Light Bulbs are getting Expensive / New Tax

Page 1 of 6  
In order to meet the demand to save energy the US government will be adding a tax to the price of all lightbulbs, effective January 1, 2008. All bulbs will be charged one dollar per watt tax. Thus the price of a 100 watt bulb will be about $101.00 (the one dollar is the cost of the bulb itself). This tax will also be added to all electrical appliances, tools, motors and other equipment. For example, a toaster which generally draws 1250 watts will have a tax of $1250 added to the price of the toaster. An electric range could cost as much as $55,000. You will be required to pay this tax upon purchase. As of 2010, all homes will be inspected and all remaining and existing appliances and lights will also be taxed at the same rate per watt.
Walter K.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just so long as they don't start taxing bullets, cause that's what the home inspector is going to be seeing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kpg* wrote:

You may say that in jest, but a U.S. Senator from New York admitted we have a 200-year supply of guns, but only a ten-year supply of ammunition. Obviously, then, the way to attack the "gun problem" is to tax the ammunition out of existence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<sigh>
What happened to the America I grew up in? Something needs to change. I hope you people are paying attention out there.
We take freedom for granted, but it's not a right, it must be earned and defended. I'm not talking about Iraq, who knows if that's the right or wrong way to go, I'm talking about those dimwits in congress and sitting on the bench.
Don't get me started.
Oh, too late.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


That idiot was always trying to enact that crap,and nobody ever paid him any attention.(Daniel Moynihan,btw.)

Well,there's a LOT of dimwits that ELECT those Congressional dimwits. Socialists.

Don't tell me you actually BELIEVE that troll? A $100 tax on a DOLLAR item? "By 2010,all homes will be inspected...."
WHERE is your common sense?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

lol, of course not. Because that's not how it happens. The reality is our freedoms are eroded much slower than that; at a pace we hardly notice.
I was taking the opportunity of this obviously exaggerated claim to point out that if if did happen all at once it would be outrageous and no one would stand for it. A tax on non-CF bulbs out of the question? I don't think so. Tax policy is used to mold society as our 'leaders' see fit. That is not their job, and that is not freedom.
You are right about not feeding the trolls, however.
Nevermind.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Light Bulbs are getting Expensive / New Tax:

Right!
If you are over 55, think back to when you were a kid and compare the freedoms our society had then vs. what we have now. It's not even close.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote Re Re:

As our children and grandchildren grow up under these restrictions, they think it is normal and they may add even more.
Look at the number or government employees per private worker and how that has changed. Look at the number of people paying taxes versus the number collecting some sort of government check or aid. Look at the number of boneheads on the House of Representatives and how that has grown.
We should consolidate some of the states and lower the number of people in Washington. From 50 states, we could whittle it down to about 25 or so. Like join Nebraska and the Dakotas together and dump four senators. One Carolina and two more senators are out of work. You get the idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote Re Re:

The House grows according to population;seems proper. you want to cut government size,get rid of gov't programs that gov't is *not supposed to be doing*,like Social Security,Welfare,various other social programs.THAT is where the gov't sticks its nose into people's business.

what about states like Texas and California that are big and populous enough for TWO states? Split 'em up?

What we need is TERM LIMITs,so that Congresscritters don't spend their entire working lives there. That's when they start thinking they are "elites",different and better than the rest of us. They don't have to follow the laws like the rest of us do. They lose touch with reality,too.
The job was never meant to be a lifelong career.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know, I don't even mind the 'safety net' of welfare. I do mind when the safety net becomes a hammock though.
I see 40% of the population that will blindly vote for anyone that will promise them free stuff, and that number is growing fast.
Left as it is I don.t see any hope for change. It's going to take a series of 9/11's or WWIII to get the USA out of this socialist spiral, which, of course, is not how I would like to see the change come about.
my .02
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well we are far away from socialistic system however we are on the road to it. When such as NJ treasury department penalizes victims because of some Corporation commit fraud what more can we aspect www.cas-environ.com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you better reexamine the Federal government's spending then. Over 50% goes towards social programs,I believe.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote: ...

The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."
Congress regularly increased the size of the House after the census to account for growth but fixed the size of the House at 435 seats in 1911.
While theoretically could revoke/revise that law, since then all that has been done is to reapportion seats based on relative populations after the official census.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe you are wrong in that.
I find no Amendment near that date that modifies Article I,Section 2.3. It was modified by the 14th Amendment(in 1868),but not in the manner you cite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives Cites Reapportionment Acts of 1929 and 1941,but since these are not proper Constitutional amendments,IMO;the Reapportionment Acts are *unconstitutional*. I don't see anything in the Constitution authorizing Congress to alter what is set in the Constitution -without- amending it.
Interesting,the government is not following the Constitution.(no big surprise there.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 mentions an Act of 1911,but no link to it.
http://www.house.gov/fattah/features/faq.htm mentions 1913 for fixing the number of Reps.(but no links)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5 mentions a change in 1911. I don't see how this law is Constitutional,either.No Public Law can go against what the Constitution authorizes,unless the Constitution is amended,and there's a specific procedure for that.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My guess would probably be some sort of a nod to 1 S8 18 that says Congress has the right to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out their duties under constitution. ALthough I would suppose that the Courts would say the specific trumps the nebulous. But I could be wrong. Interestingly, I don't see any references to any court cases on these subjects. Everybody seems to be studiously ignoring them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

....
What, specifically, do you think wrong?
I didn't say there was an Amendment. AFAIK, the number has been 435 since 1911 except for a short period after the addition of AK and HI to which it then reverted. The fix of the number was, I believe by a legislative act. It is possible it actually is a House Rule as opposed to Federal law, I don't recall; I'm going on what I remember from HS Government which is almost that long ago itself, by now. :)
The real point I was making is that the size of the House doesn't change after every Census, only reapportionment as necessary.
Whichever mechanism it was, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court which is the arbitrating authority for such questions. One would presume in the nearly 100 years subsequent if there were much doubt of how a ruling would come down there would have been a case filed.
From a practical matter, it's unlikely the founders considered the possibility of 300 million in population in the calculation of any size growth and a consequent essentially unlimited growth in the size of the House.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I haven't been able to find any cases on that. Could be like the War Powers Act, which hasn't been tested in court either, where my theory is that nobody WANTS to know if it legal. One side in case it isn't and the other side in case it is.

Yeah. I doubt that the founders would have liked a 10,000 member House.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So,that's when you AMEND the Constitution,the PROPER way,not just pass laws contrary to it.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

It's not clear it is actually in contradiction...
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Each House dude or dudette is current representing something like 650, 000 people (IIRC). The consitution sets it at 30,000 each. How can that not be clear?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.