67% Excise Tax In Washington DC
- Thread starter JULIA HUGGINS
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- tax vaping washington
- Status
In Washington, D.C., cannabis is legal for recreational and medical uses, but is barred from commercial sale. Though the drug was fully legalized in the District following a 2014 ballot referendum, the United States Congress exercises oversight over the government of the District of Columbia, preventing the local government from regulating cannabis sales like other jurisdictions with authority derived from a U.S. state.
So, no, not taxed since it is illegal to sell.
The children of the executives trust funds anyway.
The democrat platform has always been the same as Robin Hood. Take for those that have to give to those that don't after they take their lions share. Thononly people that are ok with raising taxes are the ones that don't pay taxes to begin with. Also big tobacco gives ALOT of money to politicians and big tobacco is losing more every day. You can also throw big pharma in on the pile with big tobacco.
Didn’t someone earlier mention disagreement Xs flying and political axes grinding and how pointless that is in this case?
Rehashing basic economics does little for e-cigarettes. If it’s going to happen it’s going to happen though I guess.
The wealth redistribution issue:
It depends on how far left you go. This would be true in a Cuban, Lybian, or even a last century Swedish model. Even at its most left leaning though the US has never gone nearly that far. I would argue that it’s not redistribution, it’s plutocracy prevention. The far left solution doesn’t work, but neither does the far right solution. In both instances the government destabilizes and devolves from democracy into Oligarchy. In the US left, the point is not to redistribute, but to simply prevent hard knots of wealth from becoming self sustaining power bases. The “death tax” is my favorite example. It is actually called the “inheritance tax”. For a reason. The point is not to generate government revenue, but to prevent dynastic wealth. It would be just as effective to not take the money for the government, but simply put it in a pile and burn it. Throwing it into the gigantic government hopper though and making it effectively disappear that way keeps other taxes a bit lower though.
Last edited:
You obviously don't believe that you can keep what you work for and will use your death tax as an example. Why should my family give to the government more of my money because I die? That money has been taxed already. You might want to pay a little bit more attention to what the demonrats are saying. They sound like a turbo tax commercial. Free free free free free free free. They are openly running as socialist. Socialism has not and cannot work anywhere in the world. The loony left is working on destroying this country by trying to take what doesn't belong to them and give it to others. This is nothing new for demonrats it's just they're not hiding it anymore.
Last edited:
I just explained that. Did you not read what you quoted?
First of all that “more money” only happens if you’re really rich to start with. Multiple millions. So for 95% it doesn’t even happen at all.
That means one of two things:
1.) You are a 1%er (statistically unlikely though I suppose possible)
2.) you don’t even understand the law you are complaining about.
Or both maybe. Who knows? The one thing has been made clear recently is that being rich has almost nothing to do with being smart anymore.
Second of all it only happens AFTER YOU DIE keep what you worked for? You’re dead, silly. You want them to bury you with it like an Egyptian pharaoh or something? I suppose that’s one way to do it. It would work as well as a bonfire.
So? What if it has? Taxing is not the point. Removing landed gentry is the point. It’s only a tax because it’s slightly more efficient. If you’d rather have a bonfire of dollars or be buried in a multi million dollar sports car that’s fine too.
As for “the democrats” I don’t really care. This isn’t about parties it’s about basic economics and history. It has nothing to do with parties. This is how the world works.
ah. Actually “they” don’t. There is ONE (1) self described socialist legislator. She’s a slightly ridiculous though highly intelligent young former waitress that won on a bizarre fluke. Someone has been conflating the Democratic Party into a single person at you. It’s almost like they’re deliberately not telling you the truth.
Perhaps a definition of the word “socialist” is in order. That word is clearly different for you. I prefer the world wide historical one. It makes conversation with others easier it being a word and all. Was it defined for you by the same person who said that the entire Democratic Party was socialist perhaps?
See there’s something we agree on.
