Quote Originally Posted by SprngsCaregiver
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.

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.
*Sigh*

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.