View Single Post
  #18   Report Post  
Ljwebb11
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT-California In revolt

Subject: OT-California In revolt
From: "PrecisionMachinist"
Date: 7/23/2003 10:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


Les,

A: Im not Gunner.

B: As far as you know, I *could* have issues as to being
undertaxed---however unlikely G

C: I made no specific comments as to tax levels or spending.........nor will
I, excepting the below, and for the reason stated above......

=============

Here is a question :

Is it an ethical political policy to tax tobacco and liquor at a rate where
any additional taxation results in a net loss due to illegal (untaxed)
sales, *logically* because smokers and drinkers are a higher burden on
health care??

How about when the additional taxes collected are put into general funds
with no increased funding for health care?

=============

Generally speaking, a majority of smokers tend to be more uneducated and in
a lower income bracket than the median.......They are basically powerless
over their habit/addiction, regardless of the cost of cigarettes.....They
will put less food on the table for their children in order to buy their
cigarettes..........Defer buying insurance for their car......But they pay
more taxes..........And when it comes to health care, they are lumped in
with all the rest.......

=============

The attitude "Never give a sucker an even break" is not an ethical policy as
it regards to business, politics, or other, IMO.........

It is the cause of many of the biggest problems we face today........And one
would be a fool to think it is pervasive in any one political party and not
the others.

--

SVL


Well SVL, it is a good thing you are not under the illusion you are Gunner.G

You have combined words that don't belong together. The word ethical shall not
be used in conjunction with political policy or taxes.

I believe that if so-called sin taxes are imposed, and they shouldn't be, the
money should NOT go into the general fund. It should be used for the reason
they claimed they needed the money in the first place.
A good example is the 25 cent per pack tax on cigs that was passed over ten
years ago. All that money was to be spent on education and healthcare issues
involving smoking.
Well, a couple years later, some people decide the mountain lions need
protection. They get a proposition on the ballot and it was passed by voters.
It means that mountain lions are protected from hunting and land is being
purchased to give them a place to live.
Part of the money being used to buy the land is coming from the 25 cent cig
tax. It was right there in the fine print of the proposition.
What the hell do mountain lions have to do with smoking?
These so-called sin taxes are simply cash cows for the big spenders.
Just like the state of Rhode Island suing everybody who sold lead-based paint
in the state. Absolute bullcrap.

We have a big problem with voters approving these "feel good" propositions. The
money collected by these taxes is soon diverted to other uses. And the people
who voted for it could care less about it. They already did their "feel good"
duty.

Les