Letter from my Senator-
- Thread starter plantlvr
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's awesome Anita. I tried over the summer, but I've been mixing 4mg and 0mg to stay at 2mg until I can handle it. The jump from 4 to 0 was too much too fast. Hopefully by my 1yr vaperversary in April I can get to 0mg.
OK, I'll bite!
The purpose of IDEA is to (presumably) help "difficult" kids get educated. Why is that a good thing? Its supposed to end up easing their burden on society when they reach adulthood, and in the best of cases, make them contributing members and taxpayers.
Given that, why should only certain segments of the population support that? What happens if part of that segment shrinks? Should we promote membership in that segment to make sure the revenue gets in? Should we suggest the recipients of IDEA join that segment later on in order to PIF?
No, ALL of society should support narrow programs like IDEA, if such programs benefit society at large.
If you are going to tax a narrow segment of the population, the revenue from that should go to support that narrow segment. Like auto-registration fees go to roads, fishing/hunting licenses go to conservation programs, cigarette taxes should go to education/health-care for users, etc etc.
One COULD use the same argument about IDEA and education in general: only parents should pay taxes for education.... but (having no kids) I don't actually agree with that because education DOES (or should) benefit society at large (I don't want to pay welfare for huge percentages of young illiterate adults who are incapable of getting jobs).
This is why I support such concepts as flat-tax, and (believe it or not) property tax (the more property you own, the more you have reason to want gov services to help protect it). While at the same time I support user-pays type stuff (like fishing licenses and auto-registration). But "sin-taxes" (especially if the revenue goes to another narrow, unrelated cause) create an unholy alliance (promote it or lose the revenue).
sorry if I ranted.
No apology needed.
We just have a difference in opinion of how taxes should be distributed. Though honestly, you seem to be saying two different things and trying to have it both ways. You want to say that e-cig users represent a small portion of society, and that they shouldn't be taxed to support IDEA.
"No, ALL of society should support narrow programs like IDEA, if such programs benefit society at large."
At the same time, you want portions of society to be taxed for certain things, and such taxes only to be used for those purposes,
" . . . the revenue from that should go to support that narrow segment. Like auto-registration fees go to roads, fishing/hunting licenses go to conservation programs, cigarette taxes should go to education/health-care for users."
I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to say???
If you're claiming that, in general, "sin" taxes are bad, then that's a different argument entirely. Again, in my opinion, alcohol and other recreational activities that cause a drain on society in so many ways are fit to be taxed. I get what you're driving at as far as an "unholy alliance," but my guess is that you're from the camp that believes, rightly so, that prohibition doesn't work. If that's the case, then let's turn the negative into a positive and make some money. I'm not looking for high taxes to curb behavior, that's societal, and it has been proven that government cannot successfully socially engineer the behavior of its citizens. Again, prohibition of alcohol, drugs, guns, etc.
And by the way, IDEA does a lot more than help "difficult" kids get educated for the benefit of the rest of us. First, I don't personally have children with disabilities, but those who do may take issue with your "difficult" label. Second, IDEA came about for the benefit of those with disabilities who were being excluded and discriminated against because of their disabilities. Really, it's a little insensitive on your part to paint it that way.
We just have a difference in opinion of how taxes should be distributed. Though honestly, you seem to be saying two different things and trying to have it both ways. You want to say that e-cig users represent a small portion of society, and that they shouldn't be taxed to support IDEA.
"No, ALL of society should support narrow programs like IDEA, if such programs benefit society at large."
At the same time, you want portions of society to be taxed for certain things, and such taxes only to be used for those purposes,
" . . . the revenue from that should go to support that narrow segment. Like auto-registration fees go to roads, fishing/hunting licenses go to conservation programs, cigarette taxes should go to education/health-care for users."
I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to say???
