• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

new taxes

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
It was pretty clear to me during the campaign that he was referring to taxes based on income, not sales and excise taxes. Should we hold him accountable for increases in state and local taxes as well?
Not to me. He said no new taxes. All of us know that we pay more than just income taxes, so this new tax is a break of that promise. You could argue it was income, but to keep income the same and then increase it elsewhere is just a semantical game on his part, if that was his intent.

I personally don't give a sh*t about this one, though. Raises taxes on smokes up to $40/pack for all I care. Of course, you'll see less smokers so net actual revenues I'm not sure if they go up or down. I seriously cannot believe grown adults actually put those cancer sticks in their mouths, but fvck it.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: Blankman1026
Originally posted by: Harvey
Good. Tobacco smokers cost the health care system far more than their share of total medical costs. If they want to continue smoking, taxing tobacco is a good way for them contribute to the added burden they impose on everyone else, and it's directly proportional to the cause.

Anything that encourages people to quit is good for the nation. :thumbsup:
do you have any proof for this statement? just curious
CDC estimates $193 billion per year in lost wages and healthcare costs due to Smoking.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
Text

So does that affect only the smokers that make over $250 k?

President Obama signed a law early in his administration to raise taxes from 39 cents to $1.01 per pack of cigarettes and from 19.5 cents to 50 cents per pound for chewing tobacco.

Not that I care, as I don't smoke. But I am sure there will be a lot more taxes coming our way. One more Obama lie.
Since Obama smokes and chews tobacco, you should be happy.
He'll pay more in taxes. ;)
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: daniel49
Text

So does that affect only the smokers that make over $250 k?

President Obama signed a law early in his administration to raise taxes from 39 cents to $1.01 per pack of cigarettes and from 19.5 cents to 50 cents per pound for chewing tobacco.

Not that I care, as I don't smoke. But I am sure there will be a lot more taxes coming our way. One more Obama lie.
Since Obama smokes and chews tobacco, you should be happy.
He'll pay more in taxes. ;)
Will he up the taxes on cocaine too?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: daniel49
Text

So does that affect only the smokers that make over $250 k?

President Obama signed a law early in his administration to raise taxes from 39 cents to $1.01 per pack of cigarettes and from 19.5 cents to 50 cents per pound for chewing tobacco.

Not that I care, as I don't smoke. But I am sure there will be a lot more taxes coming our way. One more Obama lie.
Since Obama smokes and chews tobacco, you should be happy.
He'll pay more in taxes. ;)
Will he up the taxes on cocaine too?
Oh snap!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,697
3,156
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
It was pretty clear to me during the campaign that he was referring to taxes based on income, not sales and excise taxes. Should we hold him accountable for increases in state and local taxes as well?
President Barack Obama ? quasi State of the Union Speech ? Tuesday February 24th:

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you?ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.



Guess he forgot the asterisk, or the really quick talk you hear on the radio in similar circumstances.
talking about income tax!!!
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
It was pretty clear to me during the campaign that he was referring to taxes based on income, not sales and excise taxes. Should we hold him accountable for increases in state and local taxes as well?
President Barack Obama ? quasi State of the Union Speech ? Tuesday February 24th:

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you?ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.



Guess he forgot the asterisk, or the really quick talk you hear on the radio in similar circumstances.
He shouldn't have had to, as he was already talking on taxes based on income. See that figure he mentioned? It only makes sense to talk about income brackets when discussing income taxes. Why would he be talking about taxes that aren't income-based? Property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and tariffs are not based on income. C'mon.
Don't bother. Anything for the Obama bashing trolls to get their dig in.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: Blankman1026
Originally posted by: Harvey
Good. Tobacco smokers cost the health care system far more than their share of total medical costs. If they want to continue smoking, taxing tobacco is a good way for them contribute to the added burden they impose on everyone else, and it's directly proportional to the cause.

Anything that encourages people to quit is good for the nation. :thumbsup:
do you have any proof for this statement? just curious
CDC estimates $193 billion per year in lost wages and healthcare costs due to Smoking.
The only study I heard of that did a meaningful comparison, which was in the Netherlands, I think, said that the costs of smoking are actually lower than neutral; i.e. the money spent keeping people chugging along while hacking up their lungs at 55 are less than keeping a normal person going up through their 70's, so in fact the short-term damage to the healthcare system results in a net positive because they kill themselves off before they run into the more common senior problems, which can linger for years and cost a lot.

 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Yep, Obama said he would not raise taxes for those making $250,000 or less. He didn't say he would not raise "income taxes", he said "taxes". Another lie of course, but the media will not hold the dear leader accountable. Had it been a republican, there would be a multitude of stories about how much of a disporporationate impact such a cigarette tax has on minorities, how it was a big tax increase, how it's putting more pressure on people already stressed etc etc etc....
 

ArbysOvenMitt

Junior Member
Nov 3, 2007
11
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: Blankman1026
Originally posted by: Harvey
Good. Tobacco smokers cost the health care system far more than their share of total medical costs. If they want to continue smoking, taxing tobacco is a good way for them contribute to the added burden they impose on everyone else, and it's directly proportional to the cause.

Anything that encourages people to quit is good for the nation. :thumbsup:
do you have any proof for this statement? just curious
CDC estimates $193 billion per year in lost wages and healthcare costs due to Smoking.
The only study I heard of that did a meaningful comparison, which was in the Netherlands, I think, said that the costs of smoking are actually lower than neutral; i.e. the money spent keeping people chugging along while hacking up their lungs at 55 are less than keeping a normal person going up through their 70's, so in fact the short-term damage to the healthcare system results in a net positive because they kill themselves off before they run into the more common senior problems, which can linger for years and cost a lot.
Interesting, but does it take into consideration the health effect of second hand smoke? I'd imagine that asthma and the dozens of other second hand smoking related illnesses - especially those forced upon babies and children - would certainly affect the net effect.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
It was pretty clear to me during the campaign that he was referring to taxes based on income, not sales and excise taxes. Should we hold him accountable for increases in state and local taxes as well?
President Barack Obama ? quasi State of the Union Speech ? Tuesday February 24th:

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you?ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.



Guess he forgot the asterisk, or the really quick talk you hear on the radio in similar circumstances.
He shouldn't have had to, as he was already talking on taxes based on income. See that figure he mentioned? It only makes sense to talk about income brackets when discussing income taxes. Why would he be talking about taxes that aren't income-based? Property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and tariffs are not based on income. C'mon.
Most of those aren't federal taxes. Plus, our energy costs are going to go up thanks to green garbage cap and trade.
Most? Try half. Property taxes and sales taxes are hardly federal taxes, sure, but tariffs and excise taxes are. However, the point still stands. Obama did not enter into a blanket 'read my lips - no new taxes' pledge. Energy costs going up due to any cap and trade scheme, which may or may not become a reality. Nice try at diversion.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=6725512&page=1

STEPHANOPOULOS: they're saying that's giving a check to people who don't pay taxes rather than cutting taxes for people who do.

PELOSI: But they do pay taxes. Payroll tax. And President Bush agreed with that last year and using that precedent we have built upon that.



If you want to bundle together all federal taxes at some point, that cuts both ways. But if you want to insert phantom words into his statements, that's your deal.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: ScottyB
Only a brain-damaged baboon would whine about Obama in this instance.
Is this or is this not a massive tax increase on those who earn less than the magic number of 250K?

"read my lips, no new taxes" BB does it again.
And we can wax philosophical sht like "Obama is a smoker, why would he hurt his own kind"? 2 can play the stupid game, let's act like we're not in kindercare.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
A couple years ago, they raised the cigarette tax and lost revenue. Of course, the idiot Democrats forecasted massive revenue gains and allocated it to their pet projects.

2 years later, they have a sizable state deficit and are crying that they need more cash. :laugh:
I may be wrong, but I believe that losing revenue by raising taxes was their intended outcome. The point of taxing cigarettes is to give people an incentive to quit, raising revenue is secondary. Less people smoking = Less revenue (despite the higher taxes) = the bill is working as intended.

Seriously, how difficult was that to figure out?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: winnar111
A couple years ago, they raised the cigarette tax and lost revenue. Of course, the idiot Democrats forecasted massive revenue gains and allocated it to their pet projects.

2 years later, they have a sizable state deficit and are crying that they need more cash. :laugh:
I may be wrong, but I believe that losing revenue by raising taxes was their intended outcome. The point of taxing cigarettes is to give people an incentive to quit, raising revenue is secondary. Less people smoking = Less revenue (despite the higher taxes) = the bill is working as intended.

Seriously, how difficult was that to figure out?
Except you just made that up completely. :roll:

http://www.nj.com/gloucester/i...75452695840.xml&coll=8

State worker furloughs and wage freezes are expected to save $400 million. Though he did not mention the number of furlough days in the speech, Corzine previously proposed requiring 12 Ð one each month in the next fiscal year. Additionally, a one-year, 0.75 percent income tax hike on those making over $500,000 a year would bring in $380 million; a 25 percent tax increase on alcohol and 12.5-cent increase on cigarettes is expected to generate $48 million, according to budget documents.

Of course, its more likely to lose $48 million than generate it. :laugh:

Anything else you want to pull out of your ass?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: winnar111
A couple years ago, they raised the cigarette tax and lost revenue. Of course, the idiot Democrats forecasted massive revenue gains and allocated it to their pet projects.

2 years later, they have a sizable state deficit and are crying that they need more cash. :laugh:
I may be wrong, but I believe that losing revenue by raising taxes was their intended outcome. The point of taxing cigarettes is to give people an incentive to quit, raising revenue is secondary. Less people smoking = Less revenue (despite the higher taxes) = the bill is working as intended.