.Mostly at least. Pure Socialism can work, it just works really poorly and isn’t very stable. The Swedes did it for something like 30 years before the bottom fell off and they had to take steps. Even Cuba technically works. It doesn’t work very well and it’s a lousy place to live, but it functions, more or less.
Pure capitalism is the one that has never existed in real life for more than a few years at the outside though. It’s been tried many times. It generally destabilizes even faster than socialism, though both usually end up a total mess. Generally a few months. The record is something like 8 years, held by the nazis, and they only did it by pouring a constant flow of new wealth into their system stolen from various groups they didn’t like (not just the Jews, though they were numerically the largest) while implementing a totalitarian government AND going to war.
Ooh! A rhyme! Willing to bet you’re quoting someone else with that one. Your defined of socialism perhaps?
. OOhh! OOhh! Lemme guess.. By electing a series of unbelievably incompetent officials to top offices? No?
Um... By removing as many checks and balances from the government as they can? No?
How ‘bout by infecting the media which serves as the nation’s nervous system with a deluge of false signals? Come on, ya gotta like that one..
Ah. So like when that guy was taking half million dollar payments from wealthy parents of dumb kids and using it to bribe school officials and steal college slots from the smarter kids of poorer parents.
That’s what’s so hilarious about the whole political divide. Both sides agree on what the problems are. They’re just absolutely adamant on who caused those problems in the first place. Both of them are likely lying. The question is which one is lying more?
Like I said it obvious you believe that someone else is entitled to what you worked for. Go ahead and give the government everything you own. No need to wait to die.I just explained that. Did you not read what you quoted?
First of all that “more money” only happens if you’re really rich to start with. Multiple millions. So for 95% it doesn’t even happen at all.
That means one of two things:
1.) You are a 1%er (statistically unlikely though I suppose possible)
2.) you don’t even understand the law you are complaining about.
Or both maybe. Who knows? The one thing has been made clear recently is that being rich has almost nothing to do with being smart anymore.
Second of all it only happens AFTER YOU DIE keep what you worked for? You’re dead, silly. You want them to bury you with it like an Egyptian pharaoh or something? I suppose that’s one way to do it. It would work as well as a bonfire.
So? What if it has? Taxing is not the point. Removing landed gentry is the point. It’s only a tax because it’s slightly more efficient. If you’d rather have a bonfire of dollars or be buried in a multi million dollar sports car that’s fine too.
As for “the democrats” I don’t really care. This isn’t about parties it’s about basic economics and history. It has nothing to do with parties. This is how the world works.
ah. Actually “they” don’t. There is ONE (1) self described socialist legislator. She’s a slightly ridiculous though highly intelligent young former waitress that won on a bizarre fluke. Someone has been conflating the Democratic Party into a single person at you. It’s almost like they’re deliberately not telling you the truth.
Perhaps a definition of the word “socialist” is in order. That word is clearly different for you. I prefer the world wide historical one. It makes conversation with others easier it being a word and all. Was it defined for you by the same person who said that the entire Democratic Party was socialist perhaps?
See there’s something we agree on.
Mostly at least. Pure Socialism can work, it just works really poorly and isn’t very stable. The Swedes did it for something like 30 years before the bottom fell off and they had to take steps. Even Cuba technically works. It doesn’t work very well and it’s a lousy place to live, but it functions, more or less.
Pure capitalism is the one that has never existed in real life for more than a few years at the outside though. It’s been tried many times. It generally destabilizes even faster than socialism, though both usually end up a total mess. Generally a few months. The record is something like 8 years, held by the nazis, and they only did it by pouring a constant flow of new wealth into their system stolen from various groups they didn’t like (not just the Jews, though they were numerically the largest) while implementing a totalitarian government AND going to war.
Ooh! A rhyme! Willing to bet you’re quoting someone else with that one. Your defined of socialism perhaps?
. OOhh! OOhh! Lemme guess.. By electing a series of unbelievably incompetent officials to top offices? No?
Um... By removing as many checks and balances from the government as they can? No?
How ‘bout by infecting the media which serves as the nation’s nervous system with a deluge of false signals? Come on, ya gotta like that one..
Ah. So like when that guy was taking half million dollar payments from wealthy parents of dumb kids and using it to bribe school officials and steal college slots from the smarter kids of poorer parents.
That’s what’s so hilarious about the whole political divide. Both sides agree on what the problems are. They’re just absolutely adamant on who caused those problems in the first place. Both of them are likely lying. The question is which one is lying more?
It doesn't matter if I'm dirt poor or the richest man in the world, the government is not entitled to take my belongings because I'm dead. That belongs to who I decide to give it to. The fact that people such as yourself are envious of others success doesn't make it tight to be a grave robber.
If yo u would pay attention to what's hap loo ening yoh would see it's not just one former bartender that is a socialist. It has become most of the demonrat party anymore and it's getting worse. Your state is being overrun by refugees and soon you'll be praising Allah if you don't already. I feel sorry for people like you and because of people like you this country is being destroyed. Your party is trying to put this country on a path to be like Venezuela and your blind to it.
One thing I can agree on is both paties are worthless but the demonrats are so braindead they don't see the consequences of their action. The republicants don't want to lead and the demonrats can't lead.
I'm done argueing about this in this forum and I apologize for even beginning it here.
Im just responding in kind. This thread was headed for a one way ticket outside from the first time politics came up. I could, should have probably, just reported it, but it seems like such a weenie move. Historically what happens is:
Some right wing extremist spouts rhetoric. Usually not theirs. I, or someone else (5 or 6 someone’s iirc in this case) point out that it is rhetoric and that it should stop. If the logic used is particularly poor I may be unable wto stop myself from poking fun. The extremist continues anyway. I reply. They repeat themselves. I reply in detail. They realize they look stupid and report the thread themselves to get it away from view. The thread was dead though when @Opinionated went political on like post #2
Yeah... It's Always the "Other Side" that starts things. That gives Carte Blanche to whoever is Not on that side to Say what they Want.
And the Beauty of it is it works for whatever Side one is on. So No One ever needs to take any Blame. Or to Exercise any restraint.
Like I said, I probably just should have just reported it. What’s that phrase “don’t start none, wont be none”? I tried that at first though, and all sorts of people complained at me. So there are the two choices: spout rhetoric and cause an argument, or don’t. I’m for “don’t” myself. But I’m not going to sit there and just take it.
A young lad, a dedicated Democrat, was stranded on a desert highway after attending a political convention. Everyone drove past him refusing to stop, and he was was convinced he was going to die. Eventually a stunning blonde in a brand new Mercedes SLK convertible pulled over and offered him a lift, on the condition that he abandoned left wing politics and became a Republican. Reluctantly, the young man agreed, and abandoning his placards etc. got in the car.
Despite the conviviality of the driver the young man was clearly perturbed and the driver was quite concerned. Pulling over at the side of the road, she earnestly looked the former Democrat in the eyes and enquired "What's wrong?" The young man sheepishly replied "I've only been a Republican 15 minutes and I have the desperate urge to s**** someone!"
The more things change the more they remain the same. One of those jokes that can go both ways. All that needs to change is the wording. Most of those jokes are older than the languages they are spoken in. Good chance that car was once a carriage.
What on earth are you blaming me for? I said all of two sentences, you replied and I did not mount any defense or take any bait for debate.
So blaming me is utterly ridiculous. My two sentences aren't capable of getting this thread sent to the outside.
Report me? Go ahead.. I didn't do anything wrong!
Grow up..
It's the back and forth debating that sinks a thread, not having a small say concerning the politics side of vaping, and I never debated anyone.
Your the one to control your own actions, not me. Had you followed my suit, and given your opinion of the information contained in the OP, instead of trying to debate everyone else's opinions, perhaps none of the debating would have happened.
Ever consider that?
Obviously not because your busy blaming me!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
