Wiki info may be incomplete, anonymous cowardice

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...


weg9 says: You don't need the data from that town. You can just
compare the data from those towns where carrying a gun is legal, and
those where it is not, and you will see that carrying a gun reduces the
crime rate. However, the accidental gunshot rate will go up in those
towns where more people "carry".


But this is normal is it not? In towns where everyone drives, the commute
time is lower, but the automobile accident rate is higher.....

Let's take a more statistically significant sample. The entire country.
Have you compared the crime rate with that of GB?


--
Peter

Yes, but the larger the sample, the less significance to the statistic,
because there are many things involved in, "the crime rate". You have to ask
what is. "a crime", and what significance does the possession of arms have
to do with that crime. A lot of people who die from guns in this country
should have died......Their death was a, "good thing", because they were
harming, or about to harm, others when they were killed. When the police
find a dead body on the street the next morning, they count it as an
"unsolved murder", and the liberals say, "You see? - It's the proliferation
of guns that caused this murder" but I say, "How do you know why this
particular person died? He may have been about to hurt some innocent
person." Maybe Bill Graham shot him in self defense, and then, simply
walked away. (after observing what happened to Bernie Goetz in New York City
several years ago.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Having said that, it seems to me that the drug dealer is more guilty
than the guy he seduces into the habit forming, mind killing, drug.
--
Peter

weg9 says: In that case, we should throw our own government into
jail.....They are the biggest drug dealers of all. They collect
excessive taxes on both tobacco and alcohol products, and have all of
my life. I like my imaginary cartoon.....A couple of soldiers on the
front lines in a war......And one says to the other, "Well, that shot
was for the average American, but we can't leave yet......I have to
fire this other shot for the guy who smokes and drinks.....After all,
he pays more taxes than everyone else."


No! the gubbmint is opportunistic.
Your argument reminds me of the time when Britain refused the tax the
earnings of prostitutes because the Oxonian Bishops decided that to do
so would turn the government into pimps. A very high proportion of
women put "prostitute" as their occupation and legally avoided
taxation.

No! imposing and collecting taxes is not condoning.
Please, state whether you agree with my assertion that: The [illegal]
drug dealer is more guilty than the guy he seduces into the habit
forming, mind killing, drug.


--
Peter

weg9 says: My answer: - Equal taxation across the board. It
shouldn't matter how you earn your living. Legal or illegal. If you
earn money, it should be taxed, and at the same rate as everyone else
who works and earns it. If you distill liquor for a living, your
customers shouldn't have to pay any more taxes for your booze than they
pay for a glass of water. That soldier on the front lines doesn't fire
any more bullets for the guy that drinks vodka than he does for the guy
who drinks water. The tax laws were not written to control the morality
of the people. They are there to pay for the costs of government.


Many of the tax laws were written to implement economic policy. But,
since the Fannie Fox incident, nobody has been able to do it right.
--
Peter

The government has been using the tax laws to control morality since long
before Fanny Fox and Wilbur Mills. Back in the 50's, when I was in the
service, I could buy cigarettes for $1.10 a carton.....That's 11 cents a
pack. (Tax free) The non service people had to pay about twice as
much.....So the government was taxing them 100% at that time. In 1991, I
went to Mexico, and could buy American Cigarettes there for less than
$6.00 a carton. Here, they cost about $15 a carton at that time. That
means the government here was charging well over 100% tax on them.


I said economic policy, not morality.
Your conclusion ignores the fact that the tobacco companies had different
pricing structures for different markets.

Peter

Yes.....I have no way of knowing how (or why) that works, so I have to
confess that I have no choice but to ignore it. All I know is that some
trucker carried that carton of cigarettes all the way from Winston-Salem
Carolina down to Mazatlan Mexico and sold them to a storekeeper down there,
and he was able to sell them retail for less than half what people were
paying for them in Menlo Park, California. You may be able to believe that
the government had no part in this, but I can't bring myself to believe it.
I think that the US government made most of that money in taxes.....Taxes on
the people who were hooked on the drug nicotine. Just as they do on alcohol.
I purchased a gallon of alcohol many years ago in the SF Bay area. I had to
pay $40 for it. The seller told me that he only made $20, but the government
made the other $20 in taxes.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...

