click it or ticket

[InhumanAcura 5,000+ posts]

colorado receives 50 dollars per day for every person incarcerated. this includes halfway houses as well as county jail and prison. that was in 1994. not sure if it's still that same 50 bucks.

iirc annual inflation is 4.x%...(4x higher than the average interest rate on a savings account i may add )

in year 2000, in Houston..it was $200 a day

 

[electropro 10+ year member]

I changed my mind.
There are way too many **** people in this country. I would be willing to pay some extra taxes to let the idiots kill themselves off in car crashes while unbelted.

Sometimes the price must be paid for freedom. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Eg-fvckin-xactly:verymad: We are all fvcked....... apparently we are too smart to realize we are so dumb....is that possible:eyebrow:

The sky is falling!!!!!!......The sky is falling!!!!!!!//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/patriotic.gif.b47a6e0394a3738334c387bdf79409f4.gif Go U.S.A. ftw???//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

it doesnt ONLY come from our checks. why dont you elaborate?

Wrong again

It also comes from private companies (Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed, etc, etc) that use the government's resources, such as its testing facilities.

Example 1

Nasa Ames

Example 2

http://www.arnold.af.mil

The fact you said states get money from the federal government seemed to imply that none of it was taxpayer money.

 

[InhumanAcura 5,000+ posts]

Bro, I was being facetious. I saw the last time it was posted, and was playing off that. No need to tell me about the price of freedom. I saw combat overseas and have friends that never came home.

it wasnt derogitory..i simply stated my feelings, and obviously its hard to feel the sarcasm through the monitor..no point in going any further with it, but im in the same boat

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Do you think the cost to society will be be greater and lower if all drugs were legalized?
I think the costs will be higher; therefore, I do not wish drugs to be legalized.

And if you want to make taxes pay for things, how about the costs of drinking and driving. And yes, I have a real publication.

"How Dangerous Are Drinking Drivers?" Journal of Political Economy, 2001, 109(6), pp. 1198-237.

you think the costs would be higher if legalized? i'm arguing that exact point. in a slightly different way. unless you're speaking from a moral or degradation of society stand point.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

iirc annual inflation is 4.x%...(4x higher than the average interest rate on a savings account i may add )
in year 2000, in Houston..it was $200 a day

wow. the state makes alot and the feds take in in the but. not sure how i feel about that.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[InhumanAcura 5,000+ posts]

Wrong againIt also comes from private companies (Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed, etc, etc) that use the government's resources, such as its testing facilities.

Example 1

Nasa Ames

Example 2

http://www.arnold.af.mil

The fact you said states get money from the federal government seemed to imply that none of it was taxpayer money.

how am i wrong here? i dont see how it implied that the money solely came from our taxes, but as i already stated, i understand that it doesnt.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

According to many economists {Gregory Mankiew} , and others, and the book Unsafe at any Speed; you are more likely to be involved in an accident wearing a seatbelt vs. not wearing a seatbelt.
ALSO: Those who wear seatbelts are more likely to speed (AND AT A GREATER RATE OF SPEED) than those who do not wear seatbelts, and thus CAUSE more accidents.

HOWEVER: Those involved in accidents who did NOT wear seatbelts are more likely to DIE than those who did wear seatbelts.

your statement was people who wear seatbelts are in more accidents. well if you take the us as a hole, much more people wear seatbelts vs. without and therfore the probabilty increases that seatbelt wearers will have more accidents. now you take a sample portion from each side, and you have a more fair comparison. here is an example of what i'm talking about.
the amount of murders in chicago is 480. the amount of murders in detroit is 385. now you can say well there are more murders in chicago, so therfore it is more unsafe then detroit. now the population of chicago is roughly 2.5 million. detroit is roughly 1 million, so when you adjust the murder rate, detroit is the more muderous city.

1) No, I actually said more likely.

You don't have to take an equal amount from each side. Ever heard of this idea called "weighting"?

sheesh.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

how am i wrong here? i dont see how it implied that the money solely came from our taxes, but as i already stated, i understand that it doesnt.

I misread your post. I apologize.

 

[iceteebone 5,000+ posts]

1) No, I actually said more likely.
You don't have to take an equal amount from each side. Ever heard of this idea called "weighting"?

sheesh.

of course seatbelt wearers are more likely to be involved in accidents because there are more of them.

 

[InhumanAcura 5,000+ posts]

of course seatbelt wearers are more likely to be involved in accidents because there are more of them.

werd //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif 9 out of 10 cavemen agree

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

you think the costs would be higher if legalized? i'm arguing that exact point. in a slightly different way. unless you're speaking from a moral or degradation of society stand point.

I think it is possible for drugs to be taxed in such a way so they outweight the social costs. The problem is, I do not know of a way to tax them in such a way to cover those costs except to have an ID possession card, of sorts. However, since the costs are high, I don't think the poor could afford it.

If someone could create a system of taxation that fully covered the costs to society, then yes I would be for it.

 

[InhumanAcura 5,000+ posts]

I think it is possible for drugs to be taxed in such a way so they outweight the social costs. The problem is, I do not know of a way to tax them in such a way to cover those costs except to have an ID possession card, of sorts. However, since the costs are high, I don't think the poor could afford it.
If someone could create a system of taxation that fully covered the costs to society, then yes I would be for it.

look into the laws we have here in Washington and Oregon on getting it, legally. youre on the right track

edit: by it, i meant pot

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

I think it is possible for drugs to be taxed in such a way so they outweight the social costs. The problem is, I do not know of a way to tax them in such a way to cover those costs except to have an ID possession card, of sorts. However, since the costs are high, I don't think the poor could afford it.
If someone could create a system of taxation that fully covered the costs to society, then yes I would be for it.

the taxes wouldn't cover it. the only way is if the government were to grow it and distribute it all themselves not allowing a private sector to manufacture or distribute. that may get it close.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

look into the laws we have here in Washington and Oregon on getting it, legally. youre on the right track
edit: by it, i meant pot

I know...

But don't different drugs have different costs to society? When I mean costs, I am only referring to economic costs.

Would you have a different card for cocain or does one card allow all drugs?