I take it you dont smoke

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #306,621

4/2/09 4:53:21 PM

I take it you dont smoke

"Expanded SCHIP coverage would logically be funded by increased tobacco taxes"
"I don't think I'm paying too much, myself. "
so you want the program and prefer that someone else bears the cost, no wonder you like the Obama tax plan
steal from the other guy and pass the savings on to you

a better idea would be to expand the medic taxes they already deduct from everyone to cover SCHIP

Post #306,623

by Another Scott

4/2/09 5:05:13 PM

Nope.

I tried it once when I was about 6. That was enough for me.

so you want the program and prefer that someone else bears the cost, no wonder you like the Obama tax plan steal from the other guy and pass the savings on to you

Heh.

I don't have any kids either, so SCHIP doesn't affect me personally. It affects society, though, so that affects me.

a better idea would be to expand the medic taxes they already deduct from everyone to cover SCHIP

Maybe. I have no problem with tobacco taxes, myself. If people want to smoke or chew or sniff tobacco, they should be willing to pay part of the price for the damage it does to society.

Whether SCHIP should be partially/mostly/exclusively funded by tobacco taxes is certainly debatable. Presumably if the taxes are draconian enough then eventually there will be too little money coming in to fund SCHIP. As I said, I think SCHIP is a good program that should be funded. I personally have no qualms with paying for it another way.

I like Obama's tax plan because I think that we pay for government expenditures, one way or another. Directly paying for them through high-enough taxes makes more sense to me than paying for them through inflation or excessive interest rates or the other alternatives that damage society as a whole. The upper income portion of our society is much better able to pay higher taxes than the bottom half or two-thirds.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.

Steve Benen on the Republican budget proposal. - (Another Scott) - (87) - April 1, 2009, 09:13:42 PM EDT

Take away deductions and loopholes - (beepster) - (86) - April 1, 2009, 10:53:05 PM EDT

That's as likely as their proposed cuts and spending freeze. - (Another Scott) - (85) - April 1, 2009, 11:23:32 PM EDT

Um... - (beepster) - (84) - April 2, 2009, 12:12:54 AM EDT

You're doing it again... - (Another Scott) - (83) - April 2, 2009, 12:33:34 AM EDT

Really, I should read the memo then.. - (beepster) - (80) - April 2, 2009, 12:57:38 AM EDT

I keep hearing people say that - (drook) - April 2, 2009, 01:34:02 AM EDT

In addition to Drew's comments, here are some more... - (Another Scott) - (78) - April 2, 2009, 07:52:03 AM EDT

Excuse me, but where.. - (beepster) - (77) - April 2, 2009, 03:42:25 PM EDT

You're just using many of their talking points. - (Another Scott) - (2) - April 2, 2009, 04:10:21 PM EDT

I take it you dont smoke - (boxley) - (1) - April 2, 2009, 04:53:21 PM EDT

Nope. - (Another Scott) - April 2, 2009, 05:05:13 PM EDT

Are we talking absolute, or percentage? Inflation adjusted? - (drook) - (73) - April 2, 2009, 05:15:00 PM EDT

what percentage of your working life - (boxley) - (1) - April 2, 2009, 05:26:18 PM EDT

On quitting smoking. - (Another Scott) - April 2, 2009, 05:49:09 PM EDT

Absolute. - (beepster) - (70) - April 2, 2009, 06:30:43 PM EDT

if we raise taxes on booksellers on the web - (boxley) - (65) - April 2, 2009, 07:15:41 PM EDT

Wouldn't affect it much - (drook) - (54) - April 2, 2009, 09:55:36 PM EDT

thank you for proving my point - (boxley) - (53) - April 3, 2009, 08:59:01 AM EDT

It's a pointless one - (drook) - (52) - April 3, 2009, 09:42:10 AM EDT

???? - (beepster) - (50) - April 3, 2009, 09:55:51 AM EDT

Evidence, please. - (Another Scott) - (3) - April 3, 2009, 10:12:24 AM EDT

The cig tax - (beepster) - (2) - April 3, 2009, 10:15:04 AM EDT

I've already addressed that. - (Another Scott) - (1) - April 3, 2009, 10:17:38 AM EDT

Wait for the next one. - (beepster) - April 3, 2009, 10:24:37 AM EDT

Put up or shut up - (drook) - (45) - April 3, 2009, 10:14:26 AM EDT

You are on crack, arent' you. - (beepster) - (43) - April 3, 2009, 10:23:17 AM EDT

You're putting up a proposition about taxes. - (Another Scott) - (36) - April 3, 2009, 10:28:06 AM EDT

cap and trade will get everyone -NT - (boxley) - (35) - April 3, 2009, 10:35:30 AM EDT

It's supposed to be impact neutral to family budgets. - (Another Scott) - (33) - April 3, 2009, 10:43:36 AM EDT

Yep...and the government has never lied to you, have they? - (beepster) - (31) - April 3, 2009, 10:46:37 AM EDT

So you oppose this. What do you support? -NT - (drook) - (30) - April 3, 2009, 10:48:35 AM EDT

Once again - (beepster) - (29) - April 3, 2009, 11:19:40 AM EDT

read obamas lips, he is lying like every other pol -NT - (boxley) - (2) - April 3, 2009, 11:38:16 AM EDT

don't tell scott that - (beepster) - (1) - April 3, 2009, 11:49:21 AM EDT

naw, he is desparate to believe in the dream - (boxley) - April 3, 2009, 12:08:50 PM EDT

Specifics would be nice. - (Another Scott) - April 3, 2009, 12:42:33 PM EDT

Couple reminders - (drook) - (24) - April 3, 2009, 01:24:18 PM EDT

Reminders of what, exactly? - (beepster) - (23) - April 3, 2009, 02:49:22 PM EDT

A "bill of attainder" is unconstitutional. HTH. -NT - (Another Scott) - (5) - April 3, 2009, 03:07:25 PM EDT

tell that to the congress re: aig bonus taxes :-) -NT - (boxley) - (4) - April 3, 2009, 03:14:09 PM EDT

Notice that talk of that died down in the Senate. - (Another Scott) - (3) - April 3, 2009, 03:21:49 PM EDT

Key difference - (beepster) - (2) - April 3, 2009, 03:38:03 PM EDT

Back up. - (Another Scott) - (1) - April 3, 2009, 03:43:14 PM EDT

read back - (beepster) - April 3, 2009, 03:56:29 PM EDT

Wasn't my intention to focus on corporate taxes - (drook) - (16) - April 3, 2009, 03:13:18 PM EDT

what is this recently BS? - (boxley) - (15) - April 3, 2009, 03:17:05 PM EDT

The inheritance tax doesn't do that - (drook) - (14) - April 3, 2009, 03:32:32 PM EDT

so the state only seizes 45% difference in degree only - (boxley) - (13) - April 3, 2009, 03:38:56 PM EDT

So 0.5% would *also* difference in degree only? - (drook) - (12) - April 3, 2009, 04:24:01 PM EDT

so one only rents money from the state? - (boxley) - (11) - April 3, 2009, 05:35:42 PM EDT

I'll take a page from Beep's playbook for this one - (drook) - (10) - April 3, 2009, 05:47:18 PM EDT

:-) you said complaining about said tax was recent - (boxley) - (9) - April 3, 2009, 06:05:12 PM EDT

bing bing bing -NT - (beepster) - April 3, 2009, 07:09:08 PM EDT

No, I said calling it a "death tax" was recent - (drook) - (7) - April 3, 2009, 07:26:02 PM EDT

Exactly. -NT - (Ashton) - April 4, 2009, 04:52:15 AM EDT

sure it is - (boxley) - (5) - April 4, 2009, 08:25:07 AM EDT

Don't be intentionally dense. It's unbecoming. - (Another Scott) - (4) - April 4, 2009, 09:20:18 AM EDT

I have heard the term death tax since I was a kid - (boxley) - (3) - April 4, 2009, 02:24:55 PM EDT

Ok. -NT - (Another Scott) - April 4, 2009, 02:42:59 PM EDT

Waddaya 'spect in a place where Cholmondeley is pronounced - (Ashton) - (1) - April 4, 2009, 05:35:38 PM EDT

we had "glagow" eddie burns, frank the hunky - (boxley) - April 4, 2009, 06:02:45 PM EDT

so is the fair tax -NT - (boxley) - April 3, 2009, 11:06:26 AM EDT

darn it box...I was saving that one. -NT - (beepster) - April 3, 2009, 10:44:15 AM EDT

Poison pills don't count - (drook) - (5) - April 3, 2009, 10:36:59 AM EDT

Inventing my position doesn't either - (beepster) - (4) - April 3, 2009, 10:42:42 AM EDT

Try speaking clearly then - (drook) - (3) - April 3, 2009, 10:47:50 AM EDT

You're still asking me - (beepster) - (2) - April 3, 2009, 10:54:09 AM EDT

No, I'm asking you to TAKE a position - (drook) - (1) - April 3, 2009, 12:53:11 PM EDT

Stated above - (beepster) - April 3, 2009, 02:50:47 PM EDT

severl ways to even a playing field - (boxley) - April 3, 2009, 10:24:56 AM EDT

dont think nother gets that -NT - (boxley) - April 3, 2009, 09:57:43 AM EDT

I'd also be interested in Beep's take. - (Another Scott) - (9) - April 2, 2009, 10:38:53 PM EDT

For Pete's sake...how hard is it? - (beepster) - (4) - April 3, 2009, 08:50:56 AM EDT

Let's play Reductio ad absurdum - (Another Scott) - (3) - April 3, 2009, 10:09:30 AM EDT

And taxes are paid by consumers. - (beepster) - (2) - April 3, 2009, 10:13:00 AM EDT

See my other post - (drook) - (1) - April 3, 2009, 10:18:50 AM EDT

Thank you. You're much clearer than me. -NT - (Another Scott) - April 3, 2009, 10:20:19 AM EDT

Just found this today - (drook) - (3) - April 9, 2009, 12:05:39 AM EDT

Problem with this - (beepster) - April 9, 2009, 12:32:59 AM EDT

That reminds me.... - (Another Scott) - (1) - April 9, 2009, 12:41:20 AM EDT

Drucker is only applicable to commodities - (drook) - April 9, 2009, 01:53:10 AM EDT

It would suggest that that 40% ... making *20%* of the gross - (Ashton) - April 2, 2009, 08:14:10 PM EDT

"Absolute" - well that's a risky bet. - (Another Scott) - (2) - April 2, 2009, 09:03:39 PM EDT

only in america - (boxley) - (1) - April 2, 2009, 09:21:34 PM EDT

There was a certain logic to it, at one time. - (Another Scott) - April 2, 2009, 09:59:58 PM EDT

since the expeditures under discussion is about to pass gdp - (boxley) - (1) - April 2, 2009, 09:04:41 AM EDT

Most of that $xxT is guarantees. - (Another Scott) - April 2, 2009, 10:12:23 AM EDT

I'm trying to figure out what the proportion of "friendliness" to "menace" is in that post.
112 ms