Originally posted by: Ausm
Legalize then tax marijuana and prostitution= National debt paid off in 6 months
Ausm
Productivity drops, decreases GDP, STDs increase, medical costs increase = back to national debt in 6 months
Not so Ausm
Productivity drops, decreases GDP, STDs increase, medical costs increase = back to national debt in 6 months
Not so Ausm
Now we're talking!
We should probably also put an extra tax on any cars that come equipped with cigarette lighters too.
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Ausm
Legalize then tax marijuana and prostitution= National debt paid off in 6 months
Ausm
Productivity drops, decreases GDP, STDs increase, medical costs increase = back to national debt in 6 months
Not so Ausm
legalizing prostitution would mean no late nights on the prowl for the ladies (get into work more refreshed, increase productivity, increase GDP). it would allow for the government to regulate the industry and requires STD testing (STD decrease, medical cost decrease) and as Ausm noted... they can tax it all!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Ausm
Legalize then tax marijuana and prostitution= National debt paid off in 6 months
Ausm
Productivity drops, decreases GDP, STDs increase, medical costs increase = back to national debt in 6 months
Not so Ausm
Both your arguments are off-topic and flawed. The impacts of marijuana and prostitution, whether good or bad, is very minor relative to tobacco and alcohol.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,543
- 20,238
- 146
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Ausm
Legalize then tax marijuana and prostitution= National debt paid off in 6 months
Ausm
Productivity drops, decreases GDP, STDs increase, medical costs increase = back to national debt in 6 months
Not so Ausm
Name one person who's primary reason for not doing drugs or using prostitutes is "because it's illegal."
You honestly cannot. The illegality of these things stops no one from using them. It's education that does that.
Meanwhile, prostitution was perfectly legal in most areas of this country less than a century ago. For drugs, most were legal just 60-80 years ago. We managed just fine.
Ok a few things have been thrown out here that are downright lies
1. The added cost of health care for smokers is a crock. there are two reasons that smokers are in fact CHEAPER to society (the government) than no smokers. The first is that regaurdless of how you die after the age of 50 the last five years of medical expense is about the same for smokers and non smokers. Second is that smoker die quicker (sooner) than non smokers easing the burden of social security.
2. higher taxes do not cause people to quit. They cause people to break the law.
1. The added cost of health care for smokers is a crock. there are two reasons that smokers are in fact CHEAPER to society (the government) than no smokers. The first is that regaurdless of how you die after the age of 50 the last five years of medical expense is about the same for smokers and non smokers. Second is that smoker die quicker (sooner) than non smokers easing the burden of social security.
2. higher taxes do not cause people to quit. They cause people to break the law.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The whole cigarette tax agenda is just the government(s) taking advantage of knee-jerk populism in order to take over the tobacco industries.
If Big Tobacco is evil because they profit from selling cigarettes, then how much more evil is your government now that it profits even more from selling cigarettes than Big Tobacco does?
If Big Tobacco is evil because they profit from selling cigarettes, then how much more evil is your government now that it profits even more from selling cigarettes than Big Tobacco does?
While I'm against cigarettes, if smoking is eliminated completely, then we'd be losing a huge source of revenue, correct?
That's what I was thinking, I should load up a suburban with KY ciggies at $22 a carton and sell em in LA, of course the cost of gas and driving distance would probably kill the profit margin
Just because I think this thread needs some more information ... the current California state tax on cigarettes is 87 cents per pack
making California somewhere in the middle for all the states. If the proposition passes, the tax increase would make California the highest in the nation at $3.47 per pack.
I probably would vote for this though I do think it is not really fair to target smokers ... but the increased tax will lead to decrease smoking rates among younger folks who are less likely to afford the increased costs which I fully support.
making California somewhere in the middle for all the states. If the proposition passes, the tax increase would make California the highest in the nation at $3.47 per pack.
I probably would vote for this though I do think it is not really fair to target smokers ... but the increased tax will lead to decrease smoking rates among younger folks who are less likely to afford the increased costs which I fully support.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
With revenues of $3.47 per pack, what do you think?
FYI: Big Tobacco averages gross revenues of about $1 per pack and has production costs and other such overhead that the state does not have. If this tax goes through, I predict CA will start encouraging people to smoke in a few years.
You're so ****** stupid it's ridiculous. You think accidents are caused simply by speed? 10MPH fenderbender? Thats an accident and I'm sure it didn't require more than 10hp to do that.. :roll: Accidents are caused by morons, less morons on the road, less accidents. When you have lots of people+lots of morons, you have lots of accidents. If everyone was given a *real* driving test, like racing equivalent, so you *know* you vehicle, I'm sure we'd have less accidents.
::sigh::
Try reading the thread to find out where I stand on things before coming off like a moron.
I don't think this tax is going to stick...or at least it will be lowered (it definitely won't increase with inflation). This will raise their revenues but it definitely won't maximize them. Politicians don't really care that much about smoking, they pretend to hate it and only want to tax it to increase their revenue stream. The fact that less people will smoke is just a side-effect. If they really wanted to stop people from smoking, they would just ban smoking.
Pfft. Raise the driving age. That would get rid of a ton of accidents.
As for raising taxes to pay for healthcare and hoping it makes peopel quit. That's stupid as hell. How are you gonna calculate what the funding will be on what they hope will be a declining tax base. Basically they either need to make cigarettes illegal or start taxing all dangerous items on the same scale.
over the counter drugs
fast food
sporting goods
cell phones
The list could go on forever and the government could make bank.
I myself think they should criminalize tobacco.
Take over? The government is going to start producing and selling cigarettes?
They're taking advantage of the anti-smoking movement by raising the tax, but they can also do that with fuel and alcohol. It doesn't mean they are "taking over" anything.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter