Dems finally getting around to what they do best...Confiscate Wealth

[Mavdog]

just as your criticism of the "soak the rich" populism is correct, criticism of a few of the tax increases is incorrect.

increasing taxes on cigarettes? go for it! the habit of smoking adds to our country's health costs. in addition an increased cost of tobacco might deter some from taking up the habit.

increased costs to the oil cos for their gulf concessions? have you looked at the profit margins of the oil cos lately? do you know just how little they pay for the right to pull oil out of the public lands? go for it!

the tax on private equity is a bit more difficult, the investors are receiving favorable treatment of their profits relative to the corporate ownership structure, while they aren't taking more risk nor providing more benefits (in fact, if you look at the track record they are producing more layoffs). their returns are much higher and the opportunity to invest is limited to a small group of people rather than open to the public. tough issue...

so some tax increases would be acceptable and some would not.

[Henry_VIII]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

increased costs to the oil cos for their gulf concessions? have you looked at the profit margins of the oil cos lately? do you know just how little they pay for the right to pull oil out of the public lands? go for it!

If you think the money to pay the oil tax will come out of the oil companies profits, it's not going to happen. It's just another tax that you and I will pay in the form of even higher gas prices.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Henry_VIII

If you think the money to pay the oil tax will come out of the oil companies profits, it's not going to happen. It's just another tax that you and I will pay in the form of even higher gas prices.

We could think that is the case, but I think the fact that the oil companies manipulate prices anyway will come to an halt. Right now they are getting away with murder on the economy.

Just ask New Orleans how much they are getting for all that oil coming out of that region.

If we want to defend the oil companies, then the truth MUST come out. Start making ALL these oil companies pay their share of taxes, and also give the proper share of the revenues to the local region as well. It is a crying shame on how wealthy New Orleans could be if they got their just do part from that oil.


Now, I bet that wont come out in the public sector about this mess

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Henry_VIII

If you think the money to pay the oil tax will come out of the oil companies profits, it's not going to happen. It's just another tax that you and I will pay in the form of even higher gas prices.

you're confused.
this is a increased cost of the right to explore in public land (some of which is leased for as low as only a $1/yr), this is not an increase in the costs for refining.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

increasing taxes on cigarettes? go for it! the habit of smoking adds to our country's health costs. in addition an increased cost of tobacco might deter some from taking up the habit.

Same for drinking, Tax it! and junk food, Tax it! and injury causing sports, Tax it! and stress, Tax it! and stress related to higher taxes, Tax it! The motherland will either take care of you or take your money! Be warned!!!

increased costs to the oil cos for their gulf concessions? have you looked at the profit margins of the oil cos lately? do you know just how little they pay for the right to pull oil out of the public lands? go for it!

Same for my neighbor the real estate agent, Tax him! and for global rapist wal-mart, Tax them!!! and for Whole foods market, Tax them! and Apple with their capitalist iPod and iPhone, and huge profits, Tax them! and the Federal Government with their record breaking revenues, Tax them - oh, wait, never mind. More money for the government class!!!

the tax on private equity is a bit more difficult, the investors are receiving favorable treatment of their profits relative to the corporate ownership structure, while they aren't taking more risk nor providing more benefits (in fact, if you look at the track record they are producing more layoffs). their returns are much higher and the opportunity to invest is limited to a small group of people rather than open to the public. tough issue...

but what the hell? TAX THEM! we can figure out what to do with the money later. Its for the kids!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Same for drinking, Tax it! and junk food, Tax it! and injury causing sports, Tax it! and stress, Tax it! and stress related to higher taxes, Tax it! The motherland will either take care of you or take your money! Be warned!!!

Same for my neighbor the real estate agent, Tax him! and for global rapist wal-mart, Tax them!!! and for Whole foods market, Tax them! and Apple with their capitalist iPod and iPhone, and huge profits, Tax them! and the Federal Government with their record breaking revenues, Tax them - oh, wait, never mind. More money for the government class!!!

but what the hell? TAX THEM! we can figure out what to do with the money later. Its for the kids!

...so you're sarcasm says don't tax anything??? right.

every single group mentioned above (not the feds of course) do pay taxes in one form or another.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

...so you're sarcasm says don't tax anything??? right.

every single group mentioned above (not the feds of course) do pay taxes in one form or another.

uh, of course they pay taxes. But you aren't arguing for increasing taxes on all of them (or are you?). By your short-sighted logic, we should increase taxes because 1) something is unhealthy and 2) someone (or some company) pays little for some thing relative to how much they sell it for. That includes just about everything.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

uh, of course they pay taxes. But you aren't arguing for increasing taxes on all of them (or are you?). By your short-sighted logic, we should increase taxes because 1) something is unhealthy

uh, no, it isn't because they are "unhealthy" (do we tax people who eat too much vs people who don't? nope. how about people who don't exerise, no proposal to tax them either...) but rather an added tax on the consumption of a product to offset the increased costs to society from that consumption, as well as a deterrent to those who would begin use of an addictive substance.

which leads to a new tax that we should implement imho, and that is to stop the "war on drugs" against pot and legalize it and tax it. that is a tax I'd endorse, and a cost savings of the government that I'd support. how about you?

and 2) someone (or some company) pays little for some thing relative to how much they sell it for. That includes just about everything.

nope, it has nothing to do with "how much they sell it for", it has to do with a level playing field with corporate entities which the private capital competes with, entities that do assume the same risk/reward as the private capital. so if the private capital groups don't add more benefits to our society, nor take on more risk, why should they get favorable treatment on their gains relative to the corporate entities?

well? get it now?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

uh, no, it isn't because they are "unhealthy" (do we tax people who eat too much vs people who don't? nope. how about people who don't exerise, no proposal to tax them either...) but rather an added tax on the consumption of a product to offset the increased costs to society from that consumption, as well as a deterrent to those who would begin use of an addictive substance.

your increased costs are from the unhealthiness. You are talking about costs related to health, right? How else could someone's smoking bother you? People unhealthy for any reason cost society just the same as people unhealthy for smoking reasons. You could easily argue that drinking costs society more. Some people argue that McDonald's costs us more. I'd say domestic violence costs us more. Why not legalize domestic violence and tax it? Your arguments still do not separate smoking from eating bad.

nope, it has nothing to do with "how much they sell it for", it has to do with a level playing field with corporate entities which the private capital competes with, entities that do assume the same risk/reward as the private capital. so if the private capital groups don't add more benefits to our society, nor take on more risk, why should they get favorable treatment on their gains relative to the corporate entities?

Your mumbo-jumbo means nothing to me. I am a simple man, and when you wrote of "profit margins" "how little they pay for the right to pull oil out of the public lands" I interpret that simply as a difference between what someone pays to get something and what they receive when they sell it.

if you want to make a fancy-pants argument with more complexity, please make sense.

As for the deal someone struck to get the oil out of the ground, why is it the federal governments job to come along and tax the crap out of one party or the other in order to make that deal line up with what you think is right?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

your increased costs are from the unhealthiness. You are talking about costs related to health, right? How else could someone's smoking bother you? People unhealthy for any reason cost society just the same as people unhealthy for smoking reasons. You could easily argue that drinking costs society more. Some people argue that McDonald's costs us more. I'd say domestic violence costs us more. Why not legalize domestic violence and tax it? Your arguments still do not separate smoking from eating bad.

"unhealthiness"? I guess you need t better define the term.

the costs were explained well by sluggo up above.

people's "cost to society" due to their decisions vary imo. does drinking cost society more? might, but that substance is heavily taxed too, so the precedent exists.

mcd's isn't necessaily "unhealthy", it's those that abuse it that get unhealthy. too much of most anything is unhealthy imo. if one eats mcd's to much, they can exercise to mitigate the affects. that doesn't work for tobacco.

Your mumbo-jumbo means nothing to me. I am a simple man, and when you wrote of "profit margins" "how little they pay for the right to pull oil out of the public lands" I interpret that simply as a difference between what someone pays to get something and what they receive when they sell it.

oh, you're discussing the oil concessions not the private equity? OK.

the oil co. have leases on public lands, and some of those leases are at a few $ a yr. let me repeat that, a few $ per year.. they should pay a fair price for the ability to make millions of dollars from that right. a fair price, not an exorbinant price. that's pretty easy for even a "simple man".

if you want to make a fancy-pants argument with more complexity, please make sense.

As for the deal someone struck to get the oil out of the ground, why is it the federal governments job to come along and tax the crap out of one party or the other in order to make that deal line up with what you think is right?

if you're just a simple man, then everything is "a fancy pants argument", right?

the federal govenment is the steward of the public goods. it IS their job to ensure that the groups provided exclusive right to extract from those public properties pay a fair price for that right. if they are making an abnormal (some would say it's an obscene) profit from paying a ridiculously low amount for that right then it is reasonable to "tax the crap" out of them.

pretty easy concept for anyone, simple person or not...