What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that
causes harm, should that be illegal?

weg9 says: No. It should not be illegal to deliberately and
knowingly manufacturer a substance that causes harm.

It should be illegal to take any substance that is capable of causing
harm if misused, and misuse it to harm someone else who doesn't want to
be so harmed.

Does that answer your question? The answer is "No."

Those dependant on you fall squarely within your definition. Are you
saying that those that sell, manufacture and distribute this substance,
that can be easily misused to cause harm should not be prosecuted?

Peter
You can misuse a hammer.......A carpenter makes his living with it, but
you could hammer someone to death with it. I don't want the liberals to
take it away from me because someone else might misuse it. The army uses
explosives to kill our enemies with. I wouldn't prosecute someone for
making them just because some AH uses them to kill an innocent person
with. It's the crime that should be prosecuted, and not the gun, or the
explosive, or the hammer. Or the person who makes the gun, explosive, or
hammer. There are legitimate uses for explosives. Construction
contractors use them to remove buildings and mountains with. Farmers
remove stumps with them. Please use some common sense here. Put criminals
in jail, and not the gun manufacturers.


Gun manufacturing is a completely legal activity. Just where did I ever
refer to the armaments industry.

I was clearly talking about distributors of illegal drugs. Face it, we do
legislate morality. You set a standard of harm to innocents as a point
where the government should legislate. I repeat why isn't the family of a
drug abuser innocent. What about his 2 year old child.


--
Peter

I can't help his two year old child. Nor should I be asked to help him. If
you want to help him, then do so, but don't steal my tax dollars to do it
for you. I have my own charities, and I don't want you to steal my money and
support your charities with it. Robin Hood was nothing but a thief. The
fact that he gave money to the poor doesn't relieve him of the
responsibility of stealing from those who had money just because they had
it. If he wanted to give his money to the poor, then he should have done so.
But when he stole some rich person's money and gave that to the poor, then
he stepped over the line.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
news

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Having said that, it seems to me that the drug dealer is more
guilty than the guy he seduces into the habit forming, mind
killing, drug.
--
Peter

weg9 says: In that case, we should throw our own government into
jail.....They are the biggest drug dealers of all. They collect
excessive taxes on both tobacco and alcohol products, and have all
of my life. I like my imaginary cartoon.....A couple of soldiers on
the front lines in a war......And one says to the other, "Well, that
shot was for the average American, but we can't leave yet......I
have to fire this other shot for the guy who smokes and
drinks.....After all, he pays more taxes than everyone else."


No! the gubbmint is opportunistic.
Your argument reminds me of the time when Britain refused the tax the
earnings of prostitutes because the Oxonian Bishops decided that to
do so would turn the government into pimps. A very high proportion of
women put "prostitute" as their occupation and legally avoided
taxation.

No! imposing and collecting taxes is not condoning.
Please, state whether you agree with my assertion that: The [illegal]
drug dealer is more guilty than the guy he seduces into the habit
forming, mind killing, drug.


--
Peter

weg9 says: My answer: - Equal taxation across the board. It
shouldn't matter how you earn your living. Legal or illegal. If you
earn money, it should be taxed, and at the same rate as everyone else
who works and earns it. If you distill liquor for a living, your
customers shouldn't have to pay any more taxes for your booze than
they pay for a glass of water. That soldier on the front lines doesn't
fire any more bullets for the guy that drinks vodka than he does for
the guy who drinks water. The tax laws were not written to control the
morality of the people. They are there to pay for the costs of
government.


Many of the tax laws were written to implement economic policy. But,
since the Fannie Fox incident, nobody has been able to do it right.
--
Peter

The government has been using the tax laws to control morality since
long before Fanny Fox and Wilbur Mills. Back in the 50's, when I was in
the service, I could buy cigarettes for $1.10 a carton.....That's 11
cents a pack. (Tax free) The non service people had to pay about twice
as much.....So the government was taxing them 100% at that time. In
1991, I went to Mexico, and could buy American Cigarettes there for less
than $6.00 a carton. Here, they cost about $15 a carton at that time.
That means the government here was charging well over 100% tax on them.


