We should put a tax on same sex marriages................

 

That would mean they were legal. Not sure how I feel about that.

There's the difference, LN. Liberals LOVE telling others how they ought to live.

 

Because you have no innate desire to run other people's lives, it's obvious to me that you are NOT a liberal.

 

Well said, Bluto.

No. I'm fine with the products being available. I'm fine with people having the right to choose to purchase them. No problems at all with any of that.

Would you support an 1,000% tax increase on cigarettes, for example? They are still available for us to purchase, right?

 

At risk of sounding inappropriate:

 

[This] reminds me of the famous story about George Bernard Shaw, who supposedly met a beautiful woman at a party and asked her if she'd sleep with a man for a million pounds. "I would," the woman answered.

 

"And would you sleep with someone for five pounds?" Shaw asked.

 

The woman grew indignant. "What do you think I am?" she asked.

 

Shaw responded: "We've already established what you are. Now, we're just haggling over the price."

 

It is the principal behind the action. Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control. Taxation is the government's way of having the revenue to perform its basic duties to the American people. Why do you think the government has the right to use its power of taxation in such a manner? Beyond the fact that it is NOT delegated the power to do so by the Constitution, what political philosophy encourages and enables the state to do this?

 

Until people begin to understand that, the entire discussion is meaningless.

 

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

 

I do not mean to be condescending and forthright, but its just absurd the way that people view government.

Would you support an 1,000% tax increase on cigarettes, for example? They are still available for us to purchase, right?

 

At risk of sounding inappropriate:

 

 

 

It is the principal behind the action. Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control. Taxation is the government's way of having the revenue to perform its basic duties to the American people. Why do you think the government has the right to use its power of taxation in such a manner? Beyond the fact that it is NOT delegated the power to do so by the Constitution, what political philosophy encourages and enables the state to do this?

 

Until people begin to understand that, the entire discussion is meaningless.

 

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

 

I do not mean to be condescending and forthright, but its just absurd the way that people view government.

Great post! When taxation is used as a form of punishment/control it generally leads to revolution.

What happened to individual freedom to make choices? There are people out there that are willing to kill the unborn, but then worry about something like a person enjoying some junk food now and then.

 

I certainly have not equated abortion to taxing junk food. I don't even know why abortion is in this conversation, but it's par for the course in this forum.

 

No one has taken away your choice to enjoy junk food. You can still buy it. Have at it! I don't mind.

I certainly have not equated abortion to taxing junk food. I don't even know why abortion is in this conversation, but it's par for the course in this forum.

 

No one has taken away your choice to enjoy junk food. You can still buy it. Have at it! I don't mind.

 

Curious to know RM, just what constitutes "junk food" and who gets to make that determination for you and me? What is a "necessity" and who makes that call for you and me? Are caffinated coffee and tea unhealthy and folks should be discouraged from consuming them by a tax policy? What about Beef? White bread? Fried chicken? Biscuits and gravy? Eggs?

 

If animal rights supporters gained enough clout in Congress, would you be okay with Congress aggressively taxing veal in particular and meat in general in order to severely cut back the consumption of those products in the interest of animal rights? Do you have any concern that using taxes to control behavior is further heading down the slippery slope to the "Big Brother" syndrome? Not trying to be demanding, just would like to know how you feel about those questions so I can better understand your thinking and logic on this issue.

 

What I find interesting in this discussion (well, at least the civil posts) is that I had thought that historically it had been the more liberally oriented folks that were afraid of the Big Brother syndrome; of govt being so intertwined and involved in our personal lives that our individual freedoms were lost or greatly diminshed. At least in this thread, it is the more liberally oriented folks (as I assess them) that are fine with Big Brother attempting to steer us, through tax policy, in what we should consume. Very odd to me.

 

Then again, as I mentioned to a good friend in a recent e mail, perhaps its not so odd after all. I've seen a sea change in the mentality of Americans over the last 10 years or so. It's very alarming to me. We have in my opinion really moved away from personal responsibility towards that "nanny state" as some people refer to it. Take care of me and through your policies, Mr and Mrs. Elected Officials, influence and control my life so I can live it the "right way". Increase taxes on junk food to discourage me from purchasing it, because I refuse to listen to the countless warnings about the danger of eating too much junk food and modify my own behavior. I am a weak person that cannot control my own decisions, so please Mr. and Mrs. Elected Official, you take steps to steer those decisions for me.

 

I can only hope that the change in mentality can be attributed to the fickle American syndrome that I've mentioned before, and that in due time, the American voters will realize how much they've let the govt influence and control their daily lives and decisions, and then vote accordingly. I hope that is the case.

