pfim wrote:imau2fan wrote:http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06046/655402.stm
Ratner makes a point about the "free" arena, however he neglects other taxes the arena would bring in, and his reasons for Harrah's and Forest City acheiving the proposed $600 million are cheesy at best.
Financing your government on vice is sleazy. What will they do when this does not work? Legalize drugs and prostitution for tax purposes?
ExPatriatePen wrote:Taxing alocohol, tobacco, consumption of petroleum, etc... discourages their use and increases revenue.
HomerPenguin wrote:ExPatriatePen wrote:Taxing alocohol, tobacco, consumption of petroleum, etc... discourages their use and increases revenue.
This paradox, I think, is the problem most opponents have with this. The tax can be imposed with the stated goal of discouraging use while also bringing in revenue, but these goals are at cross purposes.
Users browsing this forum: America, cma3585, Daniel, GDR, GSdrums87, Hugo Stiglitz, Inkio, It'sagreatdayforhockey!, jwest21, knives of ice, lemieuxReturns, npv708, OutofFoil, pens2005, Rocco, Skatingpen, skullman80, Steve Dave, SubtropicalPenguin and 48 guests