Taxing bad behavior

[Skull Pilot]

"Distractionaries" aside, the power to tax should not be used to punish bad behavior. That's what criminal and regulatory law is for.

Exactly my point.

Either make a substance or activity illegal or let people decide for themselves whether or not to indulge or participate.

Smoking is legal yet I will never smoke but it is wrong to tax those who smoke because the ******* government finds it undesirable.

 

[Big Fitz]

"Distractionaries" aside, the power to tax should not be used to punish bad behavior. That's what criminal and regulatory law is for.

Not that the left thinks that. Any tool to manipulate society into a socialist workers hell hole is valid.

You'd like what small point Paul Ryan made last night on Mark Levin's show then.

Because Obamatax is now almost completely tax and regulation, it can be repealed through reconciliation and repealed through methods that cannot be filibustered.

Hmmmmmm.... Perhaps John Roberts was counting on this?

 

[Big Fitz]

"Distractionaries" aside, the power to tax should not be used to punish bad behavior. That's what criminal and regulatory law is for.

Exactly my point.

Either make a substance or activity illegal or let people decide for themselves whether or not to indulge or participate.

Smoking is legal yet I will never smoke but it is wrong to tax those who smoke because the ******* government finds it undesirable.

Wellllll... I've little problem with a CONSUMPTION tax (other than hating to see prices rise), I do have problems with Obamastyle NON-Consumption taxation. I'd rather see the income tax repealed and replaced with consumption taxes, tariffs and fees forcing a drastic cutback in government size and responsibility while getting the government hand out of my pocket every April 15th and letting me keep my entire paycheck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both SP and dblack want to use sources cnsnews and have them accepted.

My definition is as good as anybody's until someone gives a credible source and definition.

Guys, you don't get to make up stuff and then say "refute it" and be taken seriously.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Both SP and dblack want to use sources cnsnews and have them accepted.

My definition is as good as anybody's until someone gives a credible source and definition.

Guys, you don't get to make up stuff and then say "refute it" and be taken seriously.

Your definition is one you made up.

Find a source that uses the term government force in the definition of social engineering and you may have a leg on which to stand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You made the assertions, son, now you back them up with solid sources about what is and are examples of social engineering and then whether SE is good or bad.

You do that, then I respond in can.

You don't get to make an assertion as above then demand I refute it with evidence.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You made the assertions, son, now you back them up with solid sources about what is and are examples of social engineering and then whether SE is good or bad.

You do that, then I respond in can.

You don't get to make an assertion as above then demand I refute it with evidence.

What evidence?

You didn't link to anything all you did was offer your opinion that social engineering is the use of force by government.

Tell me do you have a different definition of evidence than the rest of us ?

 

[dblack]

I've yet to hear any good justification for why taxes should be used as punishment, or as a means manipulating behavior. Can't we use real laws for that?

 

[oldernwiser]

"Distractionaries" aside, the power to tax should not be used to punish bad behavior. That's what criminal and regulatory law is for.

Exactly my point.

Either make a substance or activity illegal or let people decide for themselves whether or not to indulge or participate.

Smoking is legal yet I will never smoke but it is wrong to tax those who smoke because the ******* government finds it undesirable.

Wellllll... I've little problem with a CONSUMPTION tax (other than hating to see prices rise), I do have problems with Obamastyle NON-Consumption taxation. I'd rather see the income tax repealed and replaced with consumption taxes, tariffs and fees forcing a drastic cutback in government size and responsibility while getting the government hand out of my pocket every April 15th and letting me keep my entire paycheck.

So, it's OK if that revenue stream isn't coming out of YOUR pocket. Mighty huge of you.

 

[oldernwiser]

I've yet to hear any good justification for why taxes should be used as punishment, or as a means manipulating behavior. Can't we use real laws for that?

I don't know if there are any "good" justifications, but there was a case back in the 70s when the Japanese was getting it's car manufacturing act together. They began to export the cheap and comparatively much more fuel efficient vehicles at a time when we were being hit with a major fuel shortage. Good business as far as I'm concerned, and well timed.

The response from Washington - and the Detroit Union - was to "Buy American". A trade tariff was imposed which essentially punished Americans for wanting to buy a vehicle which wouldn't have broken the bank either with financing or with fuel economy. This "protected" Detroit and gave our car manufacturers a chance to catch up and meet American demand. However it also gave Detroit a good reason to keep those prices up - just under the tariff.

Now, using a law specifically to restrict certain countries from doing business in the US would most likely send the wrong message and hurt overall world trade. Making it illegal to buy a Japanese import wouldn't be the right way to go either. But penalizing consumers is easy - it doesn't require special legislation and the penalty can be raised or lowered without repealing or re-legislating.

Like I said, it's AN example, and the story continues with both sides having to deal with the ramifications of government control of commerce for years as a result.

 

[Big Fitz]

Exactly my point.