I said economic policy, not morality.
Your conclusion ignores the fact that the tobacco companies had different
pricing structures for different markets.

Peter

Yes.....I have no way of knowing how (or why) that works, so I have to
confess that I have no choice but to ignore it. All I know is that some
trucker carried that carton of cigarettes all the way from Winston-Salem
Carolina down to Mazatlan Mexico and sold them to a storekeeper down
there, and he was able to sell them retail for less than half what people
were paying for them in Menlo Park, California. You may be able to believe
that the government had no part in this, but I can't bring myself to
believe it. I think that the US government made most of that money in
taxes.....Taxes on the people who were hooked on the drug nicotine. Just
as they do on alcohol. I purchased a gallon of alcohol many years ago in
the SF Bay area. I had to pay $40 for it. The seller told me that he only
made $20, but the government made the other $20 in taxes.


To me that's a very fair tax. Non-medicinal alcohol is not a necessity of
life. to the extent I want a drink, I should pay. As I type this I am
sipping a fine Madera. The government costs x dollars to perform its
functions. Nothing seems more fair than to have you not pay for the
infrastructure that brings me my Madera, if you don't drink. Indeed my drink
lowers your taxes.

--
Peter

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...


weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana
laws.....I am in favor of repealing any laws against any and all
drugs.....Everyone should have the right to ingest anything they
have the money to pay for, with or without a doctor's
prescription. Why would you want some doctor to have control over
you or your body? He should be paid for his advice, and not for
his power.


That is hardly the position of the classic conservative.



Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the
powers we give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is
split over whether it is a good thing or not......Sorry about
that, but it is not my fault.

My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are
forced to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian
world, you would not be responsible for my health care, and it
wouldn't cost you anything if I broke my head. The law that
forces hospitals to care for anyone who is carried in to them off
the street is a liberal law.....It is not my doing. Today, we
have the ability to identify anyone in a few seconds by scanning
their eyeballs, fingerprints or DNA, or a chip implanted under
their skin. We don't have to take care of people who are here
illegally, or who who refuse to buy health insurance. If you want
to take care of these irresponsible people, then do so, but
please don't charge me for it.

"We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to
control people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that?
Would you like to live in Iran, where the government controls
everyone's morality? then go there......I would like to control
my own morality, thanks. If I want to drink or smoke myself to
death, than why would you care? And, be careful.....Pretty soon
the senate will get around to preventing you from doing something
that you would like to do, and stop it by taxing the hell out of
it....what will you do then? Maybe they will decide that pastrami
sandwiches or egg crèmes are bad for you. Anything that most of
them don't regularly do, as a matter of fact.....They don't like
to rice motorcycles without their helmets, so it is easy for them
to make a law against it.......I don't see them making any laws
forcing you to wear a helmet on the golf course......You can get
a broken head there, too. I wonder why not? Is it because golf is
an old geezers game, and a lot of them play it......Oh,
no.....That can't be the reason......:^)


You obviously know nothing about golf,

Tiger the Geezer.

--
Peter

weg9 says: I know that I've never seen anyone on a golf course
wearing a helmet.

Not even the workers dong repair work? :-)


And, I am not a "classic conservative". I am not even a
conservative. I am a libertarian.

Your postings have demonstrated your lack of adherence to
conservative principles.

For an interesting read see:

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/LIBERTAR.htm

How consistent is that article with your views?


--
Peter

weg9 says: Yes, the article is quite consistent with my views.
But sometimes it is difficult to decide exactly what the libertarian
view is......If, by exercising some right or other, I inadvertently
take away someone else's right, then perhaps government should have
the right to intervene and not allow my exercise of that right, and
it is not always easy to make those decisions, so some compromise is
usually necessary.......It is an imperfect world, even for us
libertarians.......:^)


That's exactly the idea. When your perceived rights conflict with my
perceived rights, who resolves the issue.

Let's take it one step further. What happens when your perceived
rights necessarily, not inadvertently, conflicts with my perceived
rights.


