I am not a smoker, nor do I purchase gas at the reservation. I am however, a firm believer in the sanctity of contracts. Just because one party of an agreement finds a loophole to their advantage does not give the other party the right to change the terms of the contract.
I must say I'm a bit suprised by the current 2 to 1 margin in favor of being able to buy tax free cigarettes. I'm reasonably sure that the readers of the Batavian fall into the norm when it comes to smoking vs non-smoking ratio. This tells me that there are a lot of non-smokers who are against the state collecting a tax from reservations. It shows again how smart and fair your readers are Howard. Even if you're a strong anti-smoking advocate, you can still make a decision about a unfair tax, over a bad habit.
To be fair about disclosure, I've been a smoker for over 30 years. The fear of the State taking my vehicle if caught with more than 2 cartons has made me reconsider my bad habit. Can you check on this one Howard? I was told that if arrested for having more then 2 cartons of cigarettes that the State not only impounds your vehicle, they actually keep it. I heard this from someone close to the Sheriff's Department. Since then I've asked around about the law and its penalties, but even some law enforcment officers haven't been able to give me a clear answer.
I may not smoke, but I agree with Timothy. There was a contract. You don't have the right to do something like this just because of some loop hole. I mean come on...what has this world come to???? TAXES TAXES TAXES..I have no problem paying taxes but to tax shit that shouldn't be in the first place because people want to be selfish...that is F*cking ridiculous.
I'm not a smoker and hate the habit with a passion as I feel it's disgusting but I also don't feel the government should be able to regulate taxing Indian reservations and people who go to them. You shouldn't have to pay NYS taxes on something not purchased in NY. Ever see the sign that says entering NY?
Yeah, and the one saying now leaving NY? Because that is technically not NY! Come on, if NYS can't keep their word why the hell else will anyone keep their word? Wow so what, you found a loop hole. KEEP YOUR DAMN WORD to the people who are on the rez!
How about government assistance going to the rez when they don't contribute through taxes? Is that fair? I'm ok with natives not paying tax as long as they don't take anything assistance from the government. But non-natives don't have the right, this has been ruled over and over in the courts. When I cross the border to Canada I have to pay a duty on goods I bring back. How is this any different?
Posted by Robert Bennett on August 27, 2009 - 10:17pm
How about government assistance going to the rez when they don't contribute through taxes? Is that fair? I'm ok with natives not paying tax as long as they don't take anything assistance from the government.
What about the Native Americans who have served our country? Is that not a contribution?
In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "This generation has a rendezvous with destiny." When Roosevelt said that he had no idea of how much World War II would make his prophecy ring true. More than fifty years later, Americans are remembering the sacrifices of that generation, which took up arms in defense of the nation. Part of that generation was a neglected minority, Native American Indians, who flocked to the colors in defense of their country. No group that participated in World War II made a greater per capita contribution, and no group was changed more by the war. As part of the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of World WarII, it is fitting forthe nation to recall the contributions of its own "first citizens."
The purchase of Treasury Stamps and Bonds by Indian tribes and individuals was considerable. By 1944, war bond sales to Indians had reached $50 million. Indians also made generous donations to the Red Cross and other organizations, giving what they had. All of this from a minority group at the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
The federal government designated some Indian lands and even tribes themselves as essential natural resources, appropriating tribal minerals, lumber, and lands for the war effort. After the war, Native Americans discovered thattheirservice forthe warefforthad depleted their resources without reward. Indian lands provided essential war materials such as oil, gas, lead, zinc, copper, vanadium, asbestos, gypsum, and coal. The Manhattan Project used Navajo helium in New Mexico to make the atomic bomb. The war effort depleted the Blackfeet's tribal resources of oil.
German soldiers during World War I had been befuddled by
Indians who transmitted messages over field phones in the Choctaw language. The 32d Infantry Division, Third Ammy, used Indians from Michigan and Wisconsin to work
with microphones and to transmit messages in the Louisiana Maneuvers of 1940. During World War II, the U.S. Marine Corps recruited Navajo Indians for the same purpose. Navajo marines used their language as a battlefield code that the Japanese never broke. The Navajo Code Talkers became the most celebrated and publicized of the radio units.
