I want more taxes

[Ralph Wiggum]

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.

At least they're being honest....but still 

[NHSparky]

At least they're being honest....but still 

After you, DUmmies.

[thundley4]

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.

[Alpha Mare]

I want more taxes..blah blah....wouldn't cost me.
  

I want a 100% tax on asshats.

[JohnnyReb]

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.

[Alpha Mare]

I think there is already a "pot tax" law from the 1930's.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I want a 100% tax on asshats.

 

[GOBUCKS]

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.

[USA4ME]

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.

.

[The Village Idiot]

Nobody believes they actually want to pay more personally.

[Chris]

If that DUmmy likes more taxes, Ohio is a great place to start.

[docstew]

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...

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

[DefiantSix]

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.   

[ScubaGuy]

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.

[DefiantSix]

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.

[The Village Idiot]

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.

[Celtic Rose]

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.

[NHSparky]

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...

[ScubaGuy]

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

[Celtic Rose]

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

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.

[GOBUCKS]

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.

[jukin]

That's great!!

I propose a 100% tax on cheetos, snack foods, and pot.

[LC EFA]

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.

[Airwolf]

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.