--
Peter
When this happens, (and it happens all the time) the congress makes
laws that address it, and the courts interpret those laws, and resolve
conflicts over it and over those laws that the congress makes. Do not
confuse libertarianism with anarchy. I am not an anarchist. I believe
that some form of representative government is necessary.


OK we agree on that. Now what should be done if your smoking makes me
sick, which it does as I am highly allergic to smoke. Which way should
the laws go?
There is no such thing as separate, but equal.


--
Peter

I should not be allowed to smoke anywhere that you have to go.
But if you choose to go where I (and others) are smoking when there is no
reason for it, then I should not be punished for it. The world is plenty
big enough to house both the smokers and the non-smokers. As I said, the
diesel bus spews more crap into the air than 100 smokers every hour. The
smokers are happy to go to their smoking bars and restaurants....

Why can't you smoke in such a manner as not to deprive me of the freedom
to go where I please, for any reason.
Stop trying to pigeonhole me as a "liberal" just to further your argument.
It's logically illogical.

Why do you non-smokers have to interfere with that? there are plenty of
non-smoking bars and restaurants for the non-smokers.

that argument cuts both ways. why should I be deprived of my choice of
place to go. there's plenty of outdoors places.
If smoking is not permitted, don't go there. Go elsewhere.

--
Peter

weg9 says: And you don't see the inconsistency of not allowing some guy
to smoke on his own property? Of not allowing him to open a "smoking bar"
where his patrons can smoke? You want to force every bartender on earth to
not smoke, just on the off chance that some non-smoker might want to go in
his bar and drink there, even though there are plenty of other bars in town
that are non-smoking?

This is where the congress and the courts have to decide where your rights
end and someone else's rights take over, and I believe they stepped over the
line in Palo Alto, California back in the 90's.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...

What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that
causes harm, should that be illegal?

weg9 says: No. It should not be illegal to deliberately and
knowingly manufacturer a substance that causes harm.

It should be illegal to take any substance that is capable of causing
harm if misused, and misuse it to harm someone else who doesn't want
to be so harmed.

Does that answer your question? The answer is "No."

Those dependant on you fall squarely within your definition. Are you
saying that those that sell, manufacture and distribute this substance,
that can be easily misused to cause harm should not be prosecuted?

Peter
You can misuse a hammer.......A carpenter makes his living with it, but
you could hammer someone to death with it. I don't want the liberals to
take it away from me because someone else might misuse it. The army uses
explosives to kill our enemies with. I wouldn't prosecute someone for
making them just because some AH uses them to kill an innocent person
with. It's the crime that should be prosecuted, and not the gun, or the
explosive, or the hammer. Or the person who makes the gun, explosive, or
hammer. There are legitimate uses for explosives. Construction
contractors use them to remove buildings and mountains with. Farmers
remove stumps with them. Please use some common sense here. Put
criminals in jail, and not the gun manufacturers.


Gun manufacturing is a completely legal activity. Just where did I ever
refer to the armaments industry.

I was clearly talking about distributors of illegal drugs. Face it, we do
legislate morality. You set a standard of harm to innocents as a point
where the government should legislate. I repeat why isn't the family of a
drug abuser innocent. What about his 2 year old child.


--
Peter

I can't help his two year old child. Nor should I be asked to help him. If
you want to help him, then do so, but don't steal my tax dollars to do it
for you. I have my own charities, and I don't want you to steal my money
and support your charities with it. Robin Hood was nothing but a thief.
The fact that he gave money to the poor doesn't relieve him of the
responsibility of stealing from those who had money just because they had
it. If he wanted to give his money to the poor, then he should have done
so. But when he stole some rich person's money and gave that to the poor,
then he stepped over the line.


See my earlier response. How good it is that those with your selfish
attitude are not in control. BTW I am not sure that your statement is that
of a true libertarian.



--
Peter

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Having said that, it seems to me that the drug dealer is more guilty
than the guy he seduces into the habit forming, mind killing, drug.
--
Peter

weg9 says: In that case, we should throw our own government into
jail.....They are the biggest drug dealers of all. They collect
excessive taxes on both tobacco and alcohol products, and have all of
my life. I like my imaginary cartoon.....A couple of soldiers on the
front lines in a war......And one says to the other, "Well, that shot
was for the average American, but we can't leave yet......I have to
fire this other shot for the guy who smokes and drinks.....After all,
he pays more taxes than everyone else."


