Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah and maybe that is the problem. The bigger govenment is and the more roles it plays in American's lives the less freedom we will have and that is a promise.
The problem is, seniros rely on MediCare. MediCare is goin bankrupt. Irresponsible choices by American citizens who partake of MediCare are cotsing our Government more than they are taking in. So, now the Government has decided to tax those irreposnisble choices in hopes of shoring up MediCare.
So tax the irresponsible seniors for their errors and leave the rest of us out of it.
I don't think that is the point of the thread, Clean. I think it has more to do with the "TAX" and a government that is getting deeper into everyones pocket. But if you think it's not carry on.
Well, since I'm sure the number of people who make use of tanning salons is very small compared to, say, the number of people who buy gasoline, and considering the amount of revenue this particular tax is expected to generate, I don't see it as being unreasonable at all. In fact, it was a brilliant idea!
Of course you do. They are already paying federal taxes, state taxes and city taxes or fees, but lets hit them again just because they are a small business. Yes, a brilliant idea.
If that were the case, then a tax would be placed on all head shops, which sell paraphernalia for both legal and illegal drugs. Tanning salons serve only ONE purpose.
This is a certainty:
The tax will not raise $2.7B. It will deter enough people from using tanning salons to the point where quite a few of them either go out of business, or shorten their service hours and employee levels.
I'm going to start calling you The Projectionist. Always the purveyor of gloom and doom, cup half empty instead of half full. It must suck to be so negative all the time.
It's clear you know as little about me as you do about economics.
But that's hardly a surprise.
Most "sin" taxes, fees and licensing are the result of state actions, not the federal government.
Again you are being disengenuous with my posts, Maggie. I also stated that all the governments are getting their pound of flesh. In the end we are being taxed and taxed and taxed...excessively, and that is good with you too, I get it....and I do understand why. But, you are oblivious to the reason, apparently.
Oh dear, I do hope you haven't bought into the "New World Order" promulgated by Obama like so many hysterical fringers have. It's becoming harder and harder to find rational thinking conservatives anymore. That said, a thread discussing the pros and cons of taxation in general is always a good debate. But if you're suggesting that a tax on tanning salons is somehow another "excessive" tax as part of some hidden agenda, I'd say you've been thoroughly brainwashed and ensconced within that "box."
Economists doubt that sin taxes greatly affect the behavior of most Americans, especially when the amounts tacked on are quite small (as they usually are). Demand for things like cigarettes and soda is relatively inelastic. That means modest increases in price dont greatly influence most peoples behavior. In other words, a penny-per-ounce soda tax, which has been proposed in New York, is unlikely to deter people from supersizing their Sprites.
Old habits, especially bad ones, die hard.
This underscores why the real value of sin taxes is their ability to generate cash. After all, taxes that truly succeeded in changing behavior would be self-defeating. If a cigarette tax forced all puffers to quit, there would be severe withdrawal symptoms not only for smokers but for states that relied on the tax for revenue.
On some level, politicians want these taxes to affect behavior, said Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who studies state and local taxes. But theyre kind of in trouble if it works too well. If its actually effective in changing behavior, governments lose that revenue source and have to figure out what else they can start taxing.
Economists doubt that sin taxes greatly affect the behavior of most Americans, especially when the amounts tacked on are quite small (as they usually are). Demand for things like cigarettes and soda is relatively inelastic. That means modest increases in price dont greatly influence most peoples behavior. In other words, a penny-per-ounce soda tax, which has been proposed in New York, is unlikely to deter people from supersizing their Sprites.
Old habits, especially bad ones, die hard.
This underscores why the real value of sin taxes is their ability to generate cash. After all, taxes that truly succeeded in changing behavior would be self-defeating. If a cigarette tax forced all puffers to quit, there would be severe withdrawal symptoms not only for smokers but for states that relied on the tax for revenue.
On some level, politicians want these taxes to affect behavior, said Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who studies state and local taxes. But theyre kind of in trouble if it works too well. If its actually effective in changing behavior, governments lose that revenue source and have to figure out what else they can start taxing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html
Yep. So once again we have to ask whether or not the goal is to reduce skin cancer, or pay for the healthcare bill. They cannot have it both ways. Sheez.
<long-winded inane droning snipped>
I've spent as much time as I care to pointing out your idiocy...
