Canada raising the Price on Medicinal Marijuana on Average 159%

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2012

Week in Review

Criminals like high state cigarette taxes.  For it makes for a lucrative business selling cigarettes in a high-tax state that were purchased purchased in a low-tax state.  The higher the tax the bigger the profits in smuggling cigarettes across state borders.  And best of all if you get caught the penalty isn’t that bad.  For cigarettes are legal.  Which causes a problem in those high-tax states.  For when they raise the tax rates drug runners stop running drugs across the border.  And turn to cigarettes.  As they did in Canada during the Nineties.  Illegal drug trafficking went down.  Cigarette smuggling went up.  And tax revenues fell.

And now the Canadians are trying to raise tax revenue again.  Only with a different legal product (see Medicinal marijuana prices in Canada to rise by The Canadian Press posted 12/15/2012 on CBC News).

Those who use marijuana for medicinal purposes in Canada may want to reach for the aspirin when they learn about a pending price increase.

Proposed regulations posted by Health Canada say the price of medical marijuana should rise to $8.80 cents a gram —currently it ranges from $1.80 to $5 a gram…

Currently, those who wish to use medical marijuana must apply for a permit from the government in order to either grow it themselves or buy it from a single government grower.

This was one of the arguments for decriminalizing marijuana.  You could tax it.  And flood the state coffers with new tax revenue.  Or you can do it one better.  Like the Canadians.  Who don’t just tax it.  But they sell it.  And being the only grower in Canada they can charge whatever they want.  Which they appear to be doing.  Raising the price on average 159%.

Hmmm.  A high price?  A legal product?   And a nearby border?  Sounds familiar.  Something tells me that they are not going to collect what they think they are with these price hikes.


Tags: , , , ,

If you Tax the Rich in France at Confiscatory Tax Rates they will Leave France

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2012

Week in Review

Rich people won’t leave the country if we raise tax rates.  Governments everywhere say this.  For they will believe that people with the ability to create wealth will just sit idly by while the government takes it away.  So believed the French socialist president.  François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande.  Who said he would tax millionaires at 75%.  And by golly he’s going to do it.  But it turns out those who can create wealth are none too keen on paying 75% of everything they earn over a million to the government.  And they’re saying so.  Not so much in words.  But with their feet (see Gerard Depardieu moves to tiny tax haven in Belgium just 800 YARDS from border where a third of people are French citizens dodging Hollande’s high taxes by Ian Sparks posted 12/10/2012 on the Daily Mail).

French film star Gerard Depardieu has moved into his new ‘tax exile’ mansion in Belgium – just 800 yards from the border with France.

The 64-year-old actor’s lavish home in the village of Nechin – on a street known as Millionaire’s Row – is less than two minutes drive from the French town of Roubaix.

Depardieu is the latest wealthy Frenchman fleeing a looming new tax of 75 per cent on all earnings over one million euros – about £850,000…

France’s economy minister Pierre Moscovici hit out this week at repeated warnings in the world’s media that France’s richest people were fleeing overseas.

He told a conference of business leaders in Paris: ‘I am troubled to read in the papers that the exile has begun, and that companies are fleeing…

His comments also came after Laurence Parisot – head of MEDEF, the French equivalent of the UK’s Confederation of British Industry – warned last month that left-wing economic policies risked turning France into ‘the poor man of Europe’.

She said: ‘Large foreign investors are shunning France altogether. It’s becoming really dramatic.

Now before you say the rich are a bunch of evil unpatriotic people who put their greed before the welfare of their nation answer me this.  Did you buy a lotto ticket for that recent half billion dollar jackpot?  If so, why?  Did you want that half billion?  Or did you want to win it so you could give it to the government to help the welfare of the nation?  Don’t answer that for it’s a stupid question.  People buy lotto tickets because they want to be rich.  So they will support raising taxes on the evil rich right up until the day they win a big lotto jackpot and become one of the evil rich.

Let’s look at what winning that jackpot would be like if the U.S. had a top marginal tax rate of 75% for all earnings over a million dollars.  Based on the 2011 tax rates for married filed jointly, and adding the 75% rate to the top of those tax rates, how much of a half billion dollar jackpot do you think you would be able to keep?  After paying your federal income tax of $374,818,212 you’d have only $125,181,789 left.  That’s still a lot of money.  But how many of you would be satisfied with winning $500,000,000 while only being able to keep $125,181,789?  Not many I’m guessing.  Most probably would say that’s not fair.  Which is what people like Gerard Depardieu are saying in France.  And why they are moving to Belgium.

