Some do, some don't. But just because state also charge tax on gas doesn't make it too high, nor does it make it a bad tax. Again, that money (I don't know for California, but I'm pretty sure) go to roads infrastructure and related stuff.
Also, why is it higher:
California has a very high cost of living. Missouri has a much lower one.
But why are they so high when the Price for a Barrel of Oil is 50% lower. But the price for a gallon of gas is 30% lower?? It might just be the oil companies but then is it just because there greedy?
BTW here are the taxes on the Gas in all the States...
http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
..I'd say that's a bit higher than 18.4%.
randomspot555 said:"Cut spending" is a vague answer. It makes sense that motorists pay a portion of road infrastructure. Hence, tax gasoline.
"Isn't important" is debatable, and also vague.
Well you want a specific answer?? There was one Gov. Program that was used to inspect Grizzley bears in the northern part of the country. You know how much it cost? 3 Million dollars. Those kinds of programs should be cut and the ones that are vital especially in this time should be kept. There is no need to know what the mating patterns of Grizzly Bears are when there is a Finacial Crisis.
randomspot555 said:He must've mispoke or misunderstood business. There are a million different ways to file for a small business owner and a million different ways to get taxed. However, since the vast majority of small business owners don't make $250,000 and instead, pour it back into the business..he'd either be doing REALLY, REALLY well (and thus, that's what happens when you succeed, you move to a higher tax bracket) or his accountant ripped him off.
But wouldn't you say his small business is small?? And who cares if he's barely in the bracket, the gov. shouldn't take ANYONES money even if there greedy. And isn't that what the American dream is? To do REALLY REALLY WELL?? So why should we penilize him and all the others who just made it over the "Bracket"
randomspot555 said:Just because you like it doesn't make it sound fact. Sorry. "Because I said so" is a pretty crappy argument. Rather, you should measure supply side on ADVOCATES of supply side, like Bush, Bush SR, and Reagan, not someone who DIDN'T operate under it.
But what else would the employers do? I'm looking for that answer alone.
randomspot555 said:JOE THE PLUMBER IS A PURELY HYPOTHETICAL SITUTATION AND HE DOESN'T OWN THE BUSINESS.
Acually that's not the issue. It's to were BArack would penilize someone for working there tail off. Is there any inccentive to get a better life in this country if they tax you for your wealth alone???
randomspot555 said:And he isn't being taxed as rich.
Not now but like I said before what is Bob came and bought a small business and it had 3 stores and Bob still can only afford a 18,000 sq ft. home. But Obama thinks he's rich?? Why? If that thresh hold was 500,000 then I wouldn't have as much a problem...but 250,000 is way to low for my stomach to digest. Basically BArack is saying.
"If you work your tail off to get a better life I'm going to penilize you for doing so"
That's basicallly it.
randomspot555 said:College costs soar every year. It's really not feasible to save up that amount of money without some great investing skills/luck.
Community colleges are a good resource, but they aren't a replacement for a 4 year university. To start a college career or earn your GED, they're perfectly suitable for, but can't really advance beyond that. Even some 4 year degrees. But for the most part, they're limited in resources and, no matter how hard the administration tries to make it, it's not a replacement for a 4 year university.
Agian it's hard for me to know stuff because I'm not even close...but they might have to help out here...but If the student can work there butt of they could get a scholorship. And I know it's not going to pay for everything but It will pay for some. Again IDK about college seeing I'm not close.
ghost anime said:i'll have to agree with the conservatives when it comes to handling taxes in the very least. i'm voting republican for governor of this state soon and quite frankly, i see why taxes are such a big deal to them. the democratic opponent is simply throwing more money at our problems with horrible solutions that will essentially get us nowhere new.
however i'm much more skeptical of voting republicans federally... though i agree with the logic you have BigLutz, i'd just personally like to know when it has actually succeeded *noticeably*. i'm not really a believer of trickle-down economics just yet. ive seen so much going against it for so long.
So what are the Democrat's going to do? Put more money into it? Where's the money? Tax the rich? But they'll just MOVE overseas. So IDK where Democrat's will get the money to help the economy. Other than tax everyone. And then spend more.