In some states portions of the sales tax contribute to habitat / wildlife protection -- in Maryland a slice of the sales tax is helping to save and restore the Chesapeake Bay!
Overall though I think what the federal government is collecting to sustain agencies like the DNR, National Park Service and the U.S. Fish %26amp; Wildlife Service is sufficient. It just needs to be better spent and without the interference of outside agencies and those engaging in ';pork barrel'; projects.
I do think that as issues and problems further develop (mostly due to Climate Change) we should allocate more funding and resources to aspects of our national habitats that become threatened.
Something to keep in mind: the war in Iraq costs $275 million a day-or-so; Bush allocated less than that to projects to help restore / clean the Great Lakes for the entire 2008 fiscal year.
Some has a very poor perspectives on what's important for the American people.Should there be tax or levy specifically to go toward protection/preservation/ of wildlife?
No.
We pay enough taxes already. There are many conservation organizations and charities that do magnificent jobs helping protect wildlife. Let's rely on them.
Just mail them a check, maybe out of $100 you send in $1 would be used to do it, the other $99 would go to the bureaucrats. Anything the government touches they screw up, then expand it.
Much of the money comes from the sale of hunting and fishing Licenses. New tax and levy proceeds seem to get lost on their way to where their going.
Wildlife does not demand anything aditional for which taxes are to be imposed. Sympathy and love for wildlife costs nothing extra. Their destruction involves more cost than their protection.
the pittman-roberts tax on guns, and hunting supplies goes to just that. Most of the habitat andwetlands that we are now banned from were paid for by us.
Yes but from developers and other grants not collected forcibly through individual tax.
should there be a tax to keep people like you quiet?
No comments:
Post a Comment