Arnold "What if pot is legal and taxed?"

Smellyman

Nice work man. It needs to be debated seriously.

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1837124.html

wolfbear

I agree. It's a lot of revenue that is just going to the drug dealers. It's not going away that's for sure so might as well get some tax revenue out of it. Maybe even clean up some of the criminal elements surrounding it. To be fair, it has been discussed as far back as the 60's and before, but never truly seriously.

Kel Varnsen

wolfbear wrote:

I agree. It's a lot of revenue that is just going to the drug dealers. It's not going away that's for sure so might as well get some tax revenue out of it. Maybe even clean up some of the criminal elements surrounding it. To be fair, it has been discussed as far back as the 60's and before, but never truly seriously.

I think it is a good idea, although I am not sure how much tax money is really lost. I mean anyone involved in the drug trade who is higher up than a small time street dealer, is probably going to be laundering their money, which means they will make it look like legitimate income and pay income tax on it. I think a lot of the times they make it look like legit income 2 or 3 times over so they might be paying more tax on the money than they might be if it was legal.

VINNY GOOMBA

Kel Varnsen wrote:

wolfbear wrote:

I agree. It's a lot of revenue that is just going to the drug dealers. It's not going away that's for sure so might as well get some tax revenue out of it. Maybe even clean up some of the criminal elements surrounding it. To be fair, it has been discussed as far back as the 60's and before, but never truly seriously.

I think it is a good idea, although I am not sure how much tax money is really lost. I mean anyone involved in the drug trade who is higher up than a small time street dealer, is probably going to be laundering their money, which means they will make it look like legitimate income and pay income tax on it. I think a lot of the times they make it look like legit income 2 or 3 times over so they might be paying more tax on the money than they might be if it was legal.

In short, the government always gets theirs, and no matter what will still spend ANYONE'S tax dollars, be they Al Capone's or Kel Varnsen's IRRESPONSIBLY.

DewieCox

Don't step on the grass, Sam.

VINNY GOOMBA

DewieCox wrote:

Don't step on the grass, Sam.

Mule?

DewieCox

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

DewieCox wrote:

Don't step on the grass, Sam.

Mule?

Yes, but Steppenwolf

know1

My only problem with that is the "taxed" part.

Politicians continually spout off about needing to tax this or that. Let's hold them accountable to exactly how the pot tax would fit into the current budget/spending scheme.

Also, if they are doing it because they NEED the tax money then shame on them. I guess it's criminal (pot) until the greedy government needs the money and then it's OK...

Drowned Out

know1 wrote:

My only problem with that is the "taxed" part.

Politicians continually spout off about needing to tax this or that. Let's hold them accountable to exactly how the pot tax would fit into the current budget/spending scheme.

Also, if they are doing it because they NEED the tax money then shame on them. I guess it's criminal (pot) until the greedy government needs the money and then it's OK...

And here I thought you'd be antagonizing the potheads again....I agree with you whole-heartedly.
Why do people WANT to be taxed on it? I think they would HAVE to go to an amsterdam coffee-shop setup, or at least let private companies be free to sell/package/produce what they want....too many restrictions on potency, price etc, and the black market would continue to exist....let them do what they want, tax it LIGHTLY, and sell renewable grow licenses as the main revenue source...

Commy

know1 wrote:

My only problem with that is the "taxed" part.

Politicians continually spout off about needing to tax this or that. Let's hold them accountable to exactly how the pot tax would fit into the current budget/spending scheme.

Also, if they are doing it because they NEED the tax money then shame on them. I guess it's criminal (pot) until the greedy government needs the money and then it's OK...

good point know 1.


its immoral and bad for you and all of those things....but if we can make a buck? fuck it legalize it all.


although i'll take it, however it gets legalized. government hypocrisy or no, as long as they do the right thing and legalize this wonderful natural plant that never killed anyone directly or made anyone overdose. as far as drugs go its cheap, can be dirt cheap, if you want dirt weed, but even the goods aren't too bad. and if we can grow it, all the better.


legalize it
don't criticize it.

know1

Drowned Out wrote:

know1 wrote:

My only problem with that is the "taxed" part.

Politicians continually spout off about needing to tax this or that. Let's hold them accountable to exactly how the pot tax would fit into the current budget/spending scheme.

Also, if they are doing it because they NEED the tax money then shame on them. I guess it's criminal (pot) until the greedy government needs the money and then it's OK...

And here I thought you'd be antagonizing the potheads again....I agree with you whole-heartedly.
Why do people WANT to be taxed on it? I think they would HAVE to go to an amsterdam coffee-shop setup, or at least let private companies be free to sell/package/produce what they want....too many restrictions on potency, price etc, and the black market would continue to exist....let them do what they want, tax it LIGHTLY, and sell renewable grow licenses as the main revenue source...

I'm not going to antagonize about it's legality because I simply do not care one way or another. I'll admit that I don't look very favorably on pot users in general, but that's their business if they want to do it.

The part that bothers me is the taxes. Now if they were going to tax it and REDUCE taxes somewhere else then they might have the start of a plan.

Yet again if they make it legal just for tax revenue purposes, then it is extremely hypocritical....but then again the government is always extremely hypocritical so why should this be any different.

ajedigecko

if taxing pot is going to assist in solving problems................................we have serious problems.

Smellyman

Its not just taxing that would help money problems. Court systems, emforcemtn agencies etc are going to save a shitload on the "war on drugs"

know1

Smellyman wrote:

Its not just taxing that would help money problems. Court systems, emforcemtn agencies etc are going to save a shitload on the "war on drugs"

Right. Then we can lay off a bunch of police officers, court workers and other government officials.

inmytree

know1 wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

Its not just taxing that would help money problems. Court systems, emforcemtn agencies etc are going to save a shitload on the "war on drugs"

Right. Then we can lay off a bunch of police officers, court workers and other government officials.

they'll have plenty to do...it's not like crime will go away any time soon...

Sludge Factory

know1 wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

Its not just taxing that would help money problems. Court systems, emforcemtn agencies etc are going to save a shitload on the "war on drugs"

Right. Then we can lay off a bunch of police officers, court workers and other government officials.

So, with that logic we should just have these "wars" to create unnecessary work for these officials? Maybe we should start up a "War on indecently dressing". That way we can create even more jobs for people to police how others dress themselves.

DewieCox

I'm sure the coppers would find somethin else to crack down on.

know1

Sludge Factory wrote:

know1 wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

Its not just taxing that would help money problems. Court systems, emforcemtn agencies etc are going to save a shitload on the "war on drugs"

Right. Then we can lay off a bunch of police officers, court workers and other government officials.

So, with that logic we should just have these "wars" to create unnecessary work for these officials? Maybe we should start up a "War on indecently dressing". That way we can create even more jobs for people to police how others dress themselves.

Nope. I'm not saying that at all. Just saying there are consequences to actions.

I'm pointing out that the money that the government saves translates to needing less people. I personally don't care either way, but saving the government a bunch of time and money has its own ramifications.

Sludge Factory

know1 wrote:

Nope. I'm not saying that at all. Just saying there are consequences to actions.

I'm pointing out that the money that the government saves translates to needing less people. I personally don't care either way, but saving the government a bunch of time and money has its own ramifications.

Okay, that's cool. I personally think that the government does need to save money regardless of the fact that that means less people working for the government because I don't think it was ever intended for it to become so bloated. Having said that, I still think there would be a demand for police officers, court workers, and other government officials if marijuana was legalized. They would just be able to focus on more important thigns.

Smellyman

so now conservatives who want smaller government argue against it.

I am confused.

know1

Smellyman wrote:

so now conservatives who want smaller government argue against it.

I am confused.

Yeah - you are confused.

Again, I am definitely for small government, less spending, less taxes, less government power, etc.

I don't care either way on the pot legalization.

I was pointing out to people that if it being legal saves the government a ton of time and money (and I'm not even sure that it does), it might mean that government would need less people. Really, I'm just trying to point out to those people that actions have consequences, but personally I do want government to be smaller and I do know that means people will lose their government jobs.