Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55
  1. #21
    cogitans is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,403

    Re: Vikings might go statewide for money

    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "cogitans" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "cogitans" wrote:
    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    [quote author=ultravikingfan link=topic=35526.msg599255#msg599255 date=1183646787]
    Why can't they just raise the sales tax or increase tobacco taxes?
    A lot of other cities did that and got stadiums.
    What the flip is wrong with people of there?
    Our sales tax is already high, and they just raised the tobacco tax by an entire $1.00 per pack!
    How much is it. Ours is 25%
    Sales tax is 6.5%. But we also pay state income taxes. State property taxes. Gas taxes to the state. Cigerrette taxes to the state. Alcohol taxes to the state. Car taxes to the state. Plus there are additional taxes in Hennepin county to pay for the new stadium.
    Any I missed?
    We don't need more state taxes!!!!!
    Don't worry. We got those too and more. Our total income tax is somewhere between 40-65% according to incomelevel
    We also have federal taxes. SS and medicare is 15.3% right of the top. Plus individual tax rates from 10-38% depending on your income. I understand that others around the world sometimes pay more taxes, and that at different times in U.S. history taxes have been higher, but we are one of the wealthiest countries on earth, the total amount collected in the U.S. is many times more than the amount that is collected in any other country, and yet our representatives still find ways to go into debt. It makes me so angry.
    http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
    [/quote]

    I'm not going to debate you here. I'm really already outside of the topic. You should decide how you set things up over there with you.

    Thanks to PPE for the sig.

  2. #22
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Vikings might go statewide for money

    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    No your wrong, they did just raise the tax on tobacco.
    No they did not.

    http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/sscigtax.htm

    Read it slowly, you might learn something.

    =Z=
    This is what I learned...

    [glow=red,2,300]The 2005 Legislature [/glow]also imposed a health impact fee of 75 cents per pack of cigarettes and 35 percent of the wholesale price of tobacco products.
    Combining the Minnesota’s excise tax and fee, the burden equals $1.23 per pack and 70 percent of the wholesale price of tobacco products.
    This fee is imposed and collected in the same manner as the cigarette excise tax.
    Correct.
    So - in 2005, the legislature added the "Health Impact Fee".
    Not a tax.
    It walks and quacks like a tax, but it isn't - that is what the lawsuit from earlier this year was all about, how the fee was enacted w/out the proper procedure for imposing a new tax.
    The courts ruled that it was not a tax, so the fee is still on the books.

    In any case, that was 2005.
    Not 2006 or 2007.
    So they did not, in fact, "Just raise the tax on tobacco."

    Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  3. #23
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Re: Vikings might go statewide for money

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    No your wrong, they did just raise the tax on tobacco.
    No they did not.

    http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/sscigtax.htm

    Read it slowly, you might learn something.

    =Z=
    This is what I learned...

    [glow=red,2,300]The 2005 Legislature [/glow]also imposed a health impact fee of 75 cents per pack of cigarettes and 35 percent of the wholesale price of tobacco products.
    Combining the Minnesota’s excise tax and fee, the burden equals $1.23 per pack and 70 percent of the wholesale price of tobacco products.
    This fee is imposed and collected in the same manner as the cigarette excise tax.
    Correct.
    So - in 2005, the legislature added the "Health Impact Fee".
    Not a tax.
    It walks and quacks like a tax, but it isn't - that is what the lawsuit from earlier this year was all about, how the fee was enacted w/out the proper procedure for imposing a new tax.
    The courts ruled that it was not a tax, so the fee is still on the books.

    In any case, that was 2005.
    Not 2006 or 2007.
    So they did not, in fact, "Just raise the tax on tobacco."

    Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

    =Z=
    I am pretty sure the tax took affect in 06. Maybe you are ok with raising taxes every 2 years but to me that seems like a little too often. It is a tax.

  4. #24
    Billy Boy is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,426

    Re: Vikings might go statewide for money

    Correct.
    So - in 2005, the legislature added the "Health Impact Fee".
    Not a tax.
    It walks and quacks like a tax, but it isn't - that is what the lawsuit from earlier this year was all about, how the fee was enacted w/out the proper procedure for imposing a new tax.
    The courts ruled that it was not a tax, so the fee is still on the books.

    In any case, that was 2005.
    Not 2006 or 2007.
    So they did not, in fact, "Just raise the tax on tobacco."

    Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

    =Z=
    LOL, sneaky sneaky.
    I was like WTF is Zeus talking about?


    All the kids my age pee their pants, it's the coolest.

  5. #25
    BloodyHorns82's Avatar
    BloodyHorns82 is offline Jersey Retired Feed The Frog Champion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,691

    Re: Vikings might go statewide for money

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    No your wrong, they did just raise the tax on tobacco.
    No they did not.

    http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/sscigtax.htm

    Read it slowly, you might learn something.

