Obama?s recession remedy: Tax the poor!

[Thump553]

When the amount collected in tobacco taxes exceeds the amounts given in subsidies to grow tobacco and the amounts the government spends to cover health care costs caused by tobacco use then raise your argument. Otherwise we nonsmokers are continuing to involuntarily subsidize this public health plague.

Characterizing it as a tax on the poor is a diversionary debating point.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Wreckem
This was in the last SCHIP bill that failed twice previously. Its nothing new, nor did Obama bring about the idea.

It didnt pass previously, and it wont pass now. Moderate Dems in the House from tobacco states HAVE to vote no. Add in the Blue Dogs and Republicans, and it fails again.

Between the spending hikes the bill wants and the tax hikes to ALL tobacco products, there are to many people who need to vote no for political reasons.

October 3, 2007: Bush Vetoes Children?s Health Bill

Are you telling me Obama will veto H.R.2? You say it failed before, when it was only the President standing in its way. You made a pretty speech about how Congress won't approve it, but they already did so once before. I see that as reason enough to think they'll do it again.

Sorry it was fuzzy memories. I forgot the details.I mainly just remember when I was working in a congressional office and we were recieiving 300+ phone call a day, more than any other issue until the bailout bills.

Funny thing is, some of the same people complaining about the tobacco taxes called back and asked why so and so voted against SCHIP.

This increase if its the same as last time will cause some of the more liberal locations to have cigerettes going for close to $10 a pack.

Also I know last time the tax on cigars was going up 200%

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Thump553
When the amount collected in tobacco taxes exceeds the amounts given in subsidies to grow tobacco and the amounts the government spends to cover health care costs caused by tobacco use then raise your argument. Otherwise we nonsmokers are continuing to involuntarily subsidize this public health plague.

Characterizing it as a tax on the poor is a diversionary debating point.

Then perhaps the tax should go towards smokers health insurance?

 

[IGBT]

..it's trickle up poverty. you guys down in the mud are staying there.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..it's trickle up poverty. you guys down in the mud are staying there.

That's the Barrack Hussein Obama plan!

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
Taxing something that leads to a ton extensive medical problems in millions of people to pay for a healthcare program.... what idiots!

Many of them think it will make people quit smoking. So they earmark money on what they hope is a declining tax base?

If they really gave a danm the money would go to create smoking cessation programs.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: bozack
anyone who doesn't see this as a tax on the poor or middle class is an absolute idiot...

That's a pretty broad generalization there. Do the upper class get tobacco for free? Do all poor and middle class use tobacco?
This is a tax on tobacco users. Using tobacco is a personal choice, and class has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, tobacco use costs us ALL money regardless of your choice.
Personally, I do not disagree with increased taxes on tobacco products. I would like to see decreased shelter and increased taxes for tobacco producers, however. And yes, I did choose to smoke, and use other tobacco products for many years. If my choice to use tobacco becomes a burden on society due to medical care some day, I feel it would be quite hypocritical to say this tax is unfair.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: bozack
anyone who doesn't see this as a tax on the poor or middle class is an absolute idiot...

That's a pretty broad generalization there. Do the upper class get tobacco for free? Do all poor and middle class use tobacco?
This is a tax on tobacco users. Using tobacco is a personal choice, and class has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, tobacco use costs us ALL money regardless of your choice.
Personally, I do not disagree with increased taxes on tobacco products. I would like to see decreased shelter and increased taxes for tobacco producers, however. And yes, I did choose to smoke, and use other tobacco products for many years. If my choice to use tobacco becomes a burden on society due to medical care some day, I feel it would be quite hypocritical to say this tax is unfair.

Umm last I checked, the tobacco companies are still paying billions of dollars to both the 46 state govts and to the federal govt from the tobacco settlements. Does the money go to cover medical costs? Its supposed to but rarely does.

And yes sin taxes are extremely regressive and effect the poor more adversely than other classes.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Umm last I checked, the tobacco companies are still paying billions of dollars to both the 46 state govts and to the federal govt from the tobacco settlements. Does the money go to cover medical costs? Its supposed to but rarely does.

And yes sin taxes are extremely regressive and effect the poor more adversely than other classes.

The poll suggests that the people here support playing morality police, and telling others how to live their lives. Indeed, it seems as if the entire concept of freedom has been educated OUT of this country as a relic of the past that is no longer convenient for our modern lust for power over others.

I oppose anyone voting in favor of H.R.2 calling themselves a liberal. It seems P&N may have many Democrats, but they share a lot more in common with Bush and the Patriot Act than they like to admit. No doubt it is the reason they approved the Patriot Act in the first place. This subject is an example where I am more liberal than P&N.

Liberal
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

In this case, the apple has fallen very far from the tree.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: bozack
anyone who doesn't see this as a tax on the poor or middle class is an absolute idiot...

That's a pretty broad generalization there. Do the upper class get tobacco for free? Do all poor and middle class use tobacco?
This is a tax on tobacco users. Using tobacco is a personal choice, and class has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, tobacco use costs us ALL money regardless of your choice.
Personally, I do not disagree with increased taxes on tobacco products. I would like to see decreased shelter and increased taxes for tobacco producers, however. And yes, I did choose to smoke, and use other tobacco products for many years. If my choice to use tobacco becomes a burden on society due to medical care some day, I feel it would be quite hypocritical to say this tax is unfair.

Umm last I checked, the tobacco companies are still paying billions of dollars to both the 46 state govts and to the federal govt from the tobacco settlements. Does the money go to cover medical costs? Its supposed to but rarely does.

And yes sin taxes are extremely regressive and effect the poor more adversely than other classes.

The tobacco industry gets plenty of breaks to make up for the settlement money they paid. With companies like Philip Morris profiting about $2B/Qtr I am sure they aren't struggling to pay their part.

Last I checked, tobacco wasn't a life sustaining necessity. Increasing taxes on it only affects those that choose to use it.
Increasing taxes on food and water would adversely affect the poor, more than other classes.

 

[Deadtrees]

Though I'm a smoker who desire for cheap smokes, I support this law fully knowing my habit is not only danger to myself but also others.
Also, if national health care is to be implemented, I think there should be more tax put on smokes as smokers are a lot more likely to drain the fund.

As someone else has already mentioned, the notion that this tax is targeted toward poor sounds silly at its best. Simply put, smoking is a choice regardless of your gender, wealth, or whatever.
I or nobody became a smoker because we're poor. We made a choice and if my choice puts burden on the system as well as other people with different choices, I should pay for it.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I don't agree with any regressive taxes, and any tax based on consumption is a regressive tax and unfairly hurts the poor. The argument that this is not a regressive tax because smoking is a choice is total BS, under that thinking everything short of air and water would be fair game for regressive taxes.

No need to try and be the moral police and determine "what's a necessity" versus what's indulgence. ANY tax on consumption is a regressive tax or a "per head" tax where you pay the same $ tax amount for a given amount of consumption regardless of your income. And in this situation the poor man always loses because consumption is a much larger portion of his expenses, thus he pays an exponentially higher rate of tax per dollar of income.

The premise of regressive taxes are stupid. The whole idea is to raise the cost to lower consumption. Gas taxes don't reduce demand for oil, alcohol taxes don't make people give up drinking, and taxes on smokes don't make people quit, this whole line of retoric is a ruse. The polititians understand this and see it as pot of free money that they can extract from the lower class, all under the name of "morality" or "saving the planet" or some other feel good bullshit story that the public will swallow.

And yes general sales tax is also a regressive tax