 

I don't think the food stamp issue raised in this thread is germane to at least my thoughts on this issue. If the govt is providing those food stamps, the govt can and should be able to dictate how those foot stamps are used. You want the handout, you agree to live with the strings attached. However, a person not using food stamps should be able to make free decisions on what to consume without the burden of taxation being used to steer consumption decisions. Just my opinion; it may be wrong or it may be right.

Edited May 22, 200917 yr by leatherneck
Because I should correctly spell the word "tea".

Would you support an 1,000% tax increase on cigarettes, for example? They are still available for us to purchase, right?

 

At risk of sounding inappropriate:

 

 

 

It is the principal behind the action. Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control. Taxation is the government's way of having the revenue to perform its basic duties to the American people. Why do you think the government has the right to use its power of taxation in such a manner? Beyond the fact that it is NOT delegated the power to do so by the Constitution, what political philosophy encourages and enables the state to do this?

 

Until people begin to understand that, the entire discussion is meaningless.

 

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

 

I do not mean to be condescending and forthright, but its just absurd the way that people view government.

 

Agreed with. :thumb:

I certainly have not equated abortion to taxing junk food. I don't even know why abortion is in this conversation, but it's par for the course in this forum.

 

No one has taken away your choice to enjoy junk food. You can still buy it. Have at it! I don't mind.

 

But, why make harder to buy these things? Why does the government, or at least this government, think they know what I want more than I do?

Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, and ALL the democrats no what is good for us and what is not.

 

The way of government has worked so well in the places they control, Michigan, California,........................

 

Honestly they may not be very good at what they do, but considering the only alternative would be republicans/conservatives, I'm not sure we can do better.

 

:lol:

Honestly they may not be very good at what they do, but considering the only alternative would be republicans/conservatives, I'm not sure we can do better.

 

:lol:

 

I know, I hate high taxes!

What I find interesting in this discussion (well, at least the civil posts) is that I had thought that historically it had been the more liberally oriented folks that were afraid of the Big Brother syndrome; of govt being so intertwined and involved in our personal lives that our individual freedoms were lost or greatly diminshed. At least in this thread, it is the more liberally oriented folks (as I assess them) that are fine with Big Brother attempting to steer us, through tax policy, in what we should consume. Very odd to me.

 

Then again, as I mentioned to a good friend in a recent e mail, perhaps its not so odd after all. I've seen a sea change in the mentality of Americans over the last 10 years or so. It's very alarming to me. We have in my opinion really moved away from personal responsibility towards that "nanny state" as some people refer to it. Take care of me and through your policies, Mr and Mrs. Elected Officials, influence and control my life so I can live it the "right way". Increase taxes on junk food to discourage me from purchasing it, because I refuse to listen to the countless warnings about the danger of eating too much junk food and modify my own behavior. I am a weak person that cannot control my own decisions, so please Mr. and Mrs. Elected Official, you take steps to steer those decisions for me.

 

Very good points. :thumb: I suppose some people believe that the sin tax and now the proposed fat tax is necessary to fund and support broad social programs such as national health care and it that sense they are not intrusions on our rights, but the government (Congress) providing for the welfare of the citizens.

Nobody is making decisions on what you should be consuming. You still get to make that decision, it will just cost more, which might deter you. Might even make you healthier.

 

Does the airline dictate that I sit in coach? I don't think so, if I choose to pay the extra money I can go "first class".

 

Does anyone dictate that I drive a 2001 Camry - no, I could drive a 2009 Prius, if I want to pay the extra money.

 

Kool Aid is way cheaper than any soda and while both are packed with sugar you at least avoid the cafeine (sp)

 

Apples and oranges. Paying more for first class verses coach or a new car over an old car is not the same as the government imposing taxes on a product.

Leatherneck, I'll be honest...I really don't care if the items are taxed or not taxed. And frankly, since I don't I'm not of the energy level to debate it vigorously. If sodas are taxed, so be it. If not, that's fine too.

 

You're right...the food stamp issue is separate, and on that I have much stronger opinions, and would be up for debate.

 

But, I probably really shouldn't have even started in this thread, because I really, REALLY am apathetic about the thought of a tax on sodas. I guess because it doesn't affect me.

But, I probably really shouldn't have even started in this thread, because I really, REALLY am apathetic about the thought of a tax on sodas. I guess because it doesn't affect me.

 

But without the “necessary” comment the debate might have died out.

 

We are getting closer and closer to socialism everyday.