Seriously, how difficult was that to figure out?
Except you just made that up completely. :roll:

http://www.nj.com/gloucester/i...75452695840.xml&coll=8

State worker furloughs and wage freezes are expected to save $400 million. Though he did not mention the number of furlough days in the speech, Corzine previously proposed requiring 12 Ð one each month in the next fiscal year. Additionally, a one-year, 0.75 percent income tax hike on those making over $500,000 a year would bring in $380 million; a 25 percent tax increase on alcohol and 12.5-cent increase on cigarettes is expected to generate $48 million, according to budget documents.

Of course, its more likely to lose $48 million than generate it. :laugh:

Anything else you want to pull out of your ass?
Alcohol prices in NJ were generally a little lower than most states and now he's raising it 25%? Talk about extreme.

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Good. Tobacco smokers cost the health care system far more than their share of total medical costs. If they want to continue smoking, taxing tobacco is a good way for them contribute to the added burden they impose on everyone else, and it's directly proportional to the cause.

Anything that encourages people to quit is good for the nation. :thumbsup:
I think we need to tax shitty music like yours for the burden of hearing problems due to bleeding eardrums it creates on society.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Good. Tobacco smokers cost the health care system far more than their share of total medical costs. If they want to continue smoking, taxing tobacco is a good way for them contribute to the added burden they impose on everyone else, and it's directly proportional to the cause.

Anything that encourages people to quit is good for the nation. :thumbsup:
And so don't fatties, and aggressive drivers and people who don't exercise and........

And Harvey, let's not forget the fact that the Feds and most states rely on these taxes for many social programs. Where is that money going to come from if people quit like you hope?
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Harvey
Good. Tobacco smokers cost the health care system far more than their share of total medical costs. If they want to continue smoking, taxing tobacco is a good way for them contribute to the added burden they impose on everyone else, and it's directly proportional to the cause.

Anything that encourages people to quit is good for the nation. :thumbsup:
And so don't fatties, and aggressive drivers and people who don't exercise and........

And Harvey, let's not forget the fact that the Feds and most states rely on these taxes for many social programs. Where is that money going to come from if people quit like you hope?
It will probably be some kind of tax in reference to one of the other issues you mentioned. I'm sure the media would coin it 'The McD's Tax' or 'The Fatty Tax' or something along those lines. Government isn't going to just stand by when all of the smokers quit or die and the tax $ stop rolling in.

I can see it now... 'My McGangBang costs WHAT???'
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
A) This is old news, why are we reporting it as a new issue?
B) Obviously he was referring to income tax. Its cute that you attack semantics, because you can't attack substance. Everyone with even half an active brain knows he was talking about income tax. Try harder next time.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,555
5,807
126
Originally posted by: XZeroII

You're missing the point. Obama specifically said over and over that he would not raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. We would not see our taxes go up a single cent were almost his exact words.
when you get a raise you should refuse to pay a cent more in taxes than prior to the raise and tell the IRS auditor "obama said so!"


Originally posted by: winnar111

Most of those aren't federal taxes. Plus, our energy costs are going to go up thanks to green garbage cap and trade.
we better have smart meters before cap and trade
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Deeko
A) This is old news, why are we reporting it as a new issue?
B) Obviously he was referring to income tax. Its cute that you attack semantics, because you can't attack substance. Everyone with even half an active brain knows he was talking about income tax. Try harder next time.
As long as you completely understand that the way to raise taxes is to do it by taxing everything else higher except income? The end result is the same - higher overall taxation. States with democratic government have been doing this left and right and BB is just doing the same all while lieing to the American people with a straight face.
 

evident

Lifer
Apr 5, 2005
11,625
182
106
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
It was pretty clear to me during the campaign that he was referring to taxes based on income, not sales and excise taxes. Should we hold him accountable for increases in state and local taxes as well?
President Barack Obama ? quasi State of the Union Speech ? Tuesday February 24th:

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you?ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.



Guess he forgot the asterisk, or the really quick talk you hear on the radio in similar circumstances.
people who spend $$ on cigarettes are better off spending it on stuff for their families anyway. duh
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Deeko
A) This is old news, why are we reporting it as a new issue?
B) Obviously he was referring to income tax. Its cute that you attack semantics, because you can't attack substance. Everyone with even half an active brain knows he was talking about income tax. Try harder next time.
As long as you completely understand that the way to raise taxes is to do it by taxing everything else higher except income? The end result is the same - higher overall taxation. States with democratic government have been doing this left and right and BB is just doing the same all while lieing to the American people with a straight face.
No, he isn't.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Deeko
A) This is old news, why are we reporting it as a new issue?
B) Obviously he was referring to income tax. Its cute that you attack semantics, because you can't attack substance. Everyone with even half an active brain knows he was talking about income tax. Try harder next time.
If money is going out of your wallet. does it really matter what kind of tax it is?
The result is the same.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY