Tax on automobiles to fund buggywhips

[AZRedhawk44]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/berkeley-councilman-proposes-email-tax-to-fund-postal-service/

Well, let's just keep yet another bloated, out-dated institution alive just so it can suck blood from a different vibrant sector of the economy.



WTF is up with these people?  It's a GOOD THING that we are losing demand for a government service.  The dominance of email and internet communication means the post office (as a government service) is no longer needed.  So those public servants can go on to other careers.  Tax roles go down.

[Fitz]

USPS operations are not taxpayer supported. The only taxpayer supported postal operations are APO stuff overseas for election mail, and free postage for the blind

Doom on you for not knowing that, and double doom on the legislator who apparently doesn't know that either

It wouldn't be legal to divert tax dollars to the USPS

[AZRedhawk44]

Doom on you for not knowing that, and double doom on the legislator who apparently doesn't know that either

This dude is saying apply a fed tax on something completely unrelated, to pay for post office.

And Post Office deficits are squarely on the backs of taxpayers as unfunded liabilities that we must pay if they default, or if they receive a bail-out (which has been attempted the last several years).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/08/it-all-your-money-us-postal-service-bailout/

[griz]

Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress has the power "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".  I'm assuming that doesn't mean they are required to have them if there is no demand, but eventually I suspect the courts will decide that.

[Fitz]

This dude is saying apply a fed tax on something completely unrelated, to pay for post office.

And Post Office deficits are squarely on the backs of taxpayers as unfunded liabilities that we must pay if they default, or if they receive a bail-out (which has been attempted the last several years).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/08/it-all-your-money-us-postal-service-bailout/

It would not be legal to DO so anymore

Bailouts would be one thing, but as of now, a tax to support the USPS operating costs would not be legal.

The only tax permitted under the reorg act in the 70s was stamps ... And since the early 80s, stamps have been a "postal product"

The bill to save the USPS from defaulting on their payment to the retiree healthcare was not for government funds, it was for permission to access overpayments they made from previous years

[Fitz]

An furthermore , who the hell cares what some granola munching butthead councilman says?

Do yourself a favor. Start getting outrage at things that matter

Part of the reason out country is doomed is that there are legions of folks who spend time getting bent out of shape about inconsequential horse pucky when they could be better expending their efforts.

[AZRedhawk44]

It would not be legal to DO so anymore

Bailouts would be one thing, but as of now, a tax to support the USPS operating costs would not be legal.

The only tax permitted under the reorg act in the 70s was stamps ... And since the early 80s, stamps have been a "postal product"

Fitz, I like you, but I nominate this as possibly the dumbest thing anyone has ever said on APS.

"It's illegal for the government to tax."

If it's not Constitutionally prohibited, and merely a component of USC, Congress and POTUS can do whatever the hell they want.  They make law every day.  They BREAK law every day.

If they need to change a law while writing a law, they do it with no compunction whatsoever.  They have tomes of multi-thousand page revisions of USC just waiting to be put on the floor of the House or Senate as bills.  Congressional staffers must have produced millions of pages of bill proposals per year prior to the digitization of everything.

The 1970 postal reorganization act is USC.

Text:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49061423/Postal-Reorganization-Act-1970

They can change it any damned time they want.  Illegal, hell.

[Fitz]

Never mind

[Fitz]

Never mind #2

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Not a fan of the usps. Less a fan of their unions. But they have a point re the congress and the way they have to fund their pensions

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[ArfinGreebly]

I like you . . .

. . . (movie line) . . .

. . . be very careful.

[Balog]

Berkeley city council members say all kinds of stupid stuff on a daily basis. They're so far gone they can't even reliably influence CA's politics, let alone stuff on a national level.

[T.O.M.]

Come on AZ, Fitz was factually correct.  Just because .gov chooses to ignore the Constitution doesn't make it "dumb" to call them on it.


And I've surely said dumber things around here.  I'm a lawyer after all. 

[RevDisk]

Fitz, I like you, but I nominate this as possibly the dumbest thing anyone has ever said on APS.

AZ?  Chill, man. Fitz is correct. Not to say things might not change in the future, but as it stands, it is correct now. While probably not the most insulting thing I've seen on APS, you could be more tactful.


Fitz, don't let one person bait you into spiking your blood pressure. Especially when you are correct.

[Fitz]

AZ?  Chill, man. Fitz is correct. Not to say things might not change in the future, but as it stands, it is correct now. While probably not the most insulting thing I've seen on APS, you could be more tactful.


Fitz, don't let one person bait you into spiking your blood pressure. Especially when you are correct.

That's why I edited my post. I'm really not interested in getting mad on the interwebz.

AZ, I suggest you direct your outrage towards things that are being proposed by folks who can actually feasibly make it happen. Your posts of late are largely raging against either A.) Things that the person involved can't make happen (such as this), or B.) Things that are factually wrong (The 2700 MRAPs that are actually going to the marines)

[roo_ster]

Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress has the power "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".  I'm assuming that doesn't mean they are required to have them if there is no demand, but eventually I suspect the courts will decide that.

Also does not require or even imply a monopoly on that service.