The "I don't smoke so I don't care" response to a proposed tax increase on cigarettes is disturbing to me.
The boys who run government know that everyone likes the tax that they don't pay. This is why they segment. But if today it's a tax on cigarettes then tommorow it's a tax on handguns. (your sement maybe?)
Next up they tax boats because only "the rich" (spit when you say that) own boats. It's only a matter of time before they come after your segment.
If the prevailing winds point towards support for tax increases on anything then the boys in government will just attempt to tax EVERYTHING. Well, everything except PERS recipients. (fall to the ground and bow towards the capital when you say "PERS")
12 comments:
Daniel, I have been spouting on this issue for years to all who will listen. Glad to see it is finally coming from someone other than myself.
Maybe when we get rid of the criminal aliens we can start in on the Oregon Dept. of Revenue who rated a D for money management on their last Report Card.
Econ development Teddy style.
Why not a new business opportunity smuggling smokes from Mexico.
A few cartons of smokes along with some Sudafed and a vacation to Mazatlan becomes affordable.
Swell
Another unneccessary murder victim courtesy of the open borders cabal.
ABC News
Juan Leonardo Quintero, an illegal immigrant, has been charged with killing a Houston police officer last week after a routine traffic stop.
Police Chief Harold Hurtt blamed the federal government for failing to secure U.S. borders.
Quintero allegedly shot Officer Rodney Johnson four times in the head while in handcuffs in the back seat of his patrol car.
Johnson arrested Quintero during a routine traffic stop for speeding but apparently missed the suspect's gun in a pat-down search.
Quintero was deported in 2004 after a conviction for indecency with a child.
"The subject was deported, and yet he came back, so if the government fulfilled their responsibility of protecting the border we would probably not be standing here today," Hurtt said.
Johnson received a commendation for valor for pulling several children from a burning building.
He leaves behind a wife who is also a police officer and their five children.
Cigarettes aren't the only drug we tax, you know. There's a pretty hefty recompense for marijuana and cocaine and such. Involves incarceration and involuntary servitude, I'm told.
Except putting someone in jail COSTS us money.
I've been voting against any tax measures for many years now. Even for things I support. I know government has too much money and it should prioritize first before asking us for more. For example, Forest Grove, where I live has a $50m levy on the ballot this year at the same time as the city is planning a park for dogs. For those who don't know, ours is a town with 20k citizens. No, scratch that. 20k residents. Some of them illegal.
Republican greed and hypocrisy rear their ugly heads again! (At least libdems aren't hypocritical, they'll tax everything and everybody.)
In Michigan, Republicans created a school tax on rental property four times what homeowners pay on their primary residence. This tax is wildly popular, regularly passing with enormous margins, proving that tax-and-spend Republicans can't pass up free money when it's Not My Tax.
Did you expect Republicans to be more principled or something?
This suggestion really has me fuming, pun intended. Smoking is the only vice I can still afford. My wife and I both work full time and have still have no money left over for movies, dinners out, vacations, or anything. After reading this purposal I think it is just another attempt to make sure illegals are covered at tax payer expense. Teddy admits that half of the kids probably qualify for health care under existing programs but are not enrolled. Why not, perhaps because they're not legal citizens.
Teddy keeps saying he wants to raise it to the level of our neighbors in Wash. and Cal. well how about Idaho who has a tax of 57 cents. It is known that a majority of smokers are lower income and can least afford any more tax. If they accomplish their agenda of forcing people to quit because of cost it will only decrease the money they take in, then they will be complaining about an unstable source of revenue.
How about a tax on things that I don't buy like 3 dollar cups of coffee and bottled water.
Terry, I don't understand the point of your comment. Are you suggesting that Republicans don't rent.
Well, bobkatt, I think it's safe to say that about two-thirds (or so) of Republicans don't rent, which makes for an unbeatable majority.
Yes, there WAS a (state) constitutional obstacle, but the Republicans amended the Constitution to get around that little difficulty.)
Since the Republicans couldn't wait for the November electionb, they scheduled a March special election, and with the help of carefully targeted mail (including the deliberate avoidance of singles and renters), the electorate was skewed toward upper income homeowners. Post-election analysis suggested less than 10 percent of the votes were cast by renters - who were guaranteed to get screwed whether the proposal passed or failed. I know about the targeting because I know one of the list vendors.
I emphasize with the renters. But why should home-owners be the only ones to pay. In my case, my 4 children will never (ok, it's very unlikely) attend public schools. Yet I pay property taxes that pay for some of those renters' children's education. Is that fair?
The problem in Michigan is that rental property is taxed for schools at four times the rate homeowners pay, so in no way can anyone argue that homeowners there are paying their fair share to educate their children.
Also, the National Multi Housing Council (an organization of large apartment owners) says that apartments generate about 36 school kids per 100 households, while single family homes generate about 55 school kids per 100 households. (Not a perfect divide of rental and owner-occ, but pretty good.)
Buying a home is a top priority for familkies with children. People without children are much more likely to rent.
Most states have higher prop taxes on rentals than on owner-occ homes. Funny how conservatives aren't complaining about THAT redistribution.
Terry, I guess I see your point. Taxing rentals 4 times as much as single family dwellings doesn't seem constitutional no matter what party lives in them. In that way I assume you are comparing that to taxing smokers more to fund something that non-smokers benefit from. Neither one seems equitable. In the case of cigs. they have even given up trying to make the case that the revenue is offset the cost of smokers themselves.
Post a Comment