G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile


Buell Motorcycle Forum » Quick Board Archives » Archive through October 24, 2007 » Extortion now legal in Michigan « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through October 18, 2007Nevrenuf30 10-18-07  12:55 pm
         

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Arcticktm
Posted on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 01:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I think $5 casual Friday's is an equally stupid idea.
If nothing else, I at least learned not to screw with Fat B, lest he use that permit!
Besides, isn't that permit technically to cover the "concealed" part, and not for the firearm carrying itself?
I could be wrong. It has been known to happen (according to my wife).
The part that bugs me about the whole deal is the idea that the financial "burden" of helmetless riders is more important to the government than the actual health of the riders. Just the opposite of seatbelt law arguments for cage drivers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ryker77
Posted on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 03:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/inde x.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jlnance
Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 08:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I was also seriously looking at commute times from neighboring states.

You really don't want to pay income tax in two states.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etennuly
Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 08:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Yeah, but they didn't really mean it. Once government official positions became professional paid positions this was one of the first ignored principals. It reminds me of that Cyndi Lauper song; 'Money Changes Everything'.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mikej
Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 09:53 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

You really don't want to pay income tax in two states.

Currently pay state income tax plus sales tax plus high property tax, double state income tax could conceivable end up being less.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Arcticktm
Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 12:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Unless you have an idiot for a tax preparer, you should not end up paying income tax in 2 states.
This is pretty common in large cities that are close to a border (Detroit).
I lived in MI, MN, FL and NC in the past 7 years, so I am getting used to filing in multiple states.
Of course, FL has no income tax, so that was an easy one!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Not_purple_s2
Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 01:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Wouldn't it make more sense for the insurance companies to make rider protection part of the policy?
Example: I'm never going to ride without a helmet. I'd be willing to sign to a policy saying that my insurance would only cover me in an accident if I'm wear a DOT approved helmet. In exchange I would expect to get a discount for being a responsible rider.
The insurance company could make up the difference and then some by marking up the rates of riders who will not agree to wear helmets since they will be a higher risk.

Does that make sense?
« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and custodians may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration