miked10270

OK. That's what's under discussion. Is this anti-gun or revenue-raising? Surely with the foregoing you have successfully argued that this is a revenue-raising measure rather than an anti-gun or anti gun-crime measure. As such, it's a valid tax - a means for the local government to raise money for its other activities. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

I'll bet that both iPods & toilet paper are taxed already under the standard sales tax. We're talking about special additional taxes here - the so-called "Sin-Taxes". In the case of iPods they are a one-off purchase so wouldn't raise much in the way of revenue. Toilet paper is considered an "essential" so a special tax would be politically unacceptable. The art to successful local taxation is not to apply a massive tax to a luxury item - that'll just drive folk away to buy it elsewhere. However, if you can identify a cheap consumable which is vital to the use of a luxury item, then that's a superb way of raising revenue - far more rewarding than taxing the actual luxury item. Consider for example your favourite gun. Lets say it cost $1,000. Ammunition costs 10 cents a shot. In the course of your guns life, do you actually spend more on buying the gun, or more on the ammunition you put through it? Same with a car. do you ultimately spend more on the car or more on the fuel for it? Same with a camera, do you ultimately spend more on the film and processing than on the actual camera stuff? I know I have. From that viewpoint, taxing ammunition (or fuel or film & processing) makes perfect sense. Far more sense than taxing guns or cars or cameras. In fact, there could be an argument for giving a tax break on guns, cars, cameras etc... On the basis that you're going to make more from the relatively cheap, recurring, consumable purchases which people are far less likely to travel to buy. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

I must defer to your greater knowledge of local ammunition costs. The secondary effects of this tax would be to discriminate against the use of small caliber ammunition and would of course have a far greater impact on the poorer segments of society (the same as all flat-rate taxes). So... Suppose that the proposal was for a 10% bullet tax, rather than 10 cents a unit. Would that change your perception of the tax or would you still see it as an anti gun measure rather than as a source of additional revenue? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Or more likely the "Wrong kind of people" with such a level of taxation. 10 cents a round on the other hand, is a raise-money tax... Sufficient to pinch a bit, but not so high as to force people to abandon their gun use because that would defeat the purpose of the tax. And this is really what this discussion is about; Whether you see this tax as a means of raising money or a means of prohibiting gun use (at least among the lower income classes). Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Yeah... I'd pack myself! but it's a bad analogy to compare taxing such a service. Let's say that Fl placed a special $50 tax on a jump ticket... Then there'd be a lot less jumping done in Fl, with most folk saving up and going to Az twice a year for loads of jumps. But... For an occasional single jump, then it may be cheaper for Fl residents to go to a local Dz than it would be to travel out of state. The thing with taxes is that they might modify behaviour, but they certainly raise money. Some counties in the US DO outlaw alcohol - they're called "dry-counties". Many states outlaw gambling. Some states do legislate to outlaw the use of tobacco by banning smoking in public. Some other states or counties choose to allow such things and tax them. So... The question is whether Cook County is seeking to outlaw firearms or make extra money from their use. A 10cent bullet tax tends to suggest the latter. If Cook County really wanted to prohibit guns I'm sure that there's other ways to go about it that'd be far more effective than this tax, perhaps by some variation on business laws to make operating any business connected with firearms prohibitively expensive. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Owning or buying ammunition harms no-one of course... And is no more likely to cause harm than owning, buying & using tobacco, alcohol, fuel, a car, or gambling money at a casino. The point of "sin taxes" is not to curb bad behaviour, rather it is to raise money from enjoyment or stuff that isn't essential to survival or basic comfort. "Pleasure-Tax" or "Luxury-Tax" may be a better term. In some cases people will travel to purchase. However, the cost of travel to obtain cheaper goods must be considered. For smaller purchases the cost of obtaining the cheaper goods may outweigh the saving made, in which case the goods will be bought locally and the tax paid. A classic example of this is UK tobacco taxes. By travelling to mainland Europe, tobacco can be bought for arounf 1/3rd to 1/2 the price. It's cheaper to travel if you're buying 5Kg of tobacco or more, but for lower amounts it's cheaper to just go to the local shop and pay the UK tax. In a way this works out as a "poor-tax" in that those who can't afford the large outlay to travel and buy in bulk must pay the higher local price. So... It'll be interesting to see how this particular tax works out. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Source: Sun Times So, gun owners should have to pay for the county's fiscal mismanagement, and shooting sports are now a "sin", like drinking or smoking, that does harm to people and society... I think those shooters will just go outside the county to purchase their ammo. It's certainly an interesting tax. Governments, both local and national, raise money by taxation, and generally set out to tax stuff that folk want... That way they get to raise money. I guess that in this way it's no different from taxes on fuel, sales tax, gambling taxes, tobacco, alcohol, etc... The reaction ot this tax is interesting. People who quite happily pay "sin" taxes on alcohol, tobacco, gambling, fuel, vehicles, luxury goods, etc... (including guns), choose to be outraged by a specific tax on bullets! I feel that this tends to say more about the institutional paranoia prevalent in the NRA than about Cook Countys fiscal policy. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

The world will be less stupid for her passing. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

I'll help you see it (emphasis mine) "But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work." So, by his own standards, William Arkin is ALSO a mercenary. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Is "Taking Precautions" actually feasible? It requires total abstinence throughout life!.. What about women who don't use a condom because they're married & use another contraception or want kids? As I understand it, this vaccine is only effective on someone who hasn't been exposed to the disease - hence the idea of vaccination of folk BEFORE they're likely to become sexually active. A bit like the Rubella vaccinations to protect against fetal damage by a contracting the disease during pregnancy... Surely no-one is suggesting that the Rubella vaccination encourages pregnancy, are they!!? It seems to me that because this is a vaccination against a sexually-transmitted-disease, some folk are making the (pretty massive) leap to the conclusion that the vaccination will in itself encourage sex. Is that necessarily the case? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Incidentally, there is one part of the articles quoted which is puzzling; The cost of the course of vaccinations. In Texas a course is costed at $360. In Britain / EU a course is costed at £65 (call it $120). So apparently this vaccination will be some 3X more expensive in the US. Can anyone explain? I wondered if Britain /EU with socialised medicine could be quoting the vaccination cost only while the US are quoting the total cost of the vaccination including doctor/nurse time, etc... Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Here's the Brit / European take on this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5411038.stm Given that under our socialised medicine system this vaccine will be free, making it near mandatory seems more like good medical practice than profiteering & corruption on the part of Merck. OK, Merck WILL make a fortune from this, but that's what happens when you invent something that a lot of people need. In the long run this vaccination's going to be A LOT CHEAPER in many different ways than the cost of cervical smears, Cervical Cancer treatments, and deaths from this disease. The vaccination itself is a good thing - like any vaccination program and it's universal use could see Cervical Cancer going the same way as Smallpox within 70 or 80 years. This "scandal" is more a reflection on the way US politics works than on the evil of big drug companies. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Weren't the two seperate? I know that MacArthur was ordered to stop at the Yalu River, but The PRC intervened as he was approaching anyway. I understood that the motivation for the fledgling PRC was that they were afraid of a pro-Chinese-Nationalist state on their border, particularly on the "traditional" invasion route into China and its economic centre, as so recently demonstrated by the Japanese. Hence their energetic support for the elder Kim while Stalin was telling him to run! Then, during the Chinese /DPRK drive south and their mass attacks, MacArthur wanted control of Nukes to annihilate the Chinese & DPRK columns and this is what was refused by Truman, but as much on tactical grounds as political ones. Not only was it impossible to identify a target which would still be present when the attack was mounted, but the appearance of the MiG-15 had rendered the B-29 obsolete and not very likely to successfully deliver a nuke. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Actually it's very depressing that anyone would think Dunkirk is a good parallel for the situation in Iraq. Hmmm... You "could" draw parallels with Dunkirk & the fall of France. The folk who decided to fight on in the face of a militarily superior aggressor... The refusal to make peace and work with the all-conquering coalition Axis.... Perhaps not the best of parallels to draw on methinks! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

But effective - and profitable. We Cluster-McNugget their population centres (Population Centres sound much nicer than Bamboo shacks or caves)... Then wreck their economy by charging exhorbitant prices for those little plastic tubs of sauce and serviettes and moist wipes (Which knowing McDonalds are probably made in North Korea anyway). It's exactly the sort of win-win situation that made western empires great! One where the "Client-State" pays US money for stuff that THEY actually produce. After all, isn't that the core definition of an empire? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

I would have thought it'd be more of a semi-colon... Right between the words "Bush" and "Incompetent". Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

NAhh... If we were goint to be REALLY nasty, we could always drop Cluster-McNuggets on their cities... OK, towns... Err, villages... OK, hamlets... Houses? Actually, thinking about it... Filling a couple of B-2 bomb-bays with chicken McNuggets and dropping them on Pyongyang would send a hell of a message. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

It strikes me, from what I've seen of the Westboro Baptist Church, that they are far more concerned with PUBLICITY than God. I assume this from the way they target certain funerals. There's been several times in the past that I've voiced my own thoughts on the solution to them, and their "so great belief in freedom of speech and religious assembly." 1. Get one of those online religious minister certificates. 2. FIND OUT WHERE THOSE BASTARDS LIVE AND SLEEP! 3. Hold a 24/7 religious meeting according to your deeply held beliefs in the ultimate power of LOUD rock music in an appropriate place with appripriate amplifiers. It must be legal... If you need a precedent, the US government did the same thing to General Noriega, didn't they? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Yeah... Same here. When he got so unpopular that (juniour) ministers were resigning & MPs were mass signing letters calling for him to resign, he did say he'd go... But didn't say when! All he's said is that "This will be my last party conference, which suggests he'll leave within a year. Hence pundits are estimating that he'll leave in May 2007. Of course, that pre-supposes that he's actually telling the truth THIS TIME! In the meantime, Bliar is so patently self-centred that he WANTS a legacy - some achievement that he can point to as entirely his own. He can hardly claim to be "Britain's Greatest Prime Minister". Not after Iraq, and he hasn't led us in a successful war like The Falklands or WWII. He's equalled The iconic Margaret Thatcher's number of successive election victories (but I don't think he'd like to risk trying to beat that record at the moment). So... The only thing left is "Longest Serving Modern Prime Minister"... And for that, he'll have to hang in there for another 2 years. I think he'll actually try and go for it, I think that's been his target all along. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Since "Phoney" Tony Bliar has said he's going to resign his prime-ministership, everyone has started to speculate on WHEN!!? My guess is: 21st November, 2008! No earlier! Regardless of what he says! My reasoning is that Margaret Thactcher, the "longest (continuous) serving British prime Minister" entered office on 4th May 1979, and left office on 22nd November 1990. Tony Blair entered office on 2nd May, 1997. To become the new "longest serving... Etc..." He has to stay in power one day longer than Maggie. Hence the significance of 21/11/2008. A General Election isn't demanded in the UK until 2009, so it's now a purely internal party affair and depends on his ability to survive as Prime Minister until then. "Please stay on, Tony! We love you, Tony!".... Not my words, only what was said at the party conference. I bet he will... Reluctantly, of course. Mike. (Off to the betting shop to put a fiver on this). Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Ha! That's Nuttin'... My local takeaway does Deep-Fried Snickers Bars.. King-Sized Ones!!! My own favourite is still Deep-Fried Fry's Turkish Delight though... After all, if they're made by Fry's, that HAS to be a hint!! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Or... The Bucks Stop Here! ? I wonder how financially beneficial Dubbie's presidency has been for his family and friends. I'm not suggesting direct bribery, but you prefer to work with people you know and talk to them about what you're going to do. It's not QUITE insider-trading, but... A little foreknowledge of where your money's going to do best, getting a contract when everything else is pretty much equal, being asked to do some research... Consulting & Lobbying fees & expenses... I'd guess that Dubbie has done a lot better than his salary as president. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

There ya go Matt. Back on topic, I think that yer modern, ISLAMIC Terrorists are much nicer than the old (Irish) ones. I for one really appreciate the way they bomb and shoot up places where I'm NOT!!!

OUR "Local Presbyterian Church" is too busy shooting Catholics to deal with Mosques (yet)! Hence my earlier Ian Paisley references. As for the question about what the quiet majority of Muslims are doing - they're being quite. It just isn't news. "Muslims understand Pope's comments" won't sell any media advertising. Pics of Muslims going to work like nothing's happened won't sell, regardless of the fact that that's exactly what 99%+ ARE doing. Media coverage is given out based on who's making the most noise, not how sensible or representative they are. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Guess they don't have "turn the other cheek" in their holy book. Any more than certain other "Christian" Churches & ministries such as Ian Paisley's Orangemen? Not that I'm defending Choudray's remarks, just pointing out that extremist vicious bigotry isn't the exclusive preserve of Islam, and is no more representative of the religion than Paisley is of the Protestant churches. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.