Being a rich, greedy bastard is a sliding scale.  If you earn $35,000 annually anyone earning more who doesn’t vote to increase tax rates on the rich is a rich, greedy bastard.  Should you win a $500 million lotto jackpot the rich, greedy bastard line moves up.  And only applies to people earning more that $500 million.  So you can keep what is yours.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Two Armed Police Officers prevent Possible Massacre in Alabama Hospital

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2012

Week in Review

If you ever spent time in a U.S. hospital you probably noticed a few things about security.  As you enter the emergency department the first person you pass is typically an armed police officer.  Either a hospital cop.  Or a city cop.  You may see a patient handcuffed to a gurney with a police officer walking behind it (bad guys sometimes get hurt and have to go to the hospital). And without a security card to swipe to unlock doors there are few places you can go.  Even an elevator won’t stop on the baby floor without a security card swipe.  As people tend to steal babies.  So hospitals tend to be little fortresses who take their security seriously.  Which is one of the safest places a person can be (see Gunman wounds 3 at Alabama hospital posted 12/16/2012 on Sky News).

Authorities in Alabama say a gunman has opened fire in a hospital, wounding an officer and two employees before being fatally shot by police…

Williams says police were called because a man with a gun was walking through St Vincent’s Hospital on Saturday morning.

When he was confronted by officers, he started shooting and wounded one of them. That’s when the second officer shot and killed the man.

Don’t know what this gunman planned on doing but whatever it was he didn’t have a long time to try it.  Swift action by armed cops subdued him before he could kill doctors, nurses and patients.  If that was his plan.

This is why mass murderers target shopping malls, movie theaters, colleges, high schools and elementary schools.  They don’t often walk into police stations, army bases or hospitals.  They prefer soft targets.  Where no one can hurt them.  If some place has people who can shoot back chances are that they are not going to go there.

The shooting at Newtown is a tragedy.  We don’t know much yet.  Other than he had time to shoot 26 people.  Because he was safe to do so.  If it was a day where the police were at the school doing a presentation for the students things would have been different.  Because a cop could have drawn his or her weapon the moment they saw a gun.  And fired back after the first pull of his trigger.  Like the police did in Alabama.

Bo Dietl is a former New York City Police Department detective and now runs a security company.  Since the shooting some schools have contacted him inquiring about an armed, retired police officer to work security in their school.  To have an armed police presence in their schools.  Like that hospital in Alabama.  Because it works.

It would be wrong to politicize this tragedy to push forward new gun control legislation.  For bad people will always get their guns.  And one thing that bad people like are soft targets.  When Florida passed legislation to allow Floridians to carry concealed weapons crimes on tourists increased.  Because bad people like soft targets.  Not those that can shoot back.  So after getting shot by a Floridian or two they started going after unarmed people.  Tourists.

Some will, and are, pointing to gun violence in the U.S. and comparing it to countries with strict gun control countries.  But there are more differences between these countries than gun control laws.  These other countries don’t have movies and television programs with graphic gun violence desensitizing their youth.  Or rap/hip-hop music glorifying gun violence.  Or as many people playing graphic video games filled with guns and murder.  This kind of violence didn’t happen when kids played cowboys and Indians or army back in the Fifties.  And we’ve had guns since the founding of this country.  And before.  There’s more to it than the guns.  You just can’t address the guns if you don’t address the gun violence in our pop culture.  And the lack of civility and societal decay.  If you remove the guns but do nothing to reverse the lack of civility and societal decay bad people will find other ways to hurt soft targets.  Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun and he killed 168 people and injured over 800.  The greatest terrorist attack on American soil, 9/11, began when men hijacked 4 commercial airliners with box cutters.  Since then we have armed air marshals on board our airplanes.  And even some pilots began carrying guns.

Guns don’t kill people.  Societal decay does.  It wasn’t that long ago when our parents slept at night without locking their doors.  No one would do that today.  Because society has changed.  People lack empathy.  They’re uncivil.  We do drugs more than we ever have.  More children are born to single women than ever before.  Married parents both have to work to get by these days.  It’s a different world for children today.  And some are growing up differently because of it.  They’re spending less time as innocent children.  And getting into trouble earlier.  Running with gangs.  Mimicking what they see in the movies, on TV and in those video games.  Perhaps having trouble separating what’s real.  And what is just a game.

Hug your kids.  For family is everything.  And say a prayer for those in Newtown.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Female CEOs are lowering CEO Compensation just as the Left wants yet the Left Complains

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2012

Week in Review

President Obama won reelection in 2012 because, apparently, people hate the rich.  And they hate corporations.  When Mitt Romney said corporations are people the opposition pounced on that.  As the masses believe corporations are evil entities that serve only profits.  And Satan.  They hate corporations with a passion.  And the rich people that run them.  That’s why President Obama wants to raise tax rates.  Not to raise tax revenue.  For these proposed tax hikes may fund the government for maybe 8 days.  If we’re lucky.  No.  These tax rates are to punish the rich.  Who have raped and pillaged this country so they can live their caviar and champagne lifestyles.

