The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Ralph Wiggum on March 16, 2010, 11:01:27 AM
-
safeinOhio(1000+ posts)
Tue Mar-16-10 11:42 AM
Original message
I want more taxes (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7928322)
Yep. At least a penny or 2 on all emails. Might cost me a buck or 2 a month and worth every penny to see the spam people pay for every one. I also would like ten cents put on every share of stock that is traded. That might cost me 10 bucks a year, but also slow all the mega bank program trades that only cause excess speculation, raising prices on everything from gas to sugar. I might even go for a flat 50% tax on all income gained on credit default scores, wouldn't cost me.
Balance the budget, pay for health care, whatever.
At least they're being honest....but still :bird:
-
At least they're being honest....but still :bird:
After you, DUmmies.
-
I want a federal tax stamp required for pot. Possession busts would involve federal tax evasion charges if the person didn't have the required tax stamps.
-
I want more taxes..blah blah....wouldn't cost me.
I want a 100% tax on asshats.
-
I want a federal tax stamp required for pot. Possession busts would involve federal tax evasion charges if the person didn't have the required tax stamps.
I think there is already a "pot tax" law from the 1930's.
-
I think there is already a "pot tax" law from the 1930's.
(http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/uploads/1232477-TaxStamp.JPG)
-
I want a 100% tax on asshats.
:II: :clap:
-
I think the DUmmy is just bragging that he trades 100 shares of stock every year. That puts him in the financial stratosphere at the DUmp.
-
txaslftist
3. Go ahead and write a bigger check. They'll take it.
Exactly. Ever see any of the primitives talk about the extra money they send to the IRS? Never. They don't even try to lie and claim that they do.
.
-
Nobody believes they actually want to pay more personally.
-
If that DUmmy likes more taxes, Ohio is a great place to start.
-
I want a federal tax stamp required for pot. Possession busts would involve federal tax evasion charges if the person didn't have the required tax stamps.
Talking to my supervisor yesterday, he says SC has one of those, and does bust people for tax evasion...
-
That DUmbasses hate supply-side economics is no secret.
They believe consumers drive an economy (never asking where these wages should come from if no one is being paid to supply goods and services) hence their facination with dcifict spending and "stimulus" programs that will allegedly drive consumers to spend money on an economy.
But if DUmbasses insist on paying more taxes--direct of otherwise--does that not diminish their ability to spend money in the economy?
A little internal consistency would be nice...at least once.
-
That DUmbasses hate supply-side economics is no secret.
They believe consumers drive an economy (never asking where these wages should come from if no one is being paid to supply goods and services) hence their facination with dcifict spending and "stimulus" programs that will allegedly drive consumers to spend money on an economy.
But if DUmbasses insist on paying more taxes--direct of otherwise--does that not diminish their ability to spend money in the economy?
A little internal consistency would be nice...at least once.
Now now, O floppy eared one. It's considered bad form to introduce facts into a DUmbass' world view. It's like not leaving that one arm tied behind your back or something. :fuelfire:
-
I sort of agree with the DUmmie on taxing e-mail messages but not as a way to increase revenue but to decrease SPAM.
Imposing a minuscule $0.0001 tax on all outbound e-mail could do a lot to deter spammers. As things are now a spammer will blast the same Cialis mail to 50 million addresses, 4 times a day seven days at very little cost.
If they have to start paying for blasting all that SPAM they'll either have to cut back or do some targeting of who they're sending the mail to.
-
I sort of agree with the DUmmie on taxing e-mail messages but not as a way to increase revenue but to decrease SPAM.
Imposing a minuscule $0.0001 tax on all outbound e-mail could do a lot to deter spammers. As things are now a spammer will blast the same Cialis mail to 50 million addresses, 4 times a day seven days at very little cost.
If they have to start paying for blasting all that SPAM they'll either have to cut back or do some targeting of who they're sending the mail to.
I haven't had to deal with a single stick of spammed junk mail since I switched my email host to Gmail. I also don't have to pay to get it to interract with Outlook, like I used to with hotmail.
-
I sort of agree with the DUmmie on taxing e-mail messages but not as a way to increase revenue but to decrease SPAM.
If they start the tax on the 50,000th email per day or something.
-
I sort of agree with the DUmmie on taxing e-mail messages but not as a way to increase revenue but to decrease SPAM.
Imposing a minuscule $0.0001 tax on all outbound e-mail could do a lot to deter spammers. As things are now a spammer will blast the same Cialis mail to 50 million addresses, 4 times a day seven days at very little cost.