No! the gubbmint is opportunistic.
Your argument reminds me of the time when Britain refused the tax the
earnings of prostitutes because the Oxonian Bishops decided that to do
so would turn the government into pimps. A very high proportion of
women put "prostitute" as their occupation and legally avoided
taxation.

No! imposing and collecting taxes is not condoning.
Please, state whether you agree with my assertion that: The [illegal]
drug dealer is more guilty than the guy he seduces into the habit
forming, mind killing, drug.


--
Peter

weg9 says: My answer: - Equal taxation across the board. It
shouldn't matter how you earn your living. Legal or illegal. If you
earn money, it should be taxed, and at the same rate as everyone else
who works and earns it. If you distill liquor for a living, your
customers shouldn't have to pay any more taxes for your booze than they
pay for a glass of water. That soldier on the front lines doesn't fire
any more bullets for the guy that drinks vodka than he does for the guy
who drinks water. The tax laws were not written to control the morality
of the people. They are there to pay for the costs of government.


Equal taxation across the board is regressive and adversely affects the
lower income people

--
Peter

What the hell does that mean? The rich people have stuff that the poor
people don't have. does that give you the right to steal money from the
rich and give it to the poor? If you can't argue the point, then please
leave the discussion. but don't parrot some liberal drivel and expect me
to change my point of view because of it......I have better things to do.

then perhaps you should do it. The numbers speak for themselves. A person
with an income of $30,000 will pay a greater proportion of his income for
necessities than a person with an income of $500,000. The tax law
recognizes that economic fact. Indeed with your theory the poor person
would pay a grossly disproportionately higher tax as a function of
disposable income.

--
Peter
Not so. The "poor people" would hardly be taxed any more at all......Your
estimation of the huge number of rich people is way too big. They pay very
little in taxes now. Most of our taxes are paid by the average working guy,
like I was for 40 years. This is the big, "Obama lie". That he can get the
rich people to pay all the taxes. The so called "rich people" are the ones
who give the jobs to the working people, and taxing them extra is what's,
"regressive". It takes away their incentive to stay in business.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
news

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Having said that, it seems to me that the drug dealer is more
guilty than the guy he seduces into the habit forming, mind
killing, drug.
--
Peter

weg9 says: In that case, we should throw our own government into
jail.....They are the biggest drug dealers of all. They collect
excessive taxes on both tobacco and alcohol products, and have all
of my life. I like my imaginary cartoon.....A couple of soldiers on
the front lines in a war......And one says to the other, "Well,
that shot was for the average American, but we can't leave
yet......I have to fire this other shot for the guy who smokes and
drinks.....After all, he pays more taxes than everyone else."


No! the gubbmint is opportunistic.
Your argument reminds me of the time when Britain refused the tax
the earnings of prostitutes because the Oxonian Bishops decided that
to do so would turn the government into pimps. A very high
proportion of women put "prostitute" as their occupation and legally
avoided taxation.

No! imposing and collecting taxes is not condoning.
Please, state whether you agree with my assertion that: The
[illegal] drug dealer is more guilty than the guy he seduces into
the habit forming, mind killing, drug.


--
Peter

weg9 says: My answer: - Equal taxation across the board. It
shouldn't matter how you earn your living. Legal or illegal. If you
earn money, it should be taxed, and at the same rate as everyone else
who works and earns it. If you distill liquor for a living, your
customers shouldn't have to pay any more taxes for your booze than
they pay for a glass of water. That soldier on the front lines
doesn't fire any more bullets for the guy that drinks vodka than he
does for the guy who drinks water. The tax laws were not written to
control the morality of the people. They are there to pay for the
costs of government.


