test
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Paul Coleman <pdcolemanjr@...> wrote:
>
> Which is the pr behind nearly all taxes.. For example in Texas they state amazon.com must now charge tax because schools need money...so the people now believe all the additional money raised will now go to the schools... In reality probably less than 5 percent will find its way to education... it's all about pr so that governments can cover their own checks
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Tim Tucker <smellypuppy@...> wrote:
>
> > Not putting these words into tabbycat's keyboard, but my answer to your query is:
> > By adding an increased tax burden on a business sector that is still vital to Nevada's economic recovery, where that business sector is at a prosperity level of still negative growth now and probably into the foreseeable future is trying to provide a short-term stop gap to the state's problem, which will not be enough for this given the numbers of the state's problem, at the expense of further harming economic growth.
> >
> > I found your statement about taxing the other guy interesting, but did not uncover the real problem. Whether it is Social Security, tobacco, cars, etc. the tax is supposed to go to a specific use, but in most cases does not, so that the government can spend money on whatever they decide instead of what they are supposed to.
> >
> > To: vpfree@yahoogroups.com
> > From: bobdancervp@...
> > Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 23:36:56 -0700
> > Subject: RE: [vpFREE] LVRJ: Comp meals must be taxed, NV state Tax Commission find
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tabbycat wrote: Stupid ruling. This guarantees stingier F&B comps in days ahead.
> >
> > Typical brain-dead bureaucratic money grab.
> >
> >
> >
> > While I agree that stingier F&B comps are in our future (and said as much on last Thursday's radio show), I don't understand what makes this a stupid ruling or a brain-dead bureaucratic money grab. States need to generate income from somewhere, and everybody rathers that "other people" are the ones footing the bill. To most non-gamblers it makes sense to tax casinos more. (And to most non-smokers it makes sense to tax smokers more. And to most non-drinkers . . . etc.) Is it just because it hurts us that it's a "stupid ruling?" Or do you have a less-self-centered argument as well? Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
