[theophilusscribe]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to:
FreeRepublic, LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

[counterrevolutionary]

If under this same "Liberal" logic then shouldn't increasing taxes on condoms therefore increase revenue and decrease sex and incedents of pregnancy.

It would certainly decrease condom use, but it would not necessarily decrease sexual activity.

[Lunatic Fringe]

It would certainly give a new meaning to the term "sin tax."

[counterrevolutionary]

Incidentally, are you suggesting that taxing a commodity will not decrease use of that commodity and raise revenue?

[Equality 7-2521]

You can't smoke cigarettes without cigarettes, and you can't drink alcohol without alcoholic beverages but you can sure as hell screw without condoms. Since sex probably wouldn't decrease significantly if condoms were less available, pregnancy would most likely increase as would sexually transmitted diseases.

I hope you were just trying to be silly with your line of reasoning?

[KarlInOhio]

I did not have a taxable relationship with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

[connectthedots]

Based on the frequency with my ex-wife, I would be entitled to a huge refund.

[KarlInOhio]

Politician (John Cleese): Gentlemen, our MP saw the PM this AM and the PM wants more LSD from the PIB by tomorrow AM or PM at the latest. I told the PM's PPS that AM was NBG so tomorrow PM it is for the PM. Give us a fag or I'll go spare. Now, the fiscal deficit with regard to the monetary balance, the current financial year excluding invisible exports, but adjusted of course for seasonal variations and the incremental statistics of the fiscal and revenue arrangements for the forthcoming annual budgetary period terminating in April.

First Official (Graham Chapman): I think he's talking about taxation.

Politician: Bravo, Madge. Well done. Taxation is indeed the very nub of my gist. Gentlemen, we have to find something new to tax.

Second Official (Eric Idle): I understood that.

Third Official (Terry Jones): If I might put my head on the chopping block so you can kick it around a bit, sir...

Politician: Yes?

Third Official: Well most things we do for pleasure nowadays are taxed, except one.

Politician: What do you mean?

Third Official: Well, er, smoking's been taxed, drinking's been taxed but not... thingy.

Politician: Good Lord, you're not suggesting we should tax... thingy?

First Official: Poo poo's?

Third Official: No.

First Official: Thank God for that. Excuse me for a moment. (leaves)

Third Official: No, no, no - thingy.

Second Official: Number ones?

Third Official: No, thingy.

Politician: Thingy!

Second Official: Ah, thingy. Well it'll certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job.

[shaggy eel]

,,, all your sex are belong to tax?

[CARTOUCHE]

Putting a user tax on condoms would cause a rise in the street price for coke. It might also result in wash and wear varieties. Imagine them hanging over the shower rod like the old ladies' pantyhose.

[Gadsen]

That would never work. The Govt gives them away for free in the pubic (that's right pubic) schools and just about everywhere else. A 100% tax on ZERO is still zero.

[beavus]

Don't want to just reduce condom use. Best to simply tax sex. Then it can be regulated. The FDWT can put its stamp of approval on people's genitals to control STDs. The process can be made easier for people by employing automatic withdrawal.

[xm177e2]

You NEED tobacco to smoke. You NEED alcohol to get drunk. You don't NEED condoms to have sex.

[2grit]

Does that mean you'd be paying with a rubber check? Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Buckeroo]

Let's see, now...... there are about 280,000,000 folks living in America. Assuming that women and men equally divide the poulation base, thus 140,000,000 million couples this leaves us with a "potential untapped LOVE tax base."

Since the federal government now owes 6,000,000,000,000 (6 trillion dollars) we can strip this debt away by taxing sexual activity. Most couples have sex twice a month (on average). With these simple numbers, we can now find the tax value of having sex to get us out of debt.

6,000,000,000,000/140,000,000//24 equals 1800 US dollars per love session. But all of this is just another cheap date to the government.

[gorush]

What? Are you trying to put me in the poor house?!