.
 
What if the only thing that runs off is the actual rain water?

This bill makes NO sense as it excludes the entire Eastern shore where most of the harmful runoff that is generated in Maryland comes from. It does keep MOM from raising income taxes in the same year he is raising the gasoline tax, along with numerous other taxes and fees.

If that's the case then your criticism has some merit to it, you got a source for that?
 
SB...I live in the heart of farm country in central Illinois (part of the Mississippi River watershed), I understand runoff.

I also understand that the purpose of fertilizing a lawn is to have it absorbed by the grass. Im not buying the creek in every backyard thats anecdotal evidence you can't possibly support and seems pretty far fetched. If you care to post something supporting that suburban pollutant use is causing significant harm to the watershed and water table to support this crappy law, it would do a lot more to convince me.

So far this is what I could find:

Sources of Pollution: Chesapeake Bay |
 
If that's the case then your criticism has some merit to it, you got a source for that?

Lot of big commercial farms on the Western Shore? Lot of big animal farms in Baltimore City, Howard County, Baltimore County? There are on the Eastern shore, in fact their economy is based on them, but the old rain tax is being applied by population which is about as stupid as you can apply it.

"Why is agriculture important?
Agricultural land covers nearly one-quarter of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are more than 87,000 farm operations and 6.5 million acres of cropland here. Farms in the Bay watershed produce more than 50 commodities, including corn, wheat, soybeans, fruits and vegetables. Agriculture is essential; farms supply us with meat, milk, grains, eggs and vegetables

How does agriculture affect the Chesapeake Bay?
Agriculture is the largest single source of nutrient and sediment pollution to the Bay and its rivers. Common farming practices such as applying fertilizer and tilling soil can contribute harmful pollution to the Bay and its local waterways."

Agriculture - Chesapeake Bay Program
 
According to figures I have seen the average citizen, (Not, the infamous wealthy mind you) we pay an estimated 59.2% of our total income toward taxation of some sort from the local dog licence tax, to gas taxes, to taxes on certain groceries....How much more can the government take without the citizens saying ENOUGH!
 
Back
Top Bottom