Wiki info may be incomplete, anonymous cowardice

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Frank, Dec 28, 2009.

  1. Frank

    bob Guest

    Porgy Tirebiter!

    Oh, and 'Ray Fischer' is still a bigot.
     
    bob, Jan 4, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Frank

    Peter Guest


    Would you be able to handle experienced?
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Frank

    Peter Guest


    Many of the tax laws were written to implement economic policy. But, since
    the Fannie Fox incident, nobody has been able to do it right.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  4. Frank

    Peter Guest


    Back to the point. I would care because as a humanitarian I would have, at a
    minimum, the obligation to take care of those who you could not take care of
    because of your habit and probably even you. IIRC in a prior posting in this
    discussion you agreed that the government should take care of those who need
    help through no fault of their own.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  5. Frank

    Peter Guest

    Those dependant on you fall squarely within your definition. Are you saying
    that those that sell, manufacture and distribute this substance, that can be
    easily misused to cause harm should not be prosecuted?
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  6. Frank

    Peter Guest


    OK we agree on that. Now what should be done if your smoking makes me sick,
    which it does as I am highly allergic to smoke. Which way should the laws
    go?
    There is no such thing as separate, but equal.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  7. Frank

    Peter Guest


    Equal taxation across the board is regressive and adversely affects the
    lower income people
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  8. Frank

    Jeff R. Guest

    Wow.
    Consider myself spanked.
    That's a little further than even I am prepared to go.

    OK then (trying to salvage cred, here)
    How a bout if the trunk contained the *means to produce* child pornography
    (cameras, mag. cards, lights etc) and the data on the cards indicated many
    sessions of child pornography production.

    Surely that wouldn't imply the necessity to decriminalise the *possession*
    of such gear?
    Would it?
    Should it?
     
    Jeff R., Jan 4, 2010
  9. Frank

    Peter Guest

    Let's take a more statistically significant sample. The entire country. Have
    you compared the crime rate with that of GB?
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  10. Frank

    Peter Guest


    I said economic policy, not morality.
    Your conclusion ignores the fact that the tobacco companies had different
    pricing structures for different markets.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  11. Frank

    Peter Guest


    I was talking about those dependant on the drug addict.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  12. Frank

    Peter Guest


    Gun manufacturing is a completely legal activity. Just where did I ever
    refer to the armaments industry.

    I was clearly talking about distributors of illegal drugs. Face it, we do
    legislate morality. You set a standard of harm to innocents as a point where
    the government should legislate. I repeat why isn't the family of a drug
    abuser innocent. What about his 2 year old child.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  13. Frank

    Peter Guest

    Why can't you smoke in such a manner as not to deprive me of the freedom to
    go where I please, for any reason.
    Stop trying to pigeonhole me as a "liberal" just to further your argument.
    It's logically illogical.
    that argument cuts both ways. why should I be deprived of my choice of place
    to go. there's plenty of outdoors places.
    If smoking is not permitted, don't go there. Go elsewhere.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  14. Frank

    Peter Guest

    then perhaps you should do it. The numbers speak for themselves. A person
    with an income of $30,000 will pay a greater proportion of his income for
    necessities than a person with an income of $500,000. The tax law
    recognizes that economic fact. Indeed with your theory the poor person would
    pay a grossly disproportionately higher tax as a function of disposable
    income.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  15. Frank

    Peter Guest


    To me that's a very fair tax. Non-medicinal alcohol is not a necessity of
    life. to the extent I want a drink, I should pay. As I type this I am
    sipping a fine Madera. The government costs x dollars to perform its
    functions. Nothing seems more fair than to have you not pay for the
    infrastructure that brings me my Madera, if you don't drink. Indeed my drink
    lowers your taxes.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  16. Frank

    Peter Guest


    Where is your once of humanity. Now you are changing your argument. So when
    you said you would help innocents it is not true. What would you do with the
    2 year old child of an addict?
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  17. Frank

    Peter Guest


    See my earlier response. How good it is that those with your selfish
    attitude are not in control. BTW I am not sure that your statement is that
    of a true libertarian.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2010
  18. Frank

    tony cooper Guest

    You're operating on the concept that "sin taxes" are imposed to
    control morality. They aren't. They are imposed because the market
    involved is willing to pay higher costs to obtain the product.

    Tobacco and liquor taxes don't have significant effect on reducing the
    use. Increasing the tax, or decreasing the tax, will not
    significantly affect the volume of sales if that is the only control.
    Any reduction we see in the use of cigarettes will be from the
    multiple effects of health awareness, social pressure, laws against
    smoking in public places, and increased product costs.

    Gasoline pump prices are subject to the same disproportionate high
    taxes. These taxes are not "sin taxes". They are taxes levied for
    the same reason: they can be charged because people will continue to
    use the product regardless of cost.
     
    tony cooper, Jan 4, 2010
  19. Frank

    tony cooper Guest

    You are arguing that equal taxation rate across income levels is not
    regressive?

    Just once, I'd like to see you right on something. I haven't yet.
    It's amazing that someone has lived as long as you have and can remain
    so universally ignorant and wrong on so many subjects.
     
    tony cooper, Jan 4, 2010
  20. Frank

    tony cooper Guest

    Unfairly? You have just argued that equal taxation is not unfair.
    Now you are saying just the opposite. Cigarette and liquor taxes are
    equal taxation. The rich pay the same tax as the poor for the same
    product.
    No, taxes are derived from the sale of these products because the
    consumer is using these specific products.
    You, and only you, will decide if you pay a tax on the purchase of
    cigarettes or liquor. It is a tax that you can completely avoid if
    you choose to.
     
    tony cooper, Jan 4, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.