Except that the companies aren’t selling it on the reservation unless there is a company store.
If someone has a liquor license they can purchase a product from a distributor. Short of that would require a industrial beer police with the power to kick doors down and that’s not the job of the beer companies. It’s the job of local law enforcement.
the key word in the article is “bootleggers” and it should be dismissed as fast as it hits a judges desk.
What possible clue could those poor, innocent, Nebraska beer stores have that they were doing anything wrong? :rolleyes:
CMC fnord!
The 1% during WWII paid a 91% marginal tax rate, it is now 33%. You are right when you say they were responsible, they were, they just didn’t pass that on to their children. Now we have a whole generation of the most selfish people in the world, baby boomers, who will continue to repeatedly screw the entire country, until they die.
On the other hand, could they have gotten in trouble for refusing to sell to Native Americans?
Wouldn’t being responsible involve taking care of yourself and bringing only the number of children you can afford to raise into the world? That seems like the responsible thing to me.
But if you think other people should pay for this because they have excess money then I volunteer all your excess money to the cause. And unlike a politician, I won’t charge you for the decree. Go forth and spend your own money.
I’m not sure what you are getting at, to a baby boomer, a marginal rate of 91% is perfectly fine, as long as it’s their parents who are paying it. I mean, a rate of 91% wouldn’t really affect any boomers until they became older and started making good money, like sometime in the 1980’s, when the tax rate mysteriously dropped to 28%.
Huh? Where do you get the idea that baby boomers think/thought a rate of 91% was fine?
Does this tribe have casinos and tax-free cigarettes? Because you know, sometimes the laws are different on the other side. Thus is the nature of sovereign states.
If you go back and look at the various tax rates of the last century you’ll find that it’s damn near impossible to make a decent comparison of numbers. in 1944 there were a zillion brackets (ok maybe 44) so the upper rate doesn’t span much of a bracket. After that, there are the deductions that affect the number greatly. So it sounds like wealthy people in 1944 paid a lot of taxes but in reality they didn’t.
I think it’s more relevant to point out today the politicians who skirt their tax responsibilities. Geitner, the man in charge of collecting taxes has to this day not paid all of his back taxes. John Kerry, whose wealthy wife hides her money in tax free bonds, tried to save half a million in taxes by docking his yacht in another state. Sen. Claire McCaskill had $287,000 in unpaid taxes on an airplane. Charles Rangel didn’t report income from rental of beach front property in the Dominican Republic.
I’m sure there are a lot more but I only mention a few names to show that the wealthy politicians who suggest more taxes seem to have a problem paying them. Higher taxes seem like a great idea when somebody else pays them. And if you go back to 1944 you’ll see that everybody paid taxes. That is not the case today. Not only do we not collect payroll taxes from the poor, we pay them in the form of Earned Income Credit money. Quite the shift from 1944.
So I guess my point is that the wealthy are hardly skating on their tax responsibilities given the reduction of tax brackets from 44 to 6. The marginal rates reflect that reduction of brackets.
I’m reminded of the lawsuit the city of Chicago filed against gun stores in neighboring suburbs, claiming that they had to know that most of their customers were Chicago residents.
I suppose it all comes down to the question of how much are social problems due to individual choice and how much due to systematic influences. Strict personal moralism isn’t a helpful strategy but then you go to the other end of the spectrum, where supposedly everything’s due to environment.
Almost certainly. The store owners are probably quite limited in what they’re allowed to do, even if they have a pretty good idea what’s going on.
Your grandparents notwithstanding, your thesis is bunk. People have been suing corporations for harm caused in part by their own problems at least since well before “the WWII generation”.
So the stores that are in the business of selling alcohol should be liable for selling alcohol to adults over age 21?
The defense bar joked that this would start after the tobacco lawsuits. I guess they were right.
There’s a potential case to be made that certain quantities of sale in low population areas could be a start to an investigation for conspiracy to smuggle, given the well-known and longstanding ban on alcohol on the nearby reservation.
So prohibition doesn’t work, who would have thunk?
I think this lawsuit could potentially have merit dependent on two very specific facts: whether the store owners/operators were aware that their goods were being smuggled onto the reservation, and whether there was anything they could have done to prevent it.
Certainly owning an establishment in a high risk area alone could not be the basis for liability. To hold otherwise would effectively allow the reservation to control the use of neighboring land.
Absolutely–the bare fact of sale amounts per population can only be considered as a starting point for an actual investigation.
But that is always going to happen in any border area with restrictive alcohol laws. If you own a liquor store at the border of a dry county, you know damned good and well that you are selling a bunch of booze to people who live in the dry county.
So what do you do? Have a policy of checking licenses and refusing to sell to residents of the dry county? Why? The law is territorial. It doesn’t apply to residents of the dry county in your county. Just like the reservation laws don’t apply to Indians standing in your store.
This type of legal standard puts the burden on the wrong people. The sellers of the booze have no responsibility once it leaves the store (assuming the purchaser was 21, not intoxicated, etc.). That responsibility belongs to the purchaser.
Or should we just say that Native Americans/Indians are just a bunch of damn drunks and make it illegal to sell to them? Of course that would cause some civil rights problems.
What exactly should these stores do to escape liability?
I said start an investigation, if suspicious quantities are being moved.
If said investigation turns up normal customers buying normal amounts of beer, all good.
If said investigation turns up shady customers buying larger-than-legal amounts of beer out the back door/warehouse door, then that’s another thing.
What if it’s simply every drunk on the reservation coming in to buy their own beer?