If they have to start paying for blasting all that SPAM they'll either have to cut back or do some targeting of who they're sending the mail to.
That only works if you assume that spammers are based in the US. A great many are based overseas, which would really prevent this tax from having any appreciable effect.
-
I was gonna say to the DUmmie OP, if you want more taxes, just sit there and wait. Obama will make sure you get lots and lots more taxes to pay...
-
That only works if you assume that spammers are based in the US. A great many are based overseas, which would really prevent this tax from having any appreciable effect.
Right now the US is still in the lead for SPAM volume by individual country, but you're correct that there's little that can be done about all the rest.
SPAM stats for this week (http://www.m86security.com/trace/spam_statistics.asp)
-
Right now the US is still in the lead for SPAM volume by individual country, but you're correct that there's little that can be done about all the rest.
SPAM stats for this week (http://www.m86security.com/trace/spam_statistics.asp)
Yes, but according to the chart, even with the highest volume, it accounts for less than 10% of the spam. That means that 90% of spam would not be effected by this sort of tax.
-
Yes, but according to the chart, even with the highest volume, it accounts for less than 10% of the spam. That means that 90% of spam would not be effected by this sort of tax.
You're not thinking like a democrat lawmaker. He would solve that problem in an instant - just apply the tax to both the sender and the recipient.
-
That's great!!
I propose a 100% tax on cheetos, snack foods, and pot.
-
safeinOhio(1000+ posts)
Tue Mar-16-10 11:42 AM
Original message
I want more taxes
Yep. At least a penny or 2 on all emails. Might cost me a buck or 2 a month and worth every penny to see the spam people pay for every one. I also would like ten cents put on every share of stock that is traded. That might cost me 10 bucks a year, but also slow all the mega bank program trades that only cause excess speculation, raising prices on everything from gas to sugar. I might even go for a flat 50% tax on all income gained on credit default scores, wouldn't cost me.
Balance the budget, pay for health care, whatever.
You want more taxes - only under the assumption that that you won't be paying them you filthy feculant hemorrhoid.
How about you just send an extra $50 to the IRS per year then sit down and STFU.
-
Feel free to write a check DUmmy. You talk a fair game but in reality its only OK so long as YOUR not getting hit more then your next door neighbor. Then again I'm betting that you would rather be like the rest of that swamp over there and just live off the work of others and continue to be a boil and the ass of humanity.
-
I haven't had to deal with a single stick of spammed junk mail since I switched my email host to Gmail. I also don't have to pay to get it to interract with Outlook, like I used to with hotmail.
I've never used Outlook for hotmail. I've always just typed in hotmail.com and it takes me to the sign in page. Then again, I have several accounts at Yahoo, a couple at Lycos, another at MyWay, a cubs.com account, and my ISP provider accounts. It makes it easier to send out spam from multiple accounts. :-)
-
I sort of agree with the DUmmie on taxing e-mail messages but not as a way to increase revenue but to decrease SPAM.
Imposing a minuscule $0.0001 tax on all outbound e-mail could do a lot to deter spammers. As things are now a spammer will blast the same Cialis mail to 50 million addresses, 4 times a day seven days at very little cost.
If they have to start paying for blasting all that SPAM they'll either have to cut back or do some targeting of who they're sending the mail to.
My problem with this is it will serve as a backdoor for bureaucrats to tack on more taxes on internet usage....
i.e. Just check out the evolution of the income tax. It was sold to the public as a "tax on the rich"....
-
I want a 100% tax on asshats.
How about a 5 cent/point tax on IQ's below 100....
The DUmp will be bankrupt within minutes....
-
How about a 5 cent/point tax on IQ's below 100....
The DUmp will be bankrupt within minutes....
Sir, you're hitting hardest, the two things that DUmbasses have in least abundance: brain cells and money. What will they buy pot and Cheetos with if you tax all their money away? Both quarters? :-)
-
Sir, you're hitting hardest, the two things that DUmbasses have in least abundance: brain cells and money. What will they buy pot and Cheetos with if you tax all their money away? Both quarters? :-)
That's why I only charge them 5 cents/point of IQ below 100....
Any more, and it would cut into their pizza money....
-
(http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/uploads/1232477-TaxStamp.JPG)
The LA Dept of Revenue sold pot stamps for a few months. Stamp dealers were the only one that bought them. I wish I had bought some cause they are probably worth a pretty penny today.