The idea of essentials and non essentials is squishy – which is one reason you dont want apparatchiks like Phyllis Kahn making those determinations. As a practical matter, shes correct in this instance, but not because shes following sound, economic reasoning. Unfortunately this entire episode is so cliché. Phyllis belongs to a political movement that embraces mythologies about some classes having too much $ to spend on frivolities while others suffer. This could be a good discussion about tax policy, but unfortunately its just another round in the DFLs ongoing war to dekulakize Minnesota.

ranty, I think I love you
I think I love you
what’s that sadness in your eyes?

But but … how will the poor people ever become beautiful so they can be the stars of a reality TV show and then make it big as a C-list minor celebrity? You are denying them the american dream of rising above their born station in life via being the star of a televised circus!

So when they lose their job, because you’ve taxed the products they’ve produced too highly, what happens then? They get better education and public transportation?

There’s precedent for that, too. Luxury boats were taxed pretty high at one point, so people stopped buying them. Who do you think got hurt?

Let’s talk actual punishment,

Would you be in favor of income-based traffic violation fines? Say a rich man or woman got caught speeding, they should pay a larger fine than someone who makes less money?

Some parts of the world have that requirement.

– - -

This is a scary line in a thread about state government. State government doesn’t “run” the state. It runs governmental functions. I understand that some would like those governmental functions to eventually subsume private functions, but, well, one, that’s what the pilitical wars are all about, and, two, they ain’t over yet.

.