You have confused the words "irony" and "hypocrisy" for two days now...
Somewhere, in the dark basement of an old victorian perhaps, your Cheetos-stained fingers will put down the can of Red Bull and type out the words, "Ha! I win!"...
I will not take that away that from you...
Carry on, fuckstain...
I am still waiting on a response to the content of my post that you are trying to avoid by hiding behind your hypocritical rant about making generalizations. Or do you need me to put "many" in front of conservatives before you will respond?? LOL
I'm avoiding nothing... I made a comment about generalizations... If you want to remain an idiot, I really can't stop you...
Your words are there for all to see...
WOW more avoidance, imagine that. Fact is that you made a comment about generalizations that showed you to be a hypocrite as you avoided responding to the content of the post. How about you try responding to the content instead of hiding behind you hypocritial rants about generalizations?? Or that level of honesty too much to ask of you??
Let's all pause for a few months and wait for the VAT, that will insure everyone everyone gets an equal screwing by the tax fanatics.
How about a Driveway tax, most people have a driveway right, and those that don't will be penalized? Those in apartments and townhouses will pay a stiff parking slot tax, added to their monthly payments.
No death & disposal insurance? Meaning the proper disposal of our broken down remains will be at the cost of the taxpayer, no way, fine those who have no 'human disposal insurance'.
I have a very long list, but that's it for now, since I am sure someone in office somewhere will try passing some of these into law. They are grabbing at straws, anything and everything is fair game for a tax, fee, toll, permit or license requirement.
I am sure most in here could add to this list without any problems, I think the politicians pay people, most likely from an insane asylum, to come up with some of this crazy 'chit', oooops, like me, maybe I am ..............
We already have a driveway tax - it's part of the Property Tax via which all homeowners have been turned into sharecroppers.
They are even trying to tax our breathing out via the Carbon Tax and our breathing in via ObamaCare taxes. That's pretty much the final frontier of taxes - a tax on merely being alive.
From reading this thread it's quite clear that Dr. House is to drsmith1072 what Einstein is to a hamster.
From reading this thread it's quite clear that Dr. House is to drsmith1072 what Einstein is to a hamster.
A hamster in a dark box as opposed to one with one of those tunnel mazes. Perhaps even more akin to a hamster who escapes the box only to find he is in the middle of a house of cats? Daisy says,"here hamster, hamster!"
From reading this thread it's quite clear that Dr. House is to drsmith1072 what Einstein is to a hamster.
A hamster in a dark box as opposed to one with one of those tunnel mazes. Perhaps even more akin to a hamster who escapes the box only to find he is in the middle of a house of cats? Daisy says,"here hamster, hamster!"
Okay, so now I'm curious what brilliance Dr. House has posted that would lead people to believe he somehow "won" the argument? He never says anything other than something snarky and meaningless, and he didn't here, either.
For the record, I was just trying for more mileage out of the hamster analogy. If you would just pull yours out of your butt drsmith, you might see that. As a troll, you deserve whatever befalls you here on USMB.
Are you telling me you guys don't think blacks sun bath? You have never seen a black person laying out on the beach? There just called black people. There skin is not actually black and devoid of the ability to be effected by sunbathing. Their only source of Vitamin E is from the sun just like us. As someone said those who suffer from acne also use it, and just like white people black people sunbath. Maybe not as much as whites, but they do. They even go to tanning salons.
You guys are showing your racial ignorance assuming a black person would have no reason to sun bath.
Economists doubt that sin taxes greatly affect the behavior of most Americans, especially when the amounts tacked on are quite small (as they usually are). Demand for things like cigarettes and soda is relatively inelastic. That means modest increases in price don’t greatly influence most people’s behavior. In other words, a penny-per-ounce soda tax, which has been proposed in New York, is unlikely to deter people from supersizing their Sprites.
Old habits, especially bad ones, die hard.
This underscores why the real value of sin taxes is their ability to generate cash. After all, taxes that truly succeeded in changing behavior would be self-defeating. If a cigarette tax forced all puffers to quit, there would be severe withdrawal symptoms not only for smokers — but for states that relied on the tax for revenue.
“On some level, politicians want these taxes to affect behavior,” said Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who studies state and local taxes. “But they’re kind of in trouble if it works too well. If it’s actually effective in changing behavior, governments lose that revenue source and have to figure out what else they can start taxing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html
Yep. So once again we have to ask whether or not the goal is to reduce skin cancer, or pay for the healthcare bill. They cannot have it both ways. Sheez.
Why can't they? By reducing the risk of skin cancer, you ultimatley reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare for said skin cancer. Federally funded healthcare would not cost as much, requiring less of an influx of revenue from policy holders and tax payers. Agreed?
Oh brother.....you simple minded twit. Transportation is a need, would you agree? Now smoking, tanning, buying bottled water are not needed but a choice of an individual....should he/she be punished unduly for a lifestyle?
By the way, I'm not against taxes....just excessive taxes, which you seem to have no boundaries for. Like I said....dog, Pavlov Experiment.
Talk about simple minded, a car is not a need and neither is transportation.
"should he/she be punished unduly for a lifestyle?" Does this apply to everyone and their "lifestyles" or do your standards have a selective application??
Smitty...I pulled up your exact post....you twit.....these are your words, not mine. LOL Read and try and comprehend what you posted. You can spin all day LOL....but these are YOUR words....at least have the integrity to own up to them. Oooops, my bad, integrity and smitty have never crossed paths. Anyways....just STFU on your spinning.
PS....that was post 103
You stated a car was not a need and transportation wasn't a need. I figured you sat on your fat ass all day....so I thought "In your world a car is not a need, smitty"...unlike the real world.
Then you come back and say you can walk, bike, cab, or bus it, Which are all transportation. LOL So which is it, you don't need a car or transportation....or you need transportation? Einstein would have been confused with your thought process on this one. LOL
Look who's spinning on this one...you remind of a top in motion. LOL
Nope it's not. If I want I can walk, bike, catch a cab or take a bus I don't NEED a car. It is a luxury not a need.
In your world a car is not a need, smitty.
I read through a dozen posts totally irrelevant to the subject. I don't know if this has been covered yet but tanning salons equipment produces loads ultraviolet which has been shown to cause skin cancer. I questioned the 10% tax when I read part of the bill. Why tanning salons and not tobacco companies and for that matter why not fast food joints. I guess they had a stronger lobby. If you don't have the right lobbyist and sufficient funds, your're screwed.
Yeah why not add a tax to everything because we all know in someones eyes everything is bad for you. Tobacco has been crushed over the last 20 years as well as fast food joints but hey lets destroy some more industry!!! Yep thats the answer!! Instead of being a democracy and letting people make choices for themselves we will just tax the hell out of them and force them to conform to someone elses ideals. When the hell did it become the governments responsibility to tell people how to live?
The problem is, seniros rely on MediCare. MediCare is goin bankrupt. Irresponsible choices by American citizens who partake of MediCare are cotsing our Government more than they are taking in. So, now the Government has decided to tax those irreposnisble choices in hopes of shoring up MediCare.
So tax the irresponsible seniors for their errors and leave the rest of us out of it.
The GOP will NEVER go for that. The seniors are about the only "base" they can count on anymore....
Yeah and maybe that is the problem. The bigger govenment is and the more roles it plays in American's lives the less freedom we will have and that is a promise.
The problem is, seniros rely on MediCare. MediCare is goin bankrupt. Irresponsible choices by American citizens who partake of MediCare are cotsing our Government more than they are taking in. So, now the Government has decided to tax those irreposnisble choices in hopes of shoring up MediCare.
So tax the irresponsible seniors for their errors and leave the rest of us out of it.
Talk about simple minded, a car is not a need and neither is transportation.
"should he/she be punished unduly for a lifestyle?" Does this apply to everyone and their "lifestyles" or do your standards have a selective application??
Smitty...I pulled up your exact post....you twit.....these are your words, not mine. LOL Read and try and comprehend what you posted. You can spin all day LOL....but these are YOUR words....at least have the integrity to own up to them. Oooops, my bad, integrity and smitty have never crossed paths. Anyways....just STFU on your spinning.
You're wasting your time... Smith is fevorishly trying to imitate "Monkey-See, Monkey-Hear, and Monkey-Speak" at the same time... I imagine he's pretty frustrated, but he'll likely continue his attempts for hours...
