Well if it does get passed (no pun intended), maybe the masses will switch to bidets and start conserving trees.

Win-win situation.

2 cents a roll isn't too bad. It seems like a good way to raise money for a specific area(which I am assuming) needs extra funds.

Try europe. Pay toilets EVERYWHERE.

Want to go to the john at the train station in London? That'll cost you about $1.00

Use the toilet in most places in France? About .60 cents to $1.30, sometimes cheaper.

I guess I wouldn't mind it so much if they actually cleaned 'em up every once in a while. And if the bathroom attendants weren't seriously sketchy ugly old lady types that sit there in the bathroom with you. Not a big fan.

Can't wait to get back to America - the place where I can go to the john for free, everywhere.

I hate the idea of (I know this is a little conservative sounding) the government taxing me on quite possibly the most basic of all human instincts...taking a shit...It should be a crime to tax me for taking a shit...i say to hell with the toilet paper tax and just add 2 cents to to the cigarette tax because then no one will notice.

The way the articles written makes Republicans sound like cheaper bastards than ever before. Suggesting they would use less toilet paper over it? Its 2 cents a roll, good god. Would taxpayers rather it come out of their paycheck again or out of something they buy at the grocery store, and thus have some liberty over what they pay.

I think cigarettes is a great idea!

Rev! Where you been you wank?

Actually, as a fiscal conservative (which usually makes me a republican), I like this idea. Taxing items directly involved with the problem is a good way to help fund fixing it. This way someone who isn't part of the problem (usually if someone isn't buying goods related to the problem, they are not part of it) doesn't have to pay extra for it. While its a little hard to understand it in this case, think of gasoline tax paying for roads. There is a great example where people who drive more, obviously wear down the roads more so they pay more taxes because they are using more gas.

The only thing you have to watch out for is when they start using taxes from one area and dump them into a different area. We are looking at a similar situation in Wisconsin where our governer wants to raise hunting and fishing fees and licenses under the claim its to help fund the DNR and conservation plans, but he's going to divert a lot of that newly gained money to other unrelated areas.

Sorry but in California's book you sound like a democrat ;) The democrats are particularly fond of a gas tax for the roads. Its more typical of the republicans to vote a knee-jerk no against any taxes, as the article suggests, no matter how they are used, and suggest that the private industry somehow take care of the problem or something.

Thats only because we are discussing funding what I feel are important infrastructure items (sewage in the case of the article, and roads in my example). The problem is when we start taxing random things just as a revenue generator just because our government can't seem to keep a balanced budget (such as blindly increasing tobacco tax and I've heard talks of junk food tax where the money won' t go for health costs, but just to serve as a cash source). You run into the problem where its hard to draw the line sometimes, so the hard line republicans will just take the stance "lets just stop all new taxes all together and fix what we currently have" (I'm sure you'll argue the fix what we currently have part ;) )

Not to jump topic, but this falls in line with my feelings that I won't even consider a government health system until we first curb the problems with lawsuits and administrative mismanagement.