More than 12,000 Native Americans fought in World War 1. Thousands more served in Viet Nam, and are still serving their country.
Once again these Native Americans came to the aid of their Country at a time when their Country needed them.
What many probably do not know, is that many of these men are very skilled in the construction field as Iron Workers so they brought a skill to this site of catastrophe that was needed-their balance on tall buildings is almost unbelievable. Indian ironworkers helped buld the Twin Towers just as they had worked high steel jobs on the Empire State Building, the Verazano Narrows Bridge and much of the rest of New York.
Native American Indian construction workers worked at Ground Zero. They operated machinery, and worked what was called "The Pile" so firefighters could rest.
The Native Peoples gave over $2million dollars to the relief effort by week's end. That was one dollar for each Native American, collectively the most economically impoverished segment of society.
Bea's post was very informative, thank you. But, I think the same can be said for every minority group during both World Wars - the same little speech has been written for Blacks, Latinos, Women, Handicapped, etc. etc. etc.
The idea of reservations is outdated and does not help the Native Americans living on the land, and does not help the United States. We can renegotiate contracts, redesign health care, reclassify nations, reconsider war strategies, but we can't even review the idea of reservations because of a treaty that was signed fifteen to sixteen decades ago? Indians, Native Americans, whatever - they are US citizens, in this case, they really are NY citizens - we should all play by the same rules.
To Tim's comment- I'd rather have no extra taxes on gas, cigs, soda pop, fat people food, etc. But, if we're going to have these taxes, everyone, even the Indians, need to pay their fair share.
We, and by we I mean European settlers coming to the Americas 500 years ago, invaded their land. Keep the history in mind when suggesting changes to Indian reservations.
Robert, it is fair if it is allowed/promised under any contracts/treaties with the Indians. If the US or New York governments don't like the arrangements, then they need to renegotiate. It is bad faith to arbitrarily and unilaterally change the agreements.
Howard you reinforced my point precisley. Somehow in this country we have abandon the sanctitiy of the contract whether it is Indian treaties, union contracts, professional sports contracts, or employment agreements. It is always argued in the name of fairness, yet doesn't takes into account that both parties agreed to the fairness at the onset of the agreement. If the playing field changes during the tenure of the contract, then both parties must sit down and come to a new agreement.
Like Chris said. The Native Americans were here first. We invaded on their land and then pushed them to a designated piece of land that is their home. Renegotiating the treaties would be better than just stealing it from them.
Our economy is in the toilet now, finding loop holes and stealing isn't going to make it better. Its only going to be worse. What example is that setting? A BAD ONE!!
Amanda, one wrinkle with New York's Native Americans is that half the Nations picked the wrong side in the Revolutionary War, which greatly diminished their ability to hold onto their land.
Yeah Peter, but that's not the point. The point is that the government is stealing from the Native's. It's like Howard is saying. A contract is a contract. If they want to get more, they need to renegotiate about it. That simple. They may not be a country, but they are not technically part of NY either!
This has nothing to do with treaties. It is all about the transport and collection taxes on untaxed goods sold to non-Indians. Collection of taxes on reservations is forbidden by law only when it is to enrolled tribal members. Sales to non enrolled tribal members do not fall under protection of this law. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of NY State in 1994 with Department of Taxation and Finance of New York v Milhelm Attea & Bros. I'm glad to see people finally upholding the law and doing something about the collection of these taxes and those that evade paying them.
And Bea I saw that movie to and the documentary. They were both informative and entertaining but don't really apply to this. Sorry.
I am not a smoker, nor do I
I am not a smoker, nor do I purchase gas at the reservation. I am however, a firm believer in the sanctity of contracts. Just because one party of an agreement finds a loophole to their advantage does not give the other party the right to change the terms of the contract.
