Tax: A charge of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
Diane Ellis, Ed. ·
Jul 19, 2010 at 10:22am
Robert Pear writing in the New York Times this past weekend:
When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government's "power to lay and collect taxes."
I think it's time George Stephanopoulos recall Obama for a second interview to have the president explain himself.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Tax: A charge of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
For situational definitions, you need a situational dictionary. I think the Harvard Law School bookstore sells them.
Jun '10
Re: Tax: A charge of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
Rush Limbaugh is all over this today and ties it to the Codevilla essay. This is what I meant in my earlier comment that our threads are twisting themselves into a rope. This recognition is part of what Peter mentioned earlier as a Reagan renaissance. Not his words exactly, but the sentiment is right. So far, I think, the only other Rico to make the connection is EJHill. This is an important insight because it clarifies the nature of the current fight between the ruling class and the country. I hope others will pick up on this and comment.
Re: Tax: A charge of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
It has always been a tax. It was always described as a tax. If you make under $200K, you will see your taxes raised.
In other news of the day, the choco-ration has been increased by 6 grams.
May '10
Re: Tax: A charge of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
Not exactly James. The FDA has submitted proposed rule-making for adjustments to the choc-ration based on a formula that combines overall weight, body mass index and a PH skin reading within a trailing 30-day window. Consumer advocates are strenuously objecting to this laissez faire attitude, but the chocolate lobby is threatening there will be 87,000 jobs lost if the rules are enacted in their current form. In the meantime, the Chinese government has announced a $3 billion infusion into its domestic chocolate industry and has recreated an entire Swiss mountain village including 300 Swiss-born cows in Schezhuan province.
Re: Tax: A charge of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
You're half right, Trace. Actually, the FDA has asked for the authority to regulate chocolate as a mood-elevating substance, which would open the door for increased taxes to fund chocolate-addition abatement programs. For all you wingnuts who think this would lead to a decrease in chocolate consumption, there's also a form of cap-and-trade being considered, which would allow people to sell chocolate-credits to others. All leading economists insist this would keep consumption level, and also magically reduce it. Look! Over there! A puppy!
The Chinese chocolate industry is expected to capture 73% of the market by 2019, bouncing back well from last year's scandal over the Lucky Five Dragon Happy Crunch bar, which was mostly asbestos.
Jul '10
Re: Tax: A charge of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
James Lileks:
The Chinese chocolate industry is expected to capture 73% of the market by 2019, bouncing back well from last year's scandal over the Lucky Five Dragon Happy Crunch bar, which was mostly asbestos. · Jul 19 at 12:49pm
Now the Chinese Chocolate industry is promoting "Healthy Asbestos Chocolate" Using only Naturally occurring asbestos fresh from locally harvested Serpentine rock.
Natural=Healthy! And choco-licous!
As far as the "is it a tax" conundrum: Fortune favors the obfuscators! "Yes. No. Maybe. I dunno. Whatever"
Jun '10
Re: Tax: A charge of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
There are religious implications, too. Chocolate is a theobromide, and that strains constitutional limits. Pagans didn’t have missionaries and were forced to convert through appeals to baser instincts, such as hunger. In the Aztec inter-faith manual of human sacrifice, chocolate was documented as the true believer’s pre-rapture ambrosia guaranteed to push the reluctant over the pyramid’s edge. As proof I ask: Have you ever seen a skinny Aztec sacrificial victim? Sadly, discussions of this conversion-through-the-stomach technique should not be too broadly aired; I shudder to think what the Mormons might do with such information, to say nothing of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Chocolate is also purported to be an aphrodisiac, and any association with libido enhancing foods could expose one to all kinds of feminazi threats, court action, and boycotts. The foregoing, of course, does not address the fallout that might result from work place parties should management turn a blind eye to who might be nibbling whose praline. It wouldn’t be the first time sweeties were sampled behind the water cooler or, for that matter, in the Oval office. This is the road to perdition, folks!