Posted on 02/21/2005 6:46:21 AM PST by Zon
Jodi Rell is Lowell Weicker in drag.
What a RINO B****!
Thank God I live close enough to the border that I can buy gas cheaper in another state and often make trips to NH and Maine and can stop at the NH Liquor Store. Shopping for furniture, appliances, etc...gee which state has the lowest sales tax?
If Rell had ANY brains she would make buying anything in Connecticut more attractive to people from the other states.
What a concept! Lower taxes and increase revenues!
By increasing taxes on tobacco, of course.
REGULATION FOR REVENUE
Alexander Hamilton's tax package of 1794 proposed the first federal excise taxes upon tobacco products. To the distress of Philadelphia snuff manufacturers (Brooks, 1952: 146), however, the tax was restricted after serious Congressional debate to their product only.
James Madison led the opposition to a general tobacco tax; his views were summarized in the Annals of Congress on May 2, 1794:
As to the subject before the House, it was proper to choose taxes the least unequal. Tobacco excise was a burden the most unequal. It fell upon the poor, upon the sailors, day-laborers, and other people of these classes, while the rich will often escape it (Robert, 1949: 100).
The legislative decision was probably tempered as well by considerations of the enforceability of the measure: snuff had to be manufactured, while quid and pipe tobacco were often homegrown leaf at the time (Heimann, 1960: 155). In any case, the snuff bill was ultimately enacted, modified, suspended and repealed, with small, if any, effect upon federal revenues.
The opportunity to distill tax money from tobacco was seized upon more vigorously at the time of the Civil War. On July 1, 1862, an ad valorem tax was imposed upon cigars for the first time. This tax was raised two years later when a separate tax upon cigarettes was also imposed (Werner, 1922: 358). (Even the Confederacy sought to levy a tax-in-kind upon tobacco crops, but was precluded from doing so by the inspection system which required the inspector to deliver the full amount of tobacco specified in the warehouse receipt (Robert, 1949: 117).)
Thereafter, the taxes were raised in 1865, 1866 and 1875. A temporary reduction followed, until the Spanish-American War necessitated further increases. Concurrently, taxes were levied upon smoking and manufactured tobacco and snuff, lest the burden fall unequally upon smokers (Werner, 1922: 559).
By 1880, the tobacco taxes bad largely stabilized. At that time, they accounted for 31% of total federal tax receipts, or $38.9 million. Of this, 50% of the collections was derived from smoking and chewing tobacco, 40% from cigars and cheroots, and less than 2% from cigarettes (Heimann, 1960: 156).
Since that time, federal tax collections on tobacco products have risen almost annually. Between 1910 and 1920, they increased more than 500%, the greatest increase in any single decade. By 1970, they accounted for almost $2.1 billion, down slightly from the two preceding years (Tobacco Tax Council, 1970: 5).
Indicative of changing patterns of consumption, the taxes on cigarettes, as a percentage of the total federal tobacco revenue jumped from 13.6% in 1910 to 51.1% in 1920. By 1970, the percentage at 97.2% far outdistanced those revenues derived from other forms of the product (Tobacco Tax Council, 1970: 5).
Excise taxes have proved profitable and easy to collect. The revenue schemes are simple on both the federal (26 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) and state levels. In the past, no justification for them has been deemed necessary since Madison's protest. No elaborate licensing or state monopoly system, such as those designed to control commerce in alcohol, has ever been imposed.
In 1921, Iowa became the first state to cash in on the crop directly by taxing cigarettes. By 1930, 11 other states had adopted the revenue measure (Robert, 1949: 256).
In 1950, 40 states and the District of Columbia taxed cigarettes. The rates ranged from one cent to five cents for a pack of 20 except in Louisiana which levied an eight cent tax on cigarettes. In 1958, Montana imposed an equivalent rate.
Between 1950 and 1962, 43 of the 47 taxing states raised their rates at least once. The frequent increase in cigarette taxes narrowed the gap between the rates in low tax states and higher tax states. In the 12-year period, the median tax rate rose from three cents to six cents per pack (Federal Trade Commission, 1970: 3) ; the maximum rate remained at eight cents in Texas, Louisiana, Montana and New Mexico, in contrast to the two cent rate in the District of Columbia and Kentucky.
The four leading states in terms of both production and relative dependence on the crop have been North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky and Virginia, the latter two being the only states in the history of cigarette taxation to decrease their taxes; the reduction was only .5 cent (from three cents to two and a half cents) in 1960 and 1961, respectively.
By 1966, Oregon became the 49th state to impose a tax on cigarettes; the rate was four cents per pack. Finally, in 1969 North Carolina imposed a cigarette tax-two cents.
The cigarette excise taxes continued to increase during the sixties. By 1970, the taxes ranged from North Carolina's two cents to Pennsylvania's 18 cents for a weighted average of 10.7 cents. Twenty nine states levied taxes of 10 cents or more per pack (USDA, Tobacco Situation, 1971b: 40). Local governments superimposed further excise taxes on the state taxes, ranging from one cent to 10 cents per package (Tobacco Tax Council, 1970: iv).
By mid-1971, the range had widened further Connecticut at 21 cents and North Carolina at two cents, the weighted average state tax being 11.1 cents (USDA, Tobacco Situation , 1971a: 7).
TOBACCO REVENUES
A peculiar relationship exists between production and revenue. In 1970, cash receipts from tobacco brought in $11 million for Pennsylvania; tobacco farmers and cigarette taxes amassed $194.6 million for the state. By comparison growers in North Carolina collected $576 million while the state collected only $13.4 million in cigarette revenues (USDA, Tobacco Situation, 1971b: 43).