According to President Obama the young should shun these corporations and do something better with their lives.  Like working for a nonprofit.  By doing something where we give.  Not get rich.  For that is being a good American in these Obama times.  We shouldn’t pursue meaningless high-paying jobs.  Instead we should get a low-paying social services job.  Or work in a food kitchen.  Anything is better than working for these most evil and vile corporations (see What Did Marissa Mayer Mean in a Year When 86% of Executives Were Still Men? by Rebecca Greenfield posted 12/11/2012 on The Atlantic Wire).

As of June, women held a mere 14.3 percent of executive positions at Fortune 500 companies, according to new data from Catalyst, reports Bloomberg’s Brooke Sutherland. That 1.4 percent increase from last year represents a “glacial pace,” the report states…

And it’s difficult to find signs of change elsewhere. Of the 71 leaders ranked in a new Forbes list of the world’s most powerful people, only four women made the cut…

As for the future of female CEOs, the gender pay-gap is still alive and well, even for fresh college graduates.

All right, I’m confused.  If corporations are so evil and serve Satan why is it so important for women to become rich CEOs at them?

This is the general consensus on the Left.  Who are not happy about glass ceilings.  Or gender pay-gaps.

If we pay CEOs too much why are they so concerned that female CEOs earn less than their male counterparts?  If we want to reduce CEO compensation we should applaud these women for doing just that.  These women may just be choosing not to rape and pillage the people with high prices.  With less profits (a good thing according to everyone on the Left) there’s less money to pay their CEO.  Or perhaps they aren’t drawing a large paycheck so their employees can have bigger paychecks.

Women are more nurturing and feeling.  We hear it all of the time.  It’s why we need more women in Congress.  Who will listen to the poor instead of the lobbyists.  Perhaps this is why there are so few female CEOs.  Because they are too nurturing and feeling to maximize profits for their shareholders.  Because profits are bad.  Or so the Left has told them all of their life from public school through college.  Institutions all controlled by the Left.  And more women did vote for President Obama than the rich CEO Mitt Romney.  Showing their disdain for corporate profits.  Perhaps shareholders noticed this general trend and prefer greedy, heartless, male sons of bitches to run their corporations so they will maximize their profits.  Someone who doesn’t favor birth control and abortion over profits, a driving factor in why women voted for President Obama according to exit polls.

So what are corporations?  Evil?  Or so good that we need more women running them?  They can’t be both.  They can’t be the source of everything that is wrong in this country while at the same time we criticize them for not having more women running them.  If they’re evil we should applaud the fact that few women run them and that we don’t pay those that do a lot.  If they’re not evil we need to stop attacking them.  And blaming our budget deficits on them.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cancer Survival Rates differ in Britain based on Locality and trail European Survival Rates

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2012

Week in Review

Despite Britain’s national health care British patients don’t receive equal health care.  Or equal chances of survival.  For all hospitals in the NHS are not the same.  Despite that being one of the driving arguments for national health care.  So everyone has access to quality care.  Not just the rich.  Or the otherwise located (see Jeremy Hunt: cancer postcode lottery ‘cannot be right’ by Rowena Mason posted 12/10/2012 on The Telegraph).

Jeremy Hunt, who took over the role in September, said it “cannot be right” that some patients have a worse chance of surviving because they do not live near the best hospitals…

Last night, he expressed disbelief at the huge variation in survival rates for bowel cancer patients within five years of diagnosis based on their location.

“It cannot be right that the five-year survival rate for colorectal cancer varies between areas – 68 per cent in the highest and 40 per cent in the lowest,” Mr Hunt said last night…

Five-year survival rates for bowel cancer have more than doubled over the last 40 years, but British patients still have a higher chance of dying from the disease than in many parts of Europe…

For some cancer types, survival rates are 10 to 15 per cent lower in England than in comparable countries like Australia, Canada and Sweden.

Here’s why your chances are better of dying from colorectal cancer in the UK than in Australia, Canada and Sweden.  Costs.  National health care is very, very expensive.  And the more patients you have the greater these costs are.  But if the costs grow so great for, say, an aging population, nations with more patients may have to make budget cuts, increase wait times and ration services more than nations with fewer patients.  As the NHS is doing.

The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Sweden because the UK has over 6 times (6.52) the population Sweden has.  The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Australia because the UK has almost 3 times (2.73) the population Australia has.  The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Canada because the UK has almost twice (1.78) the population Canada has.  And the United States under Obamacare will not be able to fight cancer as well as the UK because the United States has 5 times (5.06) the population the UK has.

The smaller the population the easier national health care is.  Because fewer patients means less cost.  No one has ever tried national health care on the scale the United States is about to try under Obamacare.  Or what Obamacare will morph into once it drives the private health insurance companies out of the market.  And the worst thing is that unlike patients in the UK, Canada, Australia and Sweden who had the option of traveling to the United States for better health care, there will be no place for Americans to travel to once Obamacare reduces the quality of American health care.  Just a pill to take to manage our pain until we feel pain no more.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,