No I meant maniac --- I dont care about the color of his skin --- I care about what is going on in his head and it scaRES THE SH*T OUT OF ME --- HE IS INTERESTED IN SOCIAL RE-ENGINEERING ---

Believe me Snoop; that model was called Substitution of Imports used in the 70´s taxing for ex. cars (300%)...and other luxury* items was a fiasco and a temptation to smugling things and making a few guys rich (like prohibition in the US in the old days). The idea was that doing that would promote our countries to develope our own technology and competitive products...didn´t work out because the country is not in a bubble* and influences and commerce has to work both ways...the tendency now is , yes, open markets and doing Trades ( we are about to sign the most important with the US- unfortunally Obama is against) with no taxes between countries.
 
If we ave to tax consumption goods let´s look to the cigarrettes, alcohol, gambling, bets, and all that bad habits that make trizzilions. To give u an example in CR a bottle of beer is cheaper than an ice tea...hmmmm...somethings are upside down everywhere....

I am afraid not Rap, my man....because the amount of income from the benefits of EXPORTING US goods to our countries ( central america is a 30+million people) is more than the taxes the country is getting from their products going in...the trade balance now is not equal and many companies ( Wallmart and friends)look our markets as attractive...in the end will mean more jobs, more exports and wider range of products at lower prices for the consumers for both parts...that´s ..in theory...of course there are lots of distorsions specially in the agricultural sector where US farmers have HUGE subsides from uncle sam and make this trades unequal and distorted...( a US farmer´s incentives in machinery, loans, tax cuts and help from structured organizations are humongous versus our poor isolated and unexperinced poor no-shoes farmers)...and many fear this will be only in the benefit of big corporations, here and there....

 
Hej SnoopDog176, do you for instance consume cigarettes, alcoholic liquors, run a car on petrol... Excise tax on goods = consumption tax

 
U.S. Department of the Treasury say:
 
To pay the debts of the Revolutionary War, Congress levied excise taxes on distilled spirits, tobacco and snuff, refined sugar, carriages...
 
On July 1, 1862 the Congress passed new excise taxes on such items as playing cards, gunpowder, feathers, telegrams, iron, leather, pianos, yachts, billiard tables, drugs, patent medicines. Many legal documents were also taxed and license fees were collected for almost all professions and trades.

 
Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
 
it seems to me those taxes are just a small portion of the revenue stream. most people don't smoke or drink and __supposedly__, the gas tax goes to build/maintain the highways.
 
And windmill,,, so sorry to say, I have lost track of the central idea as to why we explored this aspect of taxation.
 
If I recall, you claimed that the income tax - a graduated one, was less draconian than consumption taxes..? is that about right?
 
in any case, when the income tax did go into effect, I am sure they did nothing to remove the consumption taxes that exiseted. now we have BOTH.
 
IF.. and that is a big IF... if the feds tied the taxation scale to inflation, there would be no problem. Like I say, no wage earner that earned up to four times the average salary would pay income tax. that is fair. (don't ask a democrat what their definition of "fair" is)
 
but while this inflation was basically putting POOR people into the RICH category as far as taxation goes,,, the politicianss did nothing but celebrate. and who is their to protect us???? the very politicians stabbing us in the back, that's who.
 
it amazes how ppl are just so aloof about all of this.
 
they will see nothing wrong with making sure that a non-wage earner, like a welfare recipient, gets guaranteed housing, food, heat, medical, clothing ,, EVERYTHING,, guaranteed and pays no taxes, but at the same time, they will take big chunks of a person's pay who has no gaurantees, and not enough for the basics of life.
 
are they saying that one life form is more SPECIAL than the other??
 
just exactly what ARE they saying?
 
and it is for reasons like this that taxation by FORCE should be unconstitutional. people with that kind of power and nobody to keep them in check can totally foul the system and people's lives.
 
Yaman in here talked with me about the feds and the universal heathcare plan. he read my position and what I thought of what politians would do , should they assume control of such a system. He could nto believe that politicans would run a system in such a way that people end up without medical care because the money will be stolen.
 
well, all I can say is,, those unconscienable bastids steal on a weekly basis from people that cannot afford food, shelter, you name it.
 
so,, it is clear to me they could care less if we get medical treatment, too.
 
we need a revolution.

 
I'm not sure either and especially not now after have read somewhere on the BB that SnoopDog176 is only 57 years old...
 
"windmill said:
When were the Glory Days, when SnoopDog176 didn't complain about USA?
 
SnoopDog176 said:
When I was too young and naive to know better
 
certianly 1920's, 30's,,,, but not much further than that."
 
 

he let my age slip???
 
 
my god, I hope you did not take that as I was ALIVE back then,,, just looking at america historically, that's all.
 
NO CIA. No draconian income tax on the poor. No national debt, no social security, no going to war like germany and the Third Reich, no welfare, none of the public eyesores you see defiling america today. with the exception that racism as higher then.
 
nice country, back then!
 

 
For the poor people, yes.
 
"Two notable problems resulted from this heavy reliance on what are called consumption taxes. First, the revenue from tariffs was easily disrupted when trade fell. Second, both types of taxes were typically passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, and this disproportionately impacted the poor." Answers.com
 
 
No not exactly I think; do you still have as high tariff walls on imported products as in the Glory Days?

 
I can tell you that tax on ciagarettes has never been even close to what it is now. and alcohol is still being taxed.
 
imported products - well, back then we did not import like now. back then everything was "made in America" and we are abundant in natural resources so even they were not imported. Petroleum oil for example, was all drilled here. Steel was all manufactured here, and we have plenty of lumber. no imports! today, everything is "made in china", oli is imported,, so that is not really a fair way to evaluate.
 
BTW, you might know that smokers are disproportionatley represented by poor people. my state, cost $6.65 per pack, at least. the next state over, $3.50 and the feds are STILL making a killing.
 

My Winstons cost me about $2.70 a pack. Cigarette taxes is one thing I really dislike about the Democrats, they are always pushing for more.
 
pazuzu

$2.70 a pack...?
 
I'm coming to visit ya!
 
it just shows you with the big difference in price - just how greed these politicians can get in a system that allows them to FORCE you to pay.
 
they take FULL advanatge, eh?

 
I would think it is easy to underrate the size of tariffs and excise taxes back in the days. Remember, even one of the reasons behind the Civil War was the export of cotton and the high tariffs on cotton-products.

ok well
i will accept you at your word .
But, What about the Bail out that everybodys on board with is'nt that alittle social engineering not to metion the government regulations that i think are needed to watch the greedy bastards that have runamuck . Relax, whoever gets to be president will be voted out in 4 years .
D

yes, the high tarriff on cotton was basically designed to put the cotton growers out of business. no way they could afford it. that is how the norht first attempted to end slavery.
 
I am surte I understimate tarrifs, I as trying to think of taxes as opposed to tarrifs.
 
but, yeah.

 
It's only $2.70 because in order for them to raise local and state taxes on cigarettes they have to put it on the ballot for a vote, and the last few times it came up it got voted down.
 
pazuzu

 
.. Yes, even Hitler had his small moments when he appeared to be objective, non-inflammatory, and perfectly sane; but.. SO WHAT?!!
 
Ps. I could've also said the same thing about an unnamed Australian 'bloke'; but, while relaxing earlier tonight, by playing a makeshift game of solo 'darts,' "DeadManFalling-Splat," 'won out'!

 
Where are your moments then?
 
 
 
Is it you and your favourite personality vs. the rest of your personalities? or do all the different personalities throw for themselves?
 
--SoCo