Many of the tax laws were written to implement economic policy. But,
since the Fannie Fox incident, nobody has been able to do it right.
--
Peter

The government has been using the tax laws to control morality since
long before Fanny Fox and Wilbur Mills. Back in the 50's, when I was in
the service, I could buy cigarettes for $1.10 a carton.....That's 11
cents a pack. (Tax free) The non service people had to pay about twice
as much.....So the government was taxing them 100% at that time. In
1991, I went to Mexico, and could buy American Cigarettes there for
less than $6.00 a carton. Here, they cost about $15 a carton at that
time. That means the government here was charging well over 100% tax on
them.


I said economic policy, not morality.
Your conclusion ignores the fact that the tobacco companies had
different pricing structures for different markets.

Peter

Yes.....I have no way of knowing how (or why) that works, so I have to
confess that I have no choice but to ignore it. All I know is that some
trucker carried that carton of cigarettes all the way from Winston-Salem
Carolina down to Mazatlan Mexico and sold them to a storekeeper down
there, and he was able to sell them retail for less than half what people
were paying for them in Menlo Park, California. You may be able to
believe that the government had no part in this, but I can't bring myself
to believe it. I think that the US government made most of that money in
taxes.....Taxes on the people who were hooked on the drug nicotine. Just
as they do on alcohol. I purchased a gallon of alcohol many years ago in
the SF Bay area. I had to pay $40 for it. The seller told me that he only
made $20, but the government made the other $20 in taxes.


To me that's a very fair tax. Non-medicinal alcohol is not a necessity of
life. to the extent I want a drink, I should pay. As I type this I am
sipping a fine Madera. The government costs x dollars to perform its
functions. Nothing seems more fair than to have you not pay for the
infrastructure that brings me my Madera, if you don't drink. Indeed my
drink lowers your taxes.

--
Peter
So that's your criteria is it? - What's a "necessity of life", or what is
not? How do you know what I needed the alcohol for? I certainly didn't drink
it. I used it to clean my trumpets with......I didn't need a gallon of it,
but the stupid government laws made me buy 4 gallons of it. I was able to
sell the other three gallons to my friends at cost. But, in any case,
neither me nor my friends used up any more of the governments goods or
services by using that alcohol. I can see that you are an incurable
liberal. You don't care what government goods or services are used, do you?
You are just convinced that the rich should be taxed excessively, and no
reasonable argument is ever going to change your mind. You are also happy,
apparently, with letting the government control your morality. It is a lot
easier than thinking for yourself. I think I am getting very tired of this
whole discussion.

On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 18:56:29 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

The government has been using the tax laws to control morality since long
before Fanny Fox and Wilbur Mills. Back in the 50's, when I was in the
service, I could buy cigarettes for $1.10 a carton.....That's 11 cents a
pack. (Tax free) The non service people had to pay about twice as
much.....So the government was taxing them 100% at that time. In 1991, I
went to Mexico, and could buy American Cigarettes there for less than $6.00
a carton. Here, they cost about $15 a carton at that time. That means the
government here was charging well over 100% tax on them.

You're operating on the concept that "sin taxes" are imposed to
control morality. They aren't. They are imposed because the market
involved is willing to pay higher costs to obtain the product.

Tobacco and liquor taxes don't have significant effect on reducing the
use. Increasing the tax, or decreasing the tax, will not
significantly affect the volume of sales if that is the only control.
Any reduction we see in the use of cigarettes will be from the
multiple effects of health awareness, social pressure, laws against
smoking in public places, and increased product costs.

Gasoline pump prices are subject to the same disproportionate high
taxes. These taxes are not "sin taxes". They are taxes levied for
the same reason: they can be charged because people will continue to
use the product regardless of cost.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:20:38 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Equal taxation across the board is regressive and adversely affects the
lower income people

What the hell does that mean? The rich people have stuff that the poor
people don't have. does that give you the right to steal money from the rich
and give it to the poor? If you can't argue the point, then please leave the
discussion. but don't parrot some liberal drivel and expect me to change my
point of view because of it......I have better things to do.

You are arguing that equal taxation rate across income levels is not
regressive?

Just once, I'd like to see you right on something. I haven't yet.
It's amazing that someone has lived as long as you have and can remain
so universally ignorant and wrong on so many subjects.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida