tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post117650029387952826..comments2008-05-09T17:40:44.348-07:00Victoria Tafthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15566635810544426855noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-62873226500263732812008-05-09T17:40:00.000-07:002008-05-09T17:40:00.000-07:00

Eileen: I understand completely about where the money comes from that is to pay for all the things you listed. However, when the government entities that we pay those taxes to use that money for something other than what they were originally designated for, then we should not have to pay more in taxes to pay for those government entities to make up for the shortfall that they created in the

Scottiebillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15554361011951413954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-70358172175771145512008-05-09T11:56:00.000-07:002008-05-09T11:56:00.000-07:00

Oh, just came across a chart... according to this, as of Feb 18 2008, the government makes 60 cents off each gallon. That means that the hypothetical $50 gas bill would be $41.60 which means that government taxes amount to a 17.8% markup. Yet, Eileen, you are explaining to us that we should RAISE these taxes? The same chart says that an aberage gallon of gas would have cost $2.59 instead of $3.19

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-57619110660129237352008-05-09T11:44:00.000-07:002008-05-09T11:44:00.000-07:00

I have a brilliant idea of how funding should be handled. This idea has the virtue of being the means of funding that the writers of our Constitution imagined. They felt that the government's financial responsibilities could be handled by means of tariffs and fees. Income taxes, the most signifant type of tax, were an invention of the high-minded reality-ignorant Woodrow Wilson (the idea had been

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-43515034783791914452008-05-08T15:56:00.000-07:002008-05-08T15:56:00.000-07:00

kitanis, I agree with you.Taxes should be spent on what they are designated for, and if not needed for that should be returned to those who paid the tax.However, if the money has already been spent, and is not there, more money needs to be collected.What you make, is an argument for NOT pulling money from the "rainy day fund" to pay for road repeair.ScottiebillI completely comprehend the"tax" = "

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-90288082572215449782008-05-08T14:47:00.000-07:002008-05-08T14:47:00.000-07:00

Also.. if a tax is collected and spent on things other than what its collected for.. isn't the reason the voters "approve" or "vote" for the tax in the first place invalid?

kitanishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10657260938925328929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-51307119006104165732008-05-08T10:59:00.000-07:002008-05-08T10:59:00.000-07:00

A tax is a tax is a tax.A tax by any other name still stinks.Two simple truths that Eileen obviously does not, or chooses not, to understand.

Scottiebillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15554361011951413954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-10632817657217977592008-05-07T22:49:00.000-07:002008-05-07T22:49:00.000-07:00

People driving less is a good thing.Higher gas prices could not have increased gas tax revenue anyway, since it is a per gallon, not a percent, tax. (Or am I incorrect, do we have a percent tax?)So what is the point of stating that they don't (as if otherwise they would have.)Higher gas tax is a better idea than a car tax, for multiple reasons.- The system of collection is already in place- It

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.com