I must say I'm a bit suprised
I must say I'm a bit suprised by the current 2 to 1 margin in favor of being able to buy tax free cigarettes. I'm reasonably sure that the readers of the Batavian fall into the norm when it comes to smoking vs non-smoking ratio. This tells me that there are a lot of non-smokers who are against the state collecting a tax from reservations. It shows again how smart and fair your readers are Howard. Even if you're a strong anti-smoking advocate, you can still make a decision about a unfair tax, over a bad habit.
To be fair about disclosure,
To be fair about disclosure, I've been a smoker for over 30 years. The fear of the State taking my vehicle if caught with more than 2 cartons has made me reconsider my bad habit. Can you check on this one Howard? I was told that if arrested for having more then 2 cartons of cigarettes that the State not only impounds your vehicle, they actually keep it. I heard this from someone close to the Sheriff's Department. Since then I've asked around about the law and its penalties, but even some law enforcment officers haven't been able to give me a clear answer.
I may not smoke, but I agree
I may not smoke, but I agree with Timothy. There was a contract. You don't have the right to do something like this just because of some loop hole. I mean come on...what has this world come to???? TAXES TAXES TAXES..I have no problem paying taxes but to tax shit that shouldn't be in the first place because people want to be selfish...that is F*cking ridiculous.
I'm not a smoker and hate the
I'm not a smoker and hate the habit with a passion as I feel it's disgusting but I also don't feel the government should be able to regulate taxing Indian reservations and people who go to them. You shouldn't have to pay NYS taxes on something not purchased in NY. Ever see the sign that says entering NY?
Yeah, and the one saying now
Yeah, and the one saying now leaving NY? Because that is technically not NY! Come on, if NYS can't keep their word why the hell else will anyone keep their word? Wow so what, you found a loop hole. KEEP YOUR DAMN WORD to the people who are on the rez!
How about government
How about government assistance going to the rez when they don't contribute through taxes? Is that fair? I'm ok with natives not paying tax as long as they don't take anything assistance from the government. But non-natives don't have the right, this has been ruled over and over in the courts. When I cross the border to Canada I have to pay a duty on goods I bring back. How is this any different?
Posted by Robert Bennett on
Posted by Robert Bennett on August 27, 2009 - 10:17pm
How about government assistance going to the rez when they don't contribute through taxes? Is that fair? I'm ok with natives not paying tax as long as they don't take anything assistance from the government.
What about the Native Americans who have served our country? Is that not a contribution?
In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "This generation has a rendezvous with destiny." When Roosevelt said that he had no idea of how much World War II would make his prophecy ring true. More than fifty years later, Americans are remembering the sacrifices of that generation, which took up arms in defense of the nation. Part of that generation was a neglected minority, Native American Indians, who flocked to the colors in defense of their country. No group that participated in World War II made a greater per capita contribution, and no group was changed more by the war. As part of the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of World WarII, it is fitting forthe nation to recall the contributions of its own "first citizens."
The purchase of Treasury Stamps and Bonds by Indian tribes and individuals was considerable. By 1944, war bond sales to Indians had reached $50 million. Indians also made generous donations to the Red Cross and other organizations, giving what they had. All of this from a minority group at the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
The federal government designated some Indian lands and even tribes themselves as essential natural resources, appropriating tribal minerals, lumber, and lands for the war effort. After the war, Native Americans discovered thattheirservice forthe warefforthad depleted their resources without reward. Indian lands provided essential war materials such as oil, gas, lead, zinc, copper, vanadium, asbestos, gypsum, and coal. The Manhattan Project used Navajo helium in New Mexico to make the atomic bomb. The war effort depleted the Blackfeet's tribal resources of oil.
German soldiers during World War I had been befuddled by
Indians who transmitted messages over field phones in the Choctaw language. The 32d Infantry Division, Third Ammy, used Indians from Michigan and Wisconsin to work
with microphones and to transmit messages in the Louisiana Maneuvers of 1940. During World War II, the U.S. Marine Corps recruited Navajo Indians for the same purpose. Navajo marines used their language as a battlefield code that the Japanese never broke. The Navajo Code Talkers became the most celebrated and publicized of the radio units.
