This is what gets me -- Do as we say, not as we do.

~blah blah blah...~
We still haven't discovered why you're so upset about this.

It's not bashing, it's not calling for anyone's head, it's just pointing out that the man who said he wanted to "project a sense of confidence" doesn't have a brain one in his staff who says, "Uh, Mr. president let's get all the water bottles and coke cans out of here before we allow pictures" at the VERY least!

That's not even addressing whether they have them there or not.

It's this kind of brain-deadedness that had them flying air force one and fighter jets over lower Manhattan.

NOT the change we were looking for.
 
The term "sin taxes" is just a nickname, moron. It has no legal basis whatsoever.
Read and learn, stupid.

Pigovian tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you really believe tha the governemt has taxed water and sugar becuase of it's negative effect on soceity? Despite that fact that the human body is made mostly of water and that sugar is one of the other most vital components?

Or is it the recyclable bottles?

I can understand applying those justifications for tax in the case of tabacoo, where there is a huge cost of healthcare.

But water and sugar?

You really were born yesterday weren't you?

Try this - the government is trying everything they can to off set the deficit - so they found some lame excuse that appealed to environmental nut cases for taxing water and sugar.

All they really cared about is raising revenue.

Grow up.
 
OMG! BOTTLED WATER!

That's worse than a BJ from an Intern!

IMPEACH THEM ALL!

Are you guys out of your fucking mind or what!?!?!?

IDIOTS!!!!!
As idiotic as putting a punishment tax on it, and taxing sugar too? Then, not leading by example?

Hey, they are all wealthy and can afford to pay that "sin" tax. Why the hell should they care? You don't honestly think they give a rat's ass about us poor slobs outside that room do you?

Immie
 
Understand, this is not a nitpick or a "gotcha" deal. It's not any kind of major deal. But it's a little irritating to me when we have all these things we really shouldn't be doing, like buying bottled water and sugared soda pop, and being 'green' and we see the leaders not leading by example.

I present to you dear readers, photos of the President and his cabinet, and ask: If it's good enough for us, why isn't it good enough for them?

And even more to the point: If they're going to preach this stuff and tax this stuff (they are) shouldn't someone among them with a brain cell say, "You know, let's start here. Let's do away with bottled water and sugared pop. Ya'll can drink out of glasses and get diet soda only. We should be leading by example."

Pictures:

szfjwo.jpg

xpa1kg.jpg

hu3oe1.jpg


I personally would take them a little more seriously if the OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTOS didn't have bottled water and sugared pop cans in them. But, that's just me.

What say you?




Sorry, but I'm having trouble remembering Barrack Obama telling me to stop drinking bottled water. Can you provide me with a link?



I'm also not quite sure how its hypocritical to use something that you also favor a tax on. Maybe you can explain that one for me.
 
Last edited:
I personally would take them a little more seriously if the OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTOS didn't have bottled water and sugared pop cans in them. But, that's just me.

What say you?


Those are the cleaned up ones after they got rid of the bongs and the coke mirrors.
 
OMG!

The President uses multi-ply toilet paper!

What an extravagant waste of tax payers money!

The President should set an example and use the tea leaves left over from a TP rally.

That would be setting a good example!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Are you sure about that...

I could swear I read somewhere that he wore Pull-ups.

I probably should go look for the link to that, but hell, It's midnight and I just don't want to.

Immie
 

Sorry, but I'm having trouble remember Barrack Obama telling me to stop drinking bottled water. Can you provide me with a link?



I'm also not quite sure how its hypocritical to use something that you also favor a tax on. Maybe you can explain that one for me.


What do you think they are going to VAT?
 

Sorry, but I'm having trouble remember Barrack Obama telling me to stop drinking bottled water. Can you provide me with a link?



I'm also not quite sure how its hypocritical to use something that you also favor a tax on. Maybe you can explain that one for me.


What do you think they are going to VAT?



??? How is that going to stop me? If I have enough money to buy it, I can drink it. Just the same as now.
 
Just wait until everything costs 20% more and economic stagnation causes your income to flatline - and then get back to me on that.
 
All that will happen when VAT is implemented.
 
Hypocrites for sure. Even if they weren't such obvious hypocrites i still wouldn't support their agenda though. This is just more entertainment for me in the end. Thanks.
I don't know whether to call it hypocrisy or just that they don't really care about their image.

I think it IS hypocrisy that environmental groups aren't raising a little hell over it though.


Enviromentalists--addressing this administration in a negative way? You're kidding right--:lol::lol:
 
Just wait until everything costs 20% more and economic stagnation causes your income to flatline - and then get back to me on that.

All that will happen when VAT is implemented.

All that will happen when VAT is implemented.

Is that what happened last time the federal government levied a VAT?

Not that I support the frigging VAT, Boedica, but the truth is that if a VAT were passed it would not take long before the market corrected for the price fluctuation.

Just as they would should income taxes and corporate taxes be eliminated and The Fair Tax were implemented.

The market would correct itself and rather quickly, I am sure.

Immie
 
Not that I support the frigging VAT, Boedica, but the truth is that if a VAT were passed it would not take long before the market corrected for the price fluctuation.


Really...how?

How has that worked in Europe?

- Higher structural unemployment.
- Less discretionary spending.
- Lower standards of living.

Increasing the cost of everything by 20% is not a simple price fluctuation. It is an expanse of government as a percent of GDP, which sucks oxygen out of the private sector.
 
Not that I support the frigging VAT, Boedica, but the truth is that if a VAT were passed it would not take long before the market corrected for the price fluctuation.


Really...how?

How has that worked in Europe?

- Higher structural unemployment.
- Less discretionary spending.
- Lower standards of living.

Increasing the cost of everything by 20% is not a simple price fluctuation. It is an expanse of government as a percent of GDP, which sucks oxygen out of the private sector.

You'd have to look at what prices were before the VAT was instituted and what happened to those prices shortly thereafter.

If you have a $200 suit that is worth $200 and the government adds a 20% VAT bringing the cost to $240 but customers are not willing to pay $240 for it, but maybe they will fork over $210, the price of that suit will drop from $200 to $175 in short order... at least in theory. edit: because The Men's Wearhouse is not going to want to keep that suit on their racks forever.

Immie
 
Last edited:
So your answer is that manufacturers and retailers eat the tax - by either lowering quality via cheaper materials, lower costs (lay off workers), or lower returns on capital.

Great. Another wealth and income transfer to the government. In reality, supply will shrink as some suppliers decide that it is not worth it to be non-profit. Prices will remain high as consumers compete for fewer goods.
 

Forum List

Back
Top