http://www.rjrt.com/taxpays.aspx
Here are some of the facts about tobacco taxes today:
<<< Since 1998, governments at all levels have collected more than $528.5 BILLION in cigarette taxes (including sales tax) and payments from smokers.
Settlement payments, federal, and state and local taxes on cigarettes for fiscal year 2013 amounted to more than $43.9 BILLION.
- Federal excise taxes - $14,166,973,085
- State and local excise taxes - $17,182,878,658
- State cigarette sales taxes - $4,043,504,916
- Tobacco settlement payments - $8,512,945,925>>>
In 1988, while running for president, Gore defended tobacco farmers while campaigning in Southern tobacco states (and made the quote: 'I've raised tobacco ... I've shredded it, spiked it,... and sold it.' (Sounds a bit like Forest Gore's friend with the shrrrimp.)
I wouldn't put it past the democrats and establishment republicans. They seek to demonize those who they tax. They control and get most of the money from tobacco and
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/W...
<<
These huge sums gave the companies equally huge effective tax rates. ExxonMobil’s tax rate was 42.9%, Chevron’s was 48.3%, and ConocoPhillips’ was 41.5%. These figures are higher than the US federal statutory rate of 35%, which is the highest tax rate in the developed world.>>>
Money and oil doesn't grow on trees. It takes initiative and money to go after things like oil. Alarmist's greatest accomplishment is putting obstacles in front of those who make money and jobs.
I saw an article recently that fellow engineers who graduated from my school, SDSM&T grads made more than Harvard grads but that certainly thanks to N. Dakota fracking. You would have to pay me more than that to get me to live in ND.
Well Raisin, try as you may to not understand it, or just deny it,I think the "all or nothing" concept will lodge its way into your comprehension. I am not going to give you open season on a couple dozen other questions just to let you answer one. But why not tell us what you think here? Let's make it a more interesting, and less rhetorical question, though:
If the CEOs of the world's ten largest oil and gas companies, and ten largest coal companies, were seated together at a long table on a stage, with a few hundred of their corporate research scientists in the audience, and asked questions about climate science, and whether they think the IPCC reports are basically reliable or not, etc., what do YOU imagine they might say?
Do you think they would argue that because it is impossible to predict the future in quantitative exactitude that therefore it doesn't matter?
Do you think they would say if they can't really say what their corporate sales will be 20 years from now, that therefore they are running a sham business, and time to pack up and start foraging for edible plants?
Do you think they would say they hire engineering grads from Ivy League schools because those engineers realize that their profs in the physics departments were unreliable leftist alarmists, and therefore ignored the Greenie Socialist Physics they were taught, and that's why they got so good at petroleum engineering, and computer science, etc., and why they make such talented employees for the oil and coal cos?
German doctors recognized that tobacco wasn't good for you in the 1930s.
In the USA, in the 1940s, doctors were telling mothers that smoking wasn't good for them, or their babies.
And it took 40 more years for the public to catch up with the pretty obvious science.
Worse, there is several orders of magnitude more money to be made selling fossil fuel than there is selling tobacco.
One does wonder how long it will take Americans to catch up?
Of course, there's far less resistance to the idea of AGW in most countries, specifically developed countries.
Why does the US lag so far behind?
Money.
Money to buy politicians. That is the problem.
Do you think they would say if they can't really say what their corporate sales will be 20 years from now, that therefore they are running a sham business, and time to pack up and start foraging for edible plants?
Because Driving to work , cooking , keep warm and cool is not a hazard . They want to go back to the 1500s
They would have to prove in court that man made CO2 was causing damage. As dT/dt has not changed much for a while now and CO2 goes up like a rocket it would be difficult.
I thought this was too funny of a question not to repost for the skeptics to get a shot at.
The person calling for this inquiry, did so while typing on his keyboard. His plastic keyboard. His keyboard made of fossil fuel products.
What are your thoughts on this question?
