March 31, 2009
Now, let us pause for a moment and think about how this tax hike makes any goddamn sense. Sure, it's supposed to pay for government programs while, at the same time, discouraging people from buying the products that are already heavily taxed to pay for those very same government programs. Uh-huh. If you think that's in any way rational or a good idea, go ahead and punch yourself in the dick. Or buy an economics textbook, maybe.
Posted by: Sean M. at
01:57 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: eddiebear at March 31, 2009 08:30 AM (wnU1W)
Yeah, I'm thinking I should too. The problem is, if I buy more cigars at a time, I smoke more cigars.
Eh, I'll just quit, it's not like it's valu-rite or anything.
Posted by: Veeshir at March 31, 2009 09:39 AM (zXUuJ)
This story is actually nice companion piece to the Wash Post story at by Slublog at Ace's about how changing the tax deduction won't affect how people give to charity.
The cigar tax story has this quote
"Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up, the use of cigarettes goes down,"
Wait, so what he's saying is that when things cost more, people buy less of it?
What economic school did that tool go to?
Posted by: Veeshir at March 31, 2009 09:46 AM (ThMnZ)
Errr, the story linked in Goldstein's comments about how lowering the amount of charitable donations you can deduct won't affect how people give to charity.
That story is wonderful, it's starts out ignorant, rude and hitting at four lefty tropes in the first paragraph.
In order: lobbyists bad, Obama's opponents are crazy, tax increases are small, and two, count them two, class warfare attacks in the opening, two sentence, paragraph.
Not really related to my point, but this is a beatiful quote from that story
Second, voluntary private charity is a less equitable way to solve community problems. While many people assume that the rich amass their wealth on their own, the truth is that their business interests are almost always aided by public efforts such as roads, bridges and ports through which they ship their goods or public schools that educate their workforces. Given that even the wealthiest benefit greatly from this modern "public commons," it is wrong to give them unilateral power to decide whether their taxpayer-subsidized donations should go to, say, well-heeled operas or lavish care of pets rather than to organizations that meet more pressing communal needs.
You know, cuz even though their taxes go to roads, bridges, ports, schools and, except for occasionally schools, don't receive charitable donations, since they use these things, the gov't has the right to take their money and decide which charity gets it.
Posted by: Veeshir at March 31, 2009 09:59 AM (ThMnZ)
I quit on Mar 15, after smoking for 35 years.
The tax increases are not to discourage smoking. Your government is banking- literally- on your continued addiction feeding the pigs in Washington.
You can cooperate, or you can say 'no more'.
Posted by: Jones at March 31, 2009 07:13 PM (KOkrW)
Buy Facebook Fans
Posted by: seo plus at September 22, 2011 12:56 AM (fWkh8)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.