More than 12,000 Native Americans fought in World War 1. Thousands more served in Viet Nam, and are still serving their country.
Once again these Native Americans came to the aid of their Country at a time when their Country needed them.
What many probably do not know, is that many of these men are very skilled in the construction field as Iron Workers so they brought a skill to this site of catastrophe that was needed-their balance on tall buildings is almost unbelievable. Indian ironworkers helped buld the Twin Towers just as they had worked high steel jobs on the Empire State Building, the Verazano Narrows Bridge and much of the rest of New York.
Native American Indian construction workers worked at Ground Zero. They operated machinery, and worked what was called "The Pile" so firefighters could rest.
The Native Peoples gave over $2million dollars to the relief effort by week's end. That was one dollar for each Native American, collectively the most economically impoverished segment of society.
Bea's post was very
Bea's post was very informative, thank you. But, I think the same can be said for every minority group during both World Wars - the same little speech has been written for Blacks, Latinos, Women, Handicapped, etc. etc. etc.
The idea of reservations is outdated and does not help the Native Americans living on the land, and does not help the United States. We can renegotiate contracts, redesign health care, reclassify nations, reconsider war strategies, but we can't even review the idea of reservations because of a treaty that was signed fifteen to sixteen decades ago? Indians, Native Americans, whatever - they are US citizens, in this case, they really are NY citizens - we should all play by the same rules.
To Tim's comment- I'd rather have no extra taxes on gas, cigs, soda pop, fat people food, etc. But, if we're going to have these taxes, everyone, even the Indians, need to pay their fair share.
Good point Robert.
Good point Robert.
Indians were here first.
Indians were here first.
We, and by we I mean European settlers coming to the Americas 500 years ago, invaded their land. Keep the history in mind when suggesting changes to Indian reservations.
Robert, it is fair if it is
Robert, it is fair if it is allowed/promised under any contracts/treaties with the Indians. If the US or New York governments don't like the arrangements, then they need to renegotiate. It is bad faith to arbitrarily and unilaterally change the agreements.
Howard you reinforced my
Howard you reinforced my point precisley. Somehow in this country we have abandon the sanctitiy of the contract whether it is Indian treaties, union contracts, professional sports contracts, or employment agreements. It is always argued in the name of fairness, yet doesn't takes into account that both parties agreed to the fairness at the onset of the agreement. If the playing field changes during the tenure of the contract, then both parties must sit down and come to a new agreement.
Like Chris said. The Native
Like Chris said. The Native Americans were here first. We invaded on their land and then pushed them to a designated piece of land that is their home. Renegotiating the treaties would be better than just stealing it from them.
Our economy is in the toilet now, finding loop holes and stealing isn't going to make it better. Its only going to be worse. What example is that setting? A BAD ONE!!
Good counter-point to Robert,
Good counter-point to Robert, Howard.
Amanda and Chris, Did you
Amanda and Chris,
Did you forget the foreign policy of colonization?
"No Flag, No Country"
Amanda, one wrinkle with New
Amanda, one wrinkle with New York's Native Americans is that half the Nations picked the wrong side in the Revolutionary War, which greatly diminished their ability to hold onto their land.
Still, a contract is a contract.
Yeah Peter, but that's not
Yeah Peter, but that's not the point. The point is that the government is stealing from the Native's. It's like Howard is saying. A contract is a contract. If they want to get more, they need to renegotiate about it. That simple. They may not be a country, but they are not technically part of NY either!
The Onondaga Nation does have
The Onondaga Nation does have a flag
This has nothing to do with
This has nothing to do with treaties. It is all about the transport and collection taxes on untaxed goods sold to non-Indians. Collection of taxes on reservations is forbidden by law only when it is to enrolled tribal members. Sales to non enrolled tribal members do not fall under protection of this law. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of NY State in 1994 with Department of Taxation and Finance of New York v Milhelm Attea & Bros. I'm glad to see people finally upholding the law and doing something about the collection of these taxes and those that evade paying them.
And Bea I saw that movie to and the documentary. They were both informative and entertaining but don't really apply to this. Sorry.