Either make a substance or activity illegal or let people decide for themselves whether or not to indulge or participate.

Smoking is legal yet I will never smoke but it is wrong to tax those who smoke because the ******* government finds it undesirable.

Wellllll... I've little problem with a CONSUMPTION tax (other than hating to see prices rise), I do have problems with Obamastyle NON-Consumption taxation. I'd rather see the income tax repealed and replaced with consumption taxes, tariffs and fees forcing a drastic cutback in government size and responsibility while getting the government hand out of my pocket every April 15th and letting me keep my entire paycheck.

So, it's OK if that revenue stream isn't coming out of YOUR pocket. Mighty huge of you.

Didn't say I had NO problem, but I see the point on it. I'm aware of the Whiskey Rebellion and why it happened. Unfortunately, that's how this country was funded till the Great Depression started pushing those taxed to lower and lower incomes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Distractionaries" aside, the power to tax should not be used to punish bad behavior. That's what criminal and regulatory law is for.

Exactly my point.

Either make a substance or activity illegal or let people decide for themselves whether or not to indulge or participate.

Smoking is legal yet I will never smoke but it is wrong to tax those who smoke because the ******* government finds it undesirable.

Wellllll... I've little problem with a CONSUMPTION tax (other than hating to see prices rise), I do have problems with Obamastyle NON-Consumption taxation. I'd rather see the income tax repealed and replaced with consumption taxes, tariffs and fees forcing a drastic cutback in government size and responsibility while getting the government hand out of my pocket every April 15th and letting me keep my entire paycheck.

Sin taxes are nothing but arbitrarily applied consumption taxes.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

I just found out some cocksucking motherfucking rightwing punk motherfuckers are going to another board where i post and revealing my name and location

great, cant wait till november for the war, ok with me....................................

 

[dblack]

Exactly my point.

Either make a substance or activity illegal or let people decide for themselves whether or not to indulge or participate.

Smoking is legal yet I will never smoke but it is wrong to tax those who smoke because the ******* government finds it undesirable.

Wellllll... I've little problem with a CONSUMPTION tax (other than hating to see prices rise), I do have problems with Obamastyle NON-Consumption taxation. I'd rather see the income tax repealed and replaced with consumption taxes, tariffs and fees forcing a drastic cutback in government size and responsibility while getting the government hand out of my pocket every April 15th and letting me keep my entire paycheck.

Sin taxes are nothing but arbitrarily applied consumption taxes.

They can be applied via income taxes as well. Tax incentives that reward/punish behavior are essentially the same thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You made the assertions, son, now you back them up with solid sources about what is and are examples of social engineering and then whether SE is good or bad.

You do that, then I respond in can.

You don't get to make an assertion as above then demand I refute it with evidence.

What evidence?

You didn't link to anything all you did was offer your opinion that social engineering is the use of force by government.

Tell me do you have a different definition of evidence than the rest of us ?

I don't have to evidence anything if all you are doing is making assertions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You made the assertions, son, now you back them up with solid sources about what is and are examples of social engineering and then whether SE is good or bad.

You do that, then I respond in can.

You don't get to make an assertion as above then demand I refute it with evidence.

What evidence?

You didn't link to anything all you did was offer your opinion that social engineering is the use of force by government.

Tell me do you have a different definition of evidence than the rest of us ?

I don't have to evidence anything if all you are doing is making assertions.

What assertion did I make?

I made a statement that the government should stop it's social engineering via sin taxes.

You then redefined social engineering to mean government force used to uphold the law during the civil rights movement which is utterly ridiculous.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That, SP, is an assertion. I asserted that social engineering that government force could be used during the civil rights movement (US LEO), which is certainly correct, as well as taxation.

SP, the government has the inherent right to use force to compel certain behavior.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That, SP, is an assertion. I asserted that social engineering that government force could be used during the civil rights movement (US LEO), which is certainly correct, as well as taxation.

SP, the government has the inherent right to use force to compel certain behavior.

And are you going to link to a source supporting that ridiculous assertion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That, SP, is an assertion. I asserted that social engineering that government force could be used during the civil rights movement (US LEO), which is certainly correct, as well as taxation.

SP, the government has the inherent right to use force to compel certain behavior.

And are you going to link to a source supporting that ridiculous assertion.

You made the original assertion, so I am waiting for you to source and support it, then I will be glad to.

You don't get to make an assertion, good or silly, then demand someone refute it with evidence. That is not how it is done.

 

[BDBoop]

I think if you dropped out of high school, you should not get any government-provided healthcare, welfare, or food stamps.

I think if you have four kids by four different fathers, you should not get any government-provided healthcare, welfare, or food stamps.

Enough with the seat belts, 16 oz sugary drink limits, and plastic bag bans. If we are going to start being a nanny state and forcing people to take proper care of themselves, then we need to start getting ******* serious about it.

Apparently, it really only IS class warfare when it is aimed in the other direction.