CA to add $2.60 tax to cigarettes

[BoberFett]

Using the internet should be taxed. $5.15 an hour to use the internet, same as the federal hourly minimum wage. Obviously this tax needs to be regressive, so it will increase based on income.

Think of how many hundreds of millions of productive hours are wasted in this country every year by assholes reading internet forums and making comments about how the things they dislike should be taxed into oblivion. If people were heavily taxed for their time online, they'd quit spending so much time at it, and could do something productive like get another job, so the government could collect income tax on it. That would be an amazing boost to the economy!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: SagaLore
If I were the government, I would have banned cigarettes altogether by now. Its an extremely addictive substance.

Yeah, that worked oh so well for alcohol and the War On Drugs is quite the success story.

Alcohol is not addictive, and in moderation is good to have.

Cigarettes don't let you put them down willingly, and is very bad for your health.

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Platypus
What business does the government have in telling you what you can do with your own body?

The same business that makes it illegal for 40 yr olds to have sex with a 13 yr old.

Did your mother drop you on your head? From the second story? Good god you are stupid, man.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Using the internet should be taxed. $5.15 an hour to use the internet, same as the federal hourly minimum wage. Obviously this tax needs to be regressive, so it will increase based on income.

Think of how many hundreds of millions of productive hours are wasted in this country every year by assholes reading internet forums and making comments about how the things they dislike should be taxed into oblivion. If people were heavily taxed for their time online, they'd quit spending so much time at it, and could do something productive like get another job, so the government could collect income tax on it. That would be an amazing boost to the economy!

Did your mother drop you on your head? From the second story? Good god you are stupid, man.

 

[BoberFett]

That was ingenious.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
its already established smoking is bad
taxes are already exorbitant on cigarettes

what do you really think raising it will accomplish?

its not governments place to legislate on this sht

If I were the government, I would have banned cigarettes altogether by now. Its an extremely addictive substance.

Exactly.

Since cigarettes are legal there is zero reason for MJ not to be legal or any other brain altering drugs.

They all can be bringing in tax revenue instead of a tax drain.

 

[BoberFett]

Holy crap, is that logic emanating from Dave's direction? *looks out his window for four horsemen*

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Using the internet should be taxed. $5.15 an hour to use the internet, same as the federal hourly minimum wage. Obviously this tax needs to be regressive, so it will increase based on income.

Think of how many hundreds of millions of productive hours are wasted in this country every year by assholes reading internet forums and making comments about how the things they dislike should be taxed into oblivion. If people were heavily taxed for their time online, they'd quit spending so much time at it, and could do something productive like get another job, so the government could collect income tax on it. That would be an amazing boost to the economy!

Welcome to last month. They just essenetially did this by creating two teirs of the Internet.

I won't go into detail here as it is explained fully over in P&N.

 

[BoberFett]

That doesn't go far enough Dave. We need to tax the end user. Think of all crap on the internet that people waste time on. MySpace. Forums of all kinds. We need to tax the end user until they kick the habit.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: toekramp

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!

:thumbsup:

Ausm

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
That doesn't go far enough Dave. We need to tax the end user. Think of all crap on the internet that people waste time on. MySpace. Forums of all kinds. We need to tax the end user until they kick the habit.

The metering of the Internet like electricity will efectively be just like a progressive tax and will in fact knock many off except the rich.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: makoto00

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: makoto00

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: makoto00
i like this. i hope they add a fat people tax next. and then a stupid people tax after.

There already is a stupid people tax. To pay it, all you have to do is live in California.

California is a great place to live. What's the problem people have with it? I don't get it.

You and your fascist attitude is highly representative of it.

What fascist attitude. If almost everyone in CA agrees to it, it's not fascism is it. It's not like CA is telling the rest of the Union to add increased tobacco taxes. It's not like we're telling people to die either, quite the opposite, I think. And if the people of CA are so stupid, why is it doing so well comparatively to the rest of the Union? Personally, I think you're just jealous of not being able to live in CA. Either that, or you're a stupid, fat smoker, and I've offended you.

No, I'm a lean and trim non-smoker who hits the gym 3 times a week. It's your political ignorance offends me. Hitler and Mussolini were both democratically elected, that didn't make them not fascists. Social fascism is a form of moral authoritarianism where, in democratic countries, the majority unfairly punishes an unpopular minority social class.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: SagaLore
If I were the government, I would have banned cigarettes altogether by now. Its an extremely addictive substance.

Yeah, that worked oh so well for alcohol and the War On Drugs is quite the success story.

Alcohol is not addictive, and in moderation is good to have.

Cigarettes don't let you put them down willingly, and is very bad for your health.

:laugh: at bolded.

FYI: no drug is automatically addictive. Not even nicotine. The so-called Myth of Fu Manchu ("that a single whiff of opium will enslave the mind") is complete and utter bullsh!t propaganda that was used to sell the narcotics laws back in the Reefer Madness days.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BoberFett
That doesn't go far enough Dave. We need to tax the end user. Think of all crap on the internet that people waste time on. MySpace. Forums of all kinds. We need to tax the end user until they kick the habit.