The federal excise tax on a package of cigarettes is currently eight cents and has remained so since 1951. The combined state and federal tax was highest in Pennsylvania; 26 cents for 20 cigarettes, which was 58.2% of the retail price. Connecticut's 24 cents and Texas's 23.5 cents were close behind; the average for the United States was 46.8%.
To the Federal and state governments today, tobacco is a financial asset. The total federal and state revenue collected f rom all tobacco products in 1971 amounted to over $4.7 billion. Local governments excised the product further bringing the sum total to $4.8 million (USDA, Tobacco Situation, 1971b: 44).
From the years 1890 to 1930 cigarette tax collections from tobacco soared from approximately $1 million to over $339 million. By 1950, they exceeded $1.2 billion.
Totals for the years 1890 to 1970 are recorded in the following chart (Tobacco Tax Council, 1970: 5)
Cigarette tax
| Years | Collections |
| 1890 | $1,100,000 |
| 1900 | 4,000,000 |
| 1910 | 7,900,000 |
| 1920 | 151,300,000 |
| 1930 | 359,800,000 |
| 1940 | 533,000,000 |
| 1950 | 1,242,800,000 |
| 1960 | 1,863,600.000 |
| 1970 | 2,036,100,000 |
"For many years the House increased its size as the nation’s population grew, but in 1911 the number of representatives was fixed at 435 (together with non-voting delegates representing several territories and the District of Columbia)"
Evolution of the size of the House (from Riddick)
Year Ratio of Representatives No.
1789 one for each 30,000 65
1790 33,000 105
1800 33,000 141
1810 35,000 181
1820 40,000 212
1830 47,700 240
1840 70,680 223
1850 93,423 234
1860 127,381 241
1870 131,425 293
1880 151,911 325
1890 173,901 357
1900 194,182 391
1910 211,877 435
1920 no reapportionment 435
1930 279,712 435
The number has been fixed at 435 since 1911. The current ratio is roughly 1 to 650,000 after the 2000 census.
=================
So, my question to you is: Why not have a ratio of 1 to 295,514,948?
We'll still all be represented, and you'll still be able to petition our common Representative for a redress of situations like this... ;-)
What really irritates me is that business and these States can go out-of-state to spend their dollars on cheaper labor and contracts. When does the citizen have the right to the cheaper price? We need a tea party.
The torah contains around 635 case law applications of the ten commandments.The Law of Moses was a special deal made between the Hebrews and God in which they agreed to follow laws given by God. The laws given by God were intended to make the Hebrews holy or set apart. They were not intended to be laws for all nations. Laws for all nations were in fact in effect since Noah and still apply to all but they do not include the laws given to Moses except that we can study these laws to help us understand how God wants us to live as Christians.
You have little evidence that you understand what a constitutional republic is.
Tax cheats? My ain't we judgmental sheep.
Seems to me we started a revolution over excessive taxation.
Or were the people who dumped British tea into Boston Harbor tax cheats, too?
PS, I don't smoke. But I'm against excessive taxation.
Is your claim the US government is no longer a representative republic ?
Who needs 'em? These taxes just fund stupid entitlement and social programs anyway.
Get rid of the unjconstitutional entitlements and safety nets and let ebveryone sink or swim on their own...period.
The only reason we need taxes is to keep the defense and military strong and fill potholes. Otherwise, let the government and the bloodsuckers who leech off of it starve.
Oh, Hillary may have paid taxes on her BRIBE, but she suffered no consequences for the ILLIGAL ACT of taking the bribe. Where is your "we either have laws we follow or we have anarchy" stance on the CRIME of accepting the bribe? You appear to want the little folk to pay their tax and obey laws blindly, while averting your gaze from the misdeeds of those in charge of governing.
There is a difference between a patriot willing to risk life and limb to make it known they are against a tax and people who are selfish tax cheats. One expects and accepts consequences, the other is a selfish complainer that screams "freedom" when they get caught.
I agree to a degree. There are some people who need our help and cannot take care of themselves. However, we way beyond this point.
I see esmokes is listed in your link of many outlets. Esmokes is what Michigan has sent letters out on. I would say at least some on this listing are NOT tax free currently and most likely in the future due to the Jenkins Act they will all be complying to this law. Alnother disgusting money grab by the states while they shop out-of-state for cheaper labor.
Think of the dough we could save on staffing, offices, retirement packages and the like. ;-)
One of your biggest arguments on this thread is that if you disagree with the law, you take your issue to your rep(s) in the legislature.
I'm just pointing out that we're a little bit light on representation these days, and getting lighter with every birth in these here United States...
If one person craps on the law, we all should ? Thats a fast track to anarchy.
Also, your response is wrong anyways.. Government didn'tt cause people and society to increasingly prosper. People and society prospered because people labored. Be it scientists or farmers or any other business that filled a market need.
If it weren't for the workers being nice enough to sell their goods and services to politicians and bureaucrats they would perish. Parasitical elites don't produce net values--goods and services. They drain values from people and society. Ostracism is on the way.
--
*FWIW, Taxes and user fees are good when they are truly voluntary -- such as the FairTax -- and the money is used for the primary purpose off government -- he only valid function and purpose of government is to protect individual life and property rights and ensure private contracts are honored.
Mark
These are state taxes. My rep lives down the street about 3 miles from me. I can either call, drop in his home or corner him at the grocery store.
Mark
"There is a difference between a patriot willing to risk life and limb to make it known they are against a tax and people who are selfish tax cheats."
Do you honestly believe that a person avoiding a tax today is not risking "life and limb"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.