02 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonWoops, there goes your argument, collapsing in a pile of racist stereotypes.
They already were being taxed. Now its 10% more!
If Bush came out and put a 10% increase on ribs,fried chicken and watermelon only, Al Sharpton would be crying foul and saying it was race based. LMAO😵
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonWould it not be more racist (anti-white) not to tax tanning salons seeing as they are a known cancer risk for white people?
Starting Thursday, tanning salons nationwide will be stuck paying the federal government 10% more in taxes. And this most likely will be passed on to the customer. The tax is expected to help raise 2.5 billion dollars to go into the new health care program.
The government justifies the extra charge saying the industry is selling a known cancer ris ...[text shortened]... ]In reality is this tax not based on race? Who other than white people use tanning salons?[/b]
Personally I am very PRO any taxation that deters people doing things society does not want. It has always seemed idiotic to me to tax things that society does want (like earning money)
TAX tobacco
TAX alcohol
TAX drugs (yes they should be legal)
TAX tanning salons
TAX polluters
TAX waste
TAX salt
TAX fats
TAX sugar
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonwhen is the Reverend Al NOT crying foul and saying something is race-based?
They already were being taxed. Now its 10% more!
If Bush came out and put a 10% increase on ribs,fried chicken and watermelon only, Al Sharpton would be crying foul and saying it was race based. LMAO😵
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Yes, this is something the tax-bellyache crowd does not appear to realize - taxing "bad" things more means you are able to tax productive things less. This became painfully clear in the inheritance tax debate not too long ago.
Would it not be more racist (anti-white) [b]not to tax tanning salons seeing as they are a known cancer risk for white people?
Personally I am very PRO any taxation that deters people doing things society does not want. It has always seemed idiotic to me to tax things that society does want (like earning money)
TAX tobacco
TAX alcohol
...[text shortened]... ey should be legal)
TAX tanning salons
TAX polluters
TAX waste
TAX salt
TAX fats
TAX sugar[/b]
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonthis isn't about punishing white people, its about the govt looking for more tax money to fund their programs, they have to get money from somewhere and tanning salons just happened to be the probably less controversial way of getting what they wanted.
Starting Thursday, tanning salons nationwide will be stuck paying the federal government 10% more in taxes. And this most likely will be passed on to the customer. The tax is expected to help raise 2.5 billion dollars to go into the new health care program.
The government justifies the extra charge saying the industry is selling a known cancer ris ...[text shortened]... ]In reality is this tax not based on race? Who other than white people use tanning salons?[/b]
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59I am very PRO any taxation that deters people doing things society does not want.
Would it not be more racist (anti-white) [b]not to tax tanning salons seeing as they are a known cancer risk for white people?
Personally I am very PRO any taxation that deters people doing things society does not want. It has always seemed idiotic to me to tax things that society does want (like earning money)
TAX tobacco
TAX alcohol
...[text shortened]... ey should be legal)
TAX tanning salons
TAX polluters
TAX waste
TAX salt
TAX fats
TAX sugar[/b]
typical european socialist thinking, to hell with personal freedom, "lets bully people until they become healthy by abandoning their evil smoking and drinking".
btw, since we're going down the puritan road, why not tax the sex industry while you're at it.
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by generalissimoWrong thread, generalissimo. Your post belongs on Thread 131382.
you should have said something more FMF-like, "Im unconcerned" followed by "hey aren't you that guy who supports dictators?" would have been more characteristic.
02 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoits always less controversial when whites are affected. After 400 years of committing oppression,slavery and genocide they deserve what they get.
this isn't about punishing white people, its about the govt looking for more tax money to fund their programs, they have to get money from somewhere and tanning salons just happened to be the probably less controversial way of getting what they wanted.
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCut people that smoke lose from universal guvamint mandated healthcare. They have made a choice that increases the risk of cancer. You should note that point KN and refrain from blatant exaggeration. "Smoking increases the risk of cancer" not "smoking causes cancer" someone might accuse you of being misleading (you seem so concerned about that on another thread.)
I'm sure certain races smoke more than others. Is that a reason to not tax tobacco because it causes cancer? I would prefer a 200% tax. People will get less cancer, and women will be more attractive. Win-win.
Should you be made to post a warning every time you make that statement. Everytime you say "smoking causes cancer" you should be regulated into giving over a certain area of your post to a guvamint mandated warning "smoking increases the risk of cancer" so the consumers of your posts aren't mislead.
Of course not only people that smoke should be exempt from universal guvamint mandated healthcare, but anyone that puts their health at risk should be given the choice.
Hugh makes an excellent point tanning centers actually are a much safer way to tan the tax will push more people out into the sun, oh dear the unintended consequences of busybody bureaurat meddling, so bleedin obvious.
Forget the race angle.
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt's so cute when European ethnics play the "victim" card, especially when their supposed "victim" status is solely the result of being non-victims!
its always less controversial when whites are affected. After 400 years of committing oppression,slavery and genocide they deserve what they get.