The metering of the Internet like electricity will efectively be just like a progressive tax and will in fact knock many off except the rich.

Such is the price we pay for legislating morality.

"First they came for the narcotics, and I cheered because I hate damn dirty druggies.
Then they came for the cigarettes, and I cheered because I hate smelly smokers.
Then they came for the alcohol, and I cheered because I'm not a drunk.
Then they came for the fast food, and I cheered because fat people are gross.
Then they came for the internet, and I cried because I'm a nerd with no social skills and the only place people will accept me is on ATOT where I can hop on the bandwagons against drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and fast food."

Well, that may not be an exact quote, but it's something like that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Using the internet should be taxed. $5.15 an hour to use the internet, same as the federal hourly minimum wage. Obviously this tax needs to be regressive, so it will increase based on income.

Think of how many hundreds of millions of productive hours are wasted in this country every year by assholes reading internet forums and making comments about how the things they dislike should be taxed into oblivion. If people were heavily taxed for their time online, they'd quit spending so much time at it, and could do something productive like get another job, so the government could collect income tax on it. That would be an amazing boost to the economy!

:thumbsup:

 

[Fingolfin269]

You think they are legislating morality with this? That's a crock. They're letting the smokers fill up the coffers that will eventually pay for the health care bills they cause that would otherwise be avoided if there were no smoking.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
You think they are legislating morality with this? That's a crock. They're letting the smokers fill up the coffers that will eventually pay for the health care bills they cause that would otherwise be avoided if there were no smoking.

It is a myth that smokers cost society more than non-smokers.

But thanks for showing us why socialism is so very dangerous to freedom.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
You think they are legislating morality with this? That's a crock. They're letting the smokers fill up the coffers that will eventually pay for the health care bills they cause that would otherwise be avoided if there were no smoking.

1. End socialism. Problem solved.
2. With shorter life expentancies, smokers' health care costs are actually less than non-smokers. The overwhelming majority of health care costs occur at end-of-life. The longer you live, the longer it takes for you to die, the more costs you rack up.

"They" (actually "we," this is a democracy after all) are not only legislating morality with this, we are creating a new pariah class. Cowardly bullies always have to have someone to pick on. Their fear drives them. They can't go after blacks, jews, and gays anymore, the war on drugs is a failure, so now it's the smokers.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Using the internet should be taxed. $5.15 an hour to use the internet, same as the federal hourly minimum wage. Obviously this tax needs to be regressive, so it will increase based on income.

Think of how many hundreds of millions of productive hours are wasted in this country every year by assholes reading internet forums and making comments about how the things they dislike should be taxed into oblivion. If people were heavily taxed for their time online, they'd quit spending so much time at it, and could do something productive like get another job, so the government could collect income tax on it. That would be an amazing boost to the economy!

You haven't been around much and Now I know I missed you

 

[Legend]

Are there any statistics behind smokers having a lower cost on health care, other than saying they don't live as long? It's not as if a 70 year old smoker is as healthy as a 70 year old non smoker and dies instantly. Cancer treatments are expensive.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Banning all tobacco is a horrible idea and will make the problem much worse and harder to control. The best way to reduce its use is through education. I don't know why this concept is so hard for people to realize especially in light of all the success we've had at banning other substances some people decided they didn't approve of.

The prohibition of alcohol and marijuanna would seem to be an example that banning substances doesn't work.

exactly... If only all the people who advocate banning cigs would realize this.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Legend
Are there any statistics behind smokers having a lower cost on health care, other than saying they don't live as long? It's not as if a 70 year old smoker is as healthy as a 70 year old non smoker and dies instantly. Cancer treatments are expensive.

The numbers are actually pretty simple.

If you live til 50 you have a high likelyhood you will hav e illness leading up to death. the odd do not change smoker/non smoker

If you have pre death illness your costs will be high. (kidney failure is just as coslty as lung cancer)

So if you live past fifty the health care costs are about the same if you die from smoking or any other terminal illness

Now here is where the savings come in. Smokers die early so the expense is at 50 rather than 65

 

[ubercaffeinated]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: makoto00

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: makoto00

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: makoto00
i like this. i hope they add a fat people tax next. and then a stupid people tax after.

There already is a stupid people tax. To pay it, all you have to do is live in California.

California is a great place to live. What's the problem people have with it? I don't get it.

You and your fascist attitude is highly representative of it.

What fascist attitude. If almost everyone in CA agrees to it, it's not fascism is it. It's not like CA is telling the rest of the Union to add increased tobacco taxes. It's not like we're telling people to die either, quite the opposite, I think. And if the people of CA are so stupid, why is it doing so well comparatively to the rest of the Union? Personally, I think you're just jealous of not being able to live in CA. Either that, or you're a stupid, fat smoker, and I've offended you.