    =Z=
    This is what I learned...

    [glow=red,2,300]The 2005 Legislature [/glow]also imposed a health impact fee of 75 cents per pack of cigarettes and 35 percent of the wholesale price of tobacco products.
    Combining the Minnesota’s excise tax and fee, the burden equals $1.23 per pack and 70 percent of the wholesale price of tobacco products.
    This fee is imposed and collected in the same manner as the cigarette excise tax.
    Correct.
    So - in 2005, the legislature added the "Health Impact Fee".
    Not a tax.
    It walks and quacks like a tax, but it isn't - that is what the lawsuit from earlier this year was all about, how the fee was enacted w/out the proper procedure for imposing a new tax.
    The courts ruled that it was not a tax, so the fee is still on the books.

    In any case, that was 2005.
    Not 2006 or 2007.
    So they did not, in fact, "Just raise the tax on tobacco."

    Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

    =Z=
    I don't think you won...I think you proved yourself wrong with the link you provided.
    Its exactly what we were referring to.
    Your opinion of what recenetly happend and mine are different.
    You let the government fool you into thinking its not a tax.


    Let's be honest here...its a fucking tax.
    So instead of reality assurance, your really just nit-picking the statements made.

    Its a tax.
    Just because they sugar coat it doesn't mean its not a tax.
    I believe THE TAX went into effect last year, which in my book "recently happened"




  6. #26
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Vikings might go statewide for money

    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    Its a tax.
    Just because they sugar coat it doesn't mean its not a tax.

    I believe THE TAX went into effect last year, which in my book "recently happened"
    The courts ruled that it was not a tax.
    In my book, that is what matters.

    And "recently happened" was not the phrase used.
    The phrase was "just raised the tax on tobacco".

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  7. #27
    COJOMAY is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,005

    Re: Vikings might go statewide for money

    For information...
    The original Metrodome was financed by a sales tax on hotel rooms, restaurants and bars in the Minneapolis and St. Paul areas. That was where the BULK of the funding came from. As far as I know they have never taken off that tax. Now they are doing the same thing again for the Twins Stadium.
    Kentucky Vikes Fan

    When you require nothing, you get nothing; when you expect nothing, you will find nothing; when you embrace nothing, all you will have is nothing.

  8. #28
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Re: Vikings might go statewide for money

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    Its a tax.
    Just because they sugar coat it doesn't mean its not a tax.
    I believe THE TAX went into effect last year, which in my book "recently happened"
    The courts ruled that it was not a tax.
    In my book, that is what matters.

    And "recently happened" was not the phrase used.
    The phrase was "just raised the tax on tobacco".

    =Z=
    In my book the price of a pack of smokes is what matters. It is a tax to everybody except lawyers and politicians. And really anal people.

  9. #29
    BloodyHorns82's Avatar
    BloodyHorns82 is offline Jersey Retired Feed The Frog Champion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,691

    Re: Vikings might go statewide for money

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    Its a tax.
    Just because they sugar coat it doesn't mean its not a tax.
    I believe THE TAX went into effect last year, which in my book "recently happened"
    The courts ruled that it was not a tax.
    In my book, that is what matters.

    And "recently happened" was not the phrase used.
    The phrase was "just raised the tax on tobacco".

    =Z=
    Again your nit-picking my statement.
    Just raised, and recently happened are the same statement.

    I should have worded it differently, but you knew exactly what I was referring to.
    You argue just like my wife.
    Your taking one small irrelevant part of the statement and running with it instead of focusing on what was actually said.


    The basis of my argument was that we already pay enough on cigarettes as it is.
    We are ranked 14th in the country (.007 cents behind New York and 62 cents MORE than California)

    http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/...s/pdf/0097.pdf

    Also, I'd love to hear from you on how this "Health impact fee" differs from a tax.

  10. #30
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Vikings might go statewide for money

    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    Also, I'd love to hear from you on how this "Health impact fee" differs from a tax.
    It differs pretty much in name only, but that is a significant different in the fact that if was an actual tax, then the court would have thrown it out because proper procedures were not followed in creating it.

    Personally I think the courts should have ruled it a tax. Because they did not, it gives the legislature another avenue to create "fees" that generate more money for the government based on consumer sales.
    Bad juju if you ask me, because the tax procedures are there for a reason.

    But Zeus is correct.
    It isn't a tax, even though the effects on the general public are the same.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-14-2009, 02:20 PM
  2. Vikings - There's extra money in NFL for playing a lot
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 07:19 AM
  3. Lawmakers Introduce Statewide Smoking Ban Bill
    By PurplePackerEater in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 01-29-2007, 10:33 PM
  4. Vikings: Is the Money in the Right Places?
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-26-2006, 05:58 AM
  5. The Money, Money, Money!! & Asst Coaches
    By FedjeViking in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 01-11-2006, 04:31 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •