Anyone else smell a three way combo of troll, donuts and a side of bacon? :rastasmoke:
Printable View
Anyone else smell a three way combo of troll, donuts and a side of bacon? :rastasmoke:
I think the bacon took top position ;)
No actually you are the one that is "mis-informed".Quote:
Originally Posted by cologrower420
That's fine if you feel that way, but I back up my 'mis-information' with facts. I haven't seen you post anything more than anecdotal evidence and accusations of why you personally think MMC's are anti-caregivers and would ask for the specific language of a 5 patient cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver
When I look at why things are as they are, in this case the 5 patient cap, I look at the possible explanations. Assuming I'm not a moron, than I can safely use Occam's razor, taking from that 'the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one', would suggest to me, that the probably explanation for the 5 patient cap is because the dept of revenue/tax guy/mattcook wanted to ensure that people in this industry paid their taxes. It's apparent that you guys weren't paying your taxes, and this legislation ensures that moving forward.
It seems to be that your explanation of why the 5 patient cap exists is because X amount of large MMC's lobbied someone to remove large scale private caregivers from competition. You are ignoring the fact that caregivers likely did most of their business with MMC's, and you seem to be ignoring the fact that MMC's probably bought most of their super top shelf stuff from caregivers. You also chose to 'attack' and nitpick my choice of the number 12, instead of looking into the idea, which is YOURS, that some number of MMC's were responsible for the 5 patient cap. I don't understand why you choose to take tiny parts of my posts and respond to them. You have repeatedly posted that this is how you post, and that's fine, but if you want to use a different number than 12, fine. Do it. Can we move along?
The only person that benefits from 1284/109 is the state department of revenue. This legislation does NOTHING to protect MMC's or anything else. Don't you think, if the MMC's had nearly as much control as you imply, that they'd do more to protect themselves, such as NOT signing attorney rights and that sort of stuff?
Do you have an explanation as to why the MMC's would request the 5 patient cap and ignore the other privacy issues? In your opinion, why would MMC's think the 5 patient cap on caregivers is an important topic?
Please educate me if I don't see it. I have asked you again and again to clarify why you think MMC's are responsible for the 5 patient cap, and I still haven't seen a response.
Criticize me all you want, I don't care. When you're ready to discuss this, let me know.
Really? Where are your facts? Where have you proven that 1284 was written for tax purposes? Seems to me every one of your OPINIONS, not facts, have been stomped out yet you keep presenting them as valid arguments over and over and over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by cologrower420
You still haven't answered the question... If all they wanted was the tax money then why wouldnt they just crack down on taxing caregivers, instead of trying to eliminate them? They would obviously make more money in taxes.
[edit]If you can't see that business' lobby to politicians for power I dont know what to tell you other than wake up. Your tax theory is seriously flawed.
So the State raking in 7.3 million on licensing in a week isn't an example of Revenue? And them altering Amendment 20 and my right to not be prosecuted for selling to another patient also isn't linked to Revenue?
I smell a stinky drug-dealing dispensary owner here. Not bacon, troll, or donuts.
As if the dispensary folks didn't have a "fuck em' attitude when they set up shop? And really, if the po-po didn't bust these folks selling openly how will they track the behind-the-scenes sales the average patient will continue to make? I hate to tell ya, but selling pot is ILLEGAL whether you have a card or not in the eyes of the Fed so tryin to get all high and mighty is pretty ridiculous and shows how blinded many folks are these days who never wore those blinders before.
they sure aren't gonna fight this starting at the bottom, now are they? LOL
*Sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver
When high level respected posters (like hipop) agree with me on this tax issue, that shows me that I am in a pretty good position with regards to my position/opinion on the root causes/explanations of the 5 patient cap.
I will address your question, but now I hold you to that same standard. If I address a question to you specifically, I expect you to answer it, since I am giving you the same respect, agreed?
You still haven't answered the question... If all they wanted was the tax money then why wouldnt they just crack down on taxing caregivers, instead of trying to eliminate them? They would obviously make more money in taxes.
Here is my answer to that question: I don't know why they didn't 'crack down' on those who weren't paying taxes. I guess I think A20 should have addressed that? It seems as if caregivers were operating under the assumption that if they didn't report the revenue as income, then they didn't have to pay taxes on it. It seems to me that the dept of revenue saw that caregivers were 'gaming the system' when they weren't receiving tax income they thought they should. I would explain 1284/109 as legislators creating rules for enforcement. They don't have to crack down on anything now, they don't have to 'increase enforcement' or 'crack down' on those not paying their share of taxes. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'cracking down on taxpayers'.
Now, let me ask you a question. Where do you stand with reform in this industry? Surely you'd agree that it's way too easy to get a doc reco, so the legislation addressed that and made it more difficult for recreational users to get a card. We agree so far? Surely, you'd also agree that roughly 99% of caregivers were NOT paying sales or income taxes on the revenue received from being a FOR PROFIT caregiver. Specifically, you are a caregiver. Do you pay income taxes on the revenue generated from your grow? Did your patients pay sales tax when you sold their meds to them? If the answer to those questions is no, then you are non-compliant, then I argue that 1284/109 go to great lengths to prevent illegal grows, 5 patient cap or not.
There. I have answered your questions, and I ask now that you follow up. You've posted that all of my opinions have been 'stamped out', but I disagree. You seem to just tell me that I'm wrong without explaining why. I am asking you to do that now. If you have the time to read and criticize my posts, then you should put the effort to explain to me why, instead of just saying I'm wrong. That's really lazy.
Just totally lol if you are referring to me with the bolded.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhash
blackhash, you seem like a nice person, but your posts are just so full of "OMG GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY FUCK THE FEDS" alarmism. I don't think it's needed. It should be obvious to anyone reading these threads that pot is illegal federally, so I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your posts.
Plus, the 7.3 million in revenue is a RESULT of 1284/109, not an excuse that it's bad. Do you understand this? I don't think the state would be enjoying that income if 1284/109 didn't pass, so I'm unsure of why you point out that this revenue is a reason to be anti 1284/109?
edit:[edit]If you can't see that business' lobby to politicians for power I dont know what to tell you other than wake up. Your tax theory is seriously flawed.
We agree that lobbyist's can have an effect on legislation and how it's passed. Until you provide information that mattcook says, 'this is the reason for the 5 patient cap', then you think one thing and I think another as for the cause of the 5 patient cap. I think my reasoning is more likely, you still think it was the big bad dispensaries. Can you provide any information or explain to me why your explanation is more likely than mine? If you don't have proof (I don't), then please give me your opinion. We don't have to be wrong or right, we can disagree and still have a discussion. I don't understand why that seems so hard. You present your argument that MMC's are responsible for the 5 patient cap, I present my argument that the state dept of revenue is more likely responsible for the 5 patient cap. People read the thread, they make their own opinion, and everyone is more informed than they were yesterday.
I don't know why you continue to think this is an us-versus-them battle or something. Let's all try to be aware of current legislation, regulations, rules and deadlines, and act accordingly. I don't expect to live my life the same way that you do, and I'm not telling you how to. I don't understand why we can't have an intelligent discussion on these subjects that we disagree on.
Do you work at the Dept Of Revenue? If not what qualifies you to make this assertion? Why do you constantly separate caregivers from any other person that is self employed that may or may not be paying taxes? Please show me any documentation that shows caregivers are less likely to pay taxes than any other self employed person.Quote:
Originally Posted by cologrower420
in case anyone needs it, I had a hard time finding it at first.
Cannabis Forums Message Boards - Your Ignore List