No, I'm a lean and trim non-smoker who hits the gym 3 times a week. It's your political ignorance offends me. Hitler and Mussolini were both democratically elected, that didn't make them not fascists. Social fascism is a form of moral authoritarianism where, in democratic countries, the majority unfairly punishes an unpopular minority social class.

So far you've called me stupid, ignorant, fascist, and compared me to Hitler and Mussolini. I don't think we're on the same page anymore so let's just stop. You've not made any hard points as to clarify "what is wrong with california" or "why californians are stupid in your opinion", or what historically or politically is so damn wrong with curbing the usage of an addictive drug through practical measures. You provide no examples, except to degrade California just for the sake of degrading it!

You pretty much learned how to argue from this webpage. Scroll to the end. Anyways, no hard feelings. :beer:

 

[crownjules]

I'll tell you why moves like this [advocating illegalization of cigarettes] are stupid.

Right now, cigarettes are legally obtainable. People exchange money for them. Government taxes that money. That's a win/win situation. So what if cigarettes are bad for people's health? If you make that illegal, that opens up many more avenues about what else the government can decide it wants to make illegal. But that's not the worst of it.

Suddenly, a multi-billion dollar operation is shut down and the government is shut off from those revenues. The cigarette industry might be shunned by many, but it is far from dieing off. The market for cigarettes still exists and will simply be forced underground to black markets. They'll just be another cocaine or heroin or crystal meth. The money swapping still goes on, but government doesn't profit. In fact, now they have to SPEND money to stop the illegal trafficking of cigarettes. Manpower has to be diverted from other tasks to do this. Jails will become crammed with more "criminals", making overcrowding problems even worse. More jails must be built, more guards hired to pay them. But who's to pay? Oh that's right. All those juicy tax dollars from cigarette sin taxes evaporated, so it looks like Uncle Sam will have to raise income/property/etc taxes to compensate.


EDIT: Dunno why I'm quoting a person, I removed that. This was in response to all the "ban cigarettes outright" people.

 

[fitzov]

So far you've called me stupid, ignorant, fascist, and compared me to Hitler and Mussolini.

You left out 'socialist'. Yes, it's the Vic argumentation style gone bad.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: makoto00

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: makoto00

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: makoto00

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: makoto00
i like this. i hope they add a fat people tax next. and then a stupid people tax after.

There already is a stupid people tax. To pay it, all you have to do is live in California.

California is a great place to live. What's the problem people have with it? I don't get it.

You and your fascist attitude is highly representative of it.

What fascist attitude. If almost everyone in CA agrees to it, it's not fascism is it. It's not like CA is telling the rest of the Union to add increased tobacco taxes. It's not like we're telling people to die either, quite the opposite, I think. And if the people of CA are so stupid, why is it doing so well comparatively to the rest of the Union? Personally, I think you're just jealous of not being able to live in CA. Either that, or you're a stupid, fat smoker, and I've offended you.

No, I'm a lean and trim non-smoker who hits the gym 3 times a week. It's your political ignorance offends me. Hitler and Mussolini were both democratically elected, that didn't make them not fascists. Social fascism is a form of moral authoritarianism where, in democratic countries, the majority unfairly punishes an unpopular minority social class.

So far you've called me stupid, ignorant, fascist, and compared me to Hitler and Mussolini. I don't think we're on the same page anymore so let's just stop. You've not made any hard points as to clarify "what is wrong with california" or "why californians are stupid in your opinion", or what historically or politically is so damn wrong with curbing the usage of an addictive drug through practical measures. You provide no examples, except to degrade California just for the sake of degrading it!

You pretty much learned how to argue from this webpage. Scroll to the end. Anyways, no hard feelings. :beer:

I don't need to provide examples, you provided them yourself by seriously suggesting that we should punitively tax (or otherwise punish) any and every one that you disapprove of. That's pretty much the definition of a moral authoritarian right there. You and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell must be golfing partners.

I have provided no examples of "what historically or politically is so damn wrong with curbing the usage of an addictive drug through practical measures"??? I mentioned the failed war on drugs several times, and there have also been multiple references made to the failed Prohibition in this thread as well.
Are you blind as well now?

BTW, I love your red herring that I am degrading California for the sake of it. :laugh:

Oh and btw, it's not invoking Godwin's law (or otherwise engaging in any other type of straw man argument) when you are able to make a factual comparison, as I did. If anyone made a straw man, it was you when you said I must be a fat smoker.

Originally posted by: fitzov
You left out 'socialist'. Yes, it's the Vic argumentation style gone bad.

Given that your politics are based solely on spite but disguised in false altruism and backed by ignorance, I'll take that as a compliment.
It's always been my style to not pull punches and to call a spade a spade. I have found that those people who take that personally, ignore my actual arguments, and respond with ad hominem attacks (as you always do), are those who never really had an argument to begin with, just a lot of knee-jerk emotional garbage.