If you're claiming that, in general, "sin" taxes are bad, then that's a different argument entirely. Again, in my opinion, alcohol and other recreational activities that cause a drain on society in so many ways are fit to be taxed. I get what you're driving at as far as an "unholy alliance," but my guess is that you're from the camp that believes, rightly so, that prohibition doesn't work. If that's the case, then let's turn the negative into a positive and make some money. I'm not looking for high taxes to curb behavior, that's societal, and it has been proven that government cannot successfully socially engineer the behavior of its citizens. Again, prohibition of alcohol, drugs, guns, etc.
And by the way, IDEA does a lot more than help "difficult" kids get educated for the benefit of the rest of us. First, I don't personally have children with disabilities, but those who do may take issue with your "difficult" label. Second, IDEA came about for the benefit of those with disabilities who were being excluded and discriminated against because of their disabilities. Really, it's a little insensitive on your part to paint it that way.
haExcellent point ARMYVAPR.
How this in anyway ends up as a stump opportunity to flame Sen. Feinstein makes no sense. The letter itself is a standard form letter, informative about the proposed amendment, thankful, and takes no stance one way or the other. She doesn't sit on the Finance Committee nor is she even a Co-Sponsor.
S.1403 isn't even scheduled for this congressional session. As well a few seats on the Finance Committee will be vacant due to retirement and several others are coming up for re-election in 2012. This only increases the overwhelming odds that this will never pass committee let alone see light of day in the House or Senate.
Rant...facebook..piss anyone else off. Say it isn't so Waylon that just doesn't sound like you at all.
oh well ...won't be the first or the last, thats what makes us unique ,my friends know we can disagree and i'll fight for your right to express your opinion and respect them anyway .Sorry but i cant stand feinstein/boxer .However ,last year i wrote a letter to both on another issue and have to say there was never any response from Feinstein's office but several back and forth from Boxer's .
The only thing i have in common with most californians is that I was born and raised here .As to politics ..i usually don't express my opinion outside of my house .If I lived in Texas I would be ok .
in most neighborhoods .I have one staunchly liberal brother who went to Berkeley and one staunchly republican brother who served in Vietnam and needless to say we DONT talk politics
OMG. 
By "difficult", all I meant was "more challenging than the average" - nothing more.
And yes, at first it seems I'm arguing for/against two different things, but what you failed to recognize in my comments was that it (taxation) is a two-way street: revenue collected, and monies distributed. What I have difficulty with is taking revenue from one narrow channel, and distributing it to another narrow channel.... and to a lesser extent, to a broader (but still different channel).
I think it is unfair to put revenue from hunting/fishing licenses into roads. It would be slightly LESS unfair for that same revenue to go into the general fund. Now, change "hunting/fishing licenses" to any other narrow segment, and my argument would still be the same.
And yes, I think sin-taxes are bad, but I also beleve we'd be better off if we legalized some currently illegal activities and taxed them, in part to pay for also regulating them, and also to go to the general fund. But I do not think its wise to send that money to a particular special interest (e.g. amtrak subsidies).
I hope that clarifies.
And yes, at first it seems I'm arguing for/against two different things, but what you failed to recognize in my comments was that it (taxation) is a two-way street: revenue collected, and monies distributed. What I have difficulty with is taking revenue from one narrow channel, and distributing it to another narrow channel.... and to a lesser extent, to a broader (but still different channel).
I think it is unfair to put revenue from hunting/fishing licenses into roads. It would be slightly LESS unfair for that same revenue to go into the general fund. Now, change "hunting/fishing licenses" to any other narrow segment, and my argument would still be the same.
And yes, I think sin-taxes are bad, but I also beleve we'd be better off if we legalized some currently illegal activities and taxed them, in part to pay for also regulating them, and also to go to the general fund. But I do not think its wise to send that money to a particular special interest (e.g. amtrak subsidies).
I hope that clarifies.
Cool, thanks.
It seems like you're trying to achieve a level of fairness in taxation that I just doubt is possible. If there was a perfect world where that balance could be achieved we'd agree, but I don't believe that world exists.
Conflict is inherent in politics. Creating a winner will always create a loser.
Just my take, but I see where you're coming from.
Thanks for biting.
It seems like you're trying to achieve a level of fairness in taxation that I just doubt is possible. If there was a perfect world where that balance could be achieved we'd agree, but I don't believe that world exists.
Conflict is inherent in politics. Creating a winner will always create a loser.
Just my take, but I see where you're coming from.
Thanks for biting.
I personally think that if you are a company like Steve and Mark did here, or you are a company that lets say makes an item from scratch, and you mass produce it, even if it started as a mom and pop shop and became as big as Microsoft lets say, then NO you should not be taxed, because you are making the material's yourself.
This is the only place right now I can think of that does make everything from scratch. V4L has a a place in China that makes the nicotine, the juice, the flavor's all of it. Now since they are making it themselves, the government should not have any say in it. Now if Vendor A said "Hey I am guna buy juice from V4L and sell it on my site" Then yes, they should get taxed...
Idk if you guy's can follow what I am trying to get at, but it is basically "Ok I made the milk from my cow, and I want to sell it at my shop, I should not have to charge tax since it is from my cow" Kinda idea, and that is what V4L is, they are the people that "milk the cow" and give us what they made at a price they set.
But if you are a huge place like Microsoft, and you are selling your items to lets say best buy or walmart, then yes. Walmart and Best Buy should have to tax for it since they themselves did not create it.
I hope that made sense, and I think that is the idea he was getting at.
Boxer and Feinstein should have been booted out on their asses years ago in my opinion! They are a perfect example of why California is going down the toilet! I am a native Californian and I can tell you - California is truly turning into a welfare state and hot bed of illegal aliens - it is very disturbing and why I am planning to get the hell out of here ASAP!
Sorry if I offended anyone but it is the truth.
amen sister ...were not retiring here thats exactly how my hubby feels about cali .If we could go now ,we'd be gone .
I guess you two might be among my other CA acquaintances who refer to it as PRK: Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia.
Thats exactly my husbands name for it .
I guess you can tell our leanings lol .
I guess you can tell our leanings lol .
A little update for those who were worried:
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
I myself still have no problem with taxes to fund this, but I understand that there are those who do, and I get it.
You can all breathe a short sigh of relief---for now. I'm sure they'll find another, probably less admirable thing to fund with tobacco/nicotine taxes.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
I myself still have no problem with taxes to fund this, but I understand that there are those who do, and I get it.
You can all breathe a short sigh of relief---for now. I'm sure they'll find another, probably less admirable thing to fund with tobacco/nicotine taxes.
To come at this from another angle... anyone know any congressional folks, governors, or presidential candidates who've gone on record in support of vaping? The only one I can recall is Ahhhhhnold, who stepped in to lend some support here in CA a while back. (Take that you CA bashers! 
) Anyone else come to mind?
Edit: in case you missed it, here's what Arnie did and certainly deserves credit for. We need more stories like this.
http://www.prlog.org/10373237-arnold-schwarzenegger-vetoes-cigarette-ban-bill-in-california.html
) Anyone else come to mind?Edit: in case you missed it, here's what Arnie did and certainly deserves credit for. We need more stories like this.
http://www.prlog.org/10373237-arnold-schwarzenegger-vetoes-cigarette-ban-bill-in-california.html
Last edited:
My rep in NY for State Senate, Maziarz, sent me a reply a while back when there was a possible law here seeking to ban e-cigs. He was very supportive. Acknowledged the benefits etc.
Starting at the State level is usually the best way to go. The more local you can be the better.
Starting at the State level is usually the best way to go. The more local you can be the better.
Finally a Senator that supports them besides Arnold in CA. If NY won't ban them, no one else will. NY is known as the strictest state out there.
Well arnold is history now ..were stuck with Jerry Brown ( for the 2nd time ) First time he was busy dating Linda Ronstadt and trying to be cool lol
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
