Posted on 02/21/2005 6:46:21 AM PST by Zon
How about answering the question.
"Do I have a problem with tobacco users encouraging others to break laws while making it sound right and risk less , you bet."
King George would have loved your attitude.
Tax on tobbaco is not a income tax. Please explain to me how a tobacco tax is bogus.
What question ? I answered yours plus more.
Do you consider a smoker who quits using tobacco to avoid paying the tax a criminal?
(In this post I'm adding "using tobacco" due to further review I realize the question may not have been clear.)
Has he committed a criminal act?
I can garuntee that you break at least one law a day, if not more than one. Welcome to the club.
When there aren't enough criminals to warrant expanding government power politicians and bureaucrats create new laws and regulations that turns evermore innocent people into criminals by a congressional vote and stoke of the pen. Those laws are in fact and effect, political agenda laws -- not objective law.
Well, was Clinton wrong or illegal when he claimed the donation of used underwear to charity at $20 per pair as a way to reduce his income? If he was illegal, as you seem to be implying I would be, shouldn't I be punished in the same manner? Ignored, like he was? My conscience can handle that ok. Or was he just being a tad wrong while I would be highly illegal?
Au contarie, from its birth until the late 1850s the bulk of revenue for the Federal government came from tariffs on imported goods; and tobacco was exported, not imported.
The second biggest generator of revenue -- though far, far behind the money raised from tariffs -- was a tax on the sale of Federal land.
Now this is not saying there was no tax on tobacco but it was no more onerous than the tax on rum and salt.
Please explain to me how a tobacco tax is bogus.
You first, explain the following from our earlier posts at 12 and my response/questions at 25.
Here are the relevant sections of each post.
Raycpa wrote: We either have laws we follow or we have anarchy.12
Zon wrote: How is it that people increasingly prospered as did society prior to last years new laws or new laws created decades ago? How is it that anarchy didn't ensue over the last hundred years -- save for prohibition? How is it that we don't have anarchy right now without next year's new laws or new laws yet to be created five, ten or fifteen years in the future?25
The law provides for a deduction up the the fair market value of the property contributed. The law also provides for a tax on the sale or purchase of tobacco products by a state resident. If Clinton claimed a deduction in excess of the fair market value that was illegal. If 20 is the FMV then its not illegal. The FMV of used underwear is a subjective value.
If Clinton knowingly took a value greater than the FMV even though he could support it then it would be morally wrong but not legally wrong.
If you knowingly purchase cigs' without paying the tax that is both illegal and morally wrong.
Bookmark.
Interesting thread
Same here. I'Ve been rolling for about five years. On my second Premier loader.
Finding tobacco I enjoy is another thing.
So many choices, so little time and $$) ;)
Zon I assume you circuling back to arguments that I previously destroyed is an admission that the tobacco tax is not bogus and is not an example of new laws.
With little respect ... stuff it!.
This is the kind of guy who would have charged a use tax on boarded up windows and the tea thrown into Boston Harbor.
Becki
Don't know.
It would be fair to assume that imported tobacco is taxed upon entry and one would see that reflected in the cost price from that foreign country.
Whether the Jenkins Act applies or not, the Indian tribes are exempt, thus far.
Let me fix that for you and go tell the civil rights folks from the '60s that.
bump
WOW, I'll make note of your screen name. (in case any deep moral issues present themselves - I'll need to consult)
Boy ... am I ever with you on that!
Unlike our resident tax loving Raycpa, I'm all for a little "tea party"!
Should there ever be a tax on mental masturbation, Raycpa would have to declare bankruptcy.
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.