Obama?s recession remedy: Tax the poor!

[HardcoreRobot]

i dont support vice taxes in any capacity
i dont support state insurance in any capacity
*edit* forever a non-smoker, but that should not matter

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
H.R.2: Tobacco to pay for State Children?s Health Insurance Program

Pelosi's PR
the legislation is fully offset over the five and ten-year budget window by raising the federal tax on tobacco products

by Michelle Malkin
?Everybody?s going to have to give,? President-elect Barack Obama warned over the weekend. And some people will have to give more than others ? starting with low-income smokers. Democrats are rushing this week to impose massive tax hikes of at least 61 cents on every cigarette pack sold in America, in addition to new increases on other tobacco products. The money will fund a long-plotted federal expansion of the State Children?s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP).

Yes, this is Dr. Big Nanny?s prescription for recession: Punitive tax increases on the poor to feed a universal health care Trojan Horse.

Obama and his liberal Democrat colleagues sure have a funny way of demonstrating ?progressive? values, don?t they? Health surveys show that smokers are more likely to be blue-collar workers, minorities, and have less than a high school education. The National Taxpayers Union noted that tobacco taxes take a 50-times-larger share of income from those earning less than $20,000 than those earning more than $200,000. Put another way: Families making less than $30,000 per year pay more than half of all taxes paid on cigarettes, while families making more than $60,000 pay only 14 percent.

That?s the dictionary definition of ?regressive,? not ?progressive.?

We?re about to get a 150% tax increase on cigarettes by the looks of it. Which, as pointed out, will directly tax working class Americans. Interesting choice of targets for this new tax, wouldn?t you say so? It?s acceptable to tax people doing something ?immoral?, am I right?

Who are the morality police now? If Dems don?t want you to do something, they?ll up the price of it so only the rich can afford it. You know, rich people like themselves. They can afford this tax, can?t you also afford it?

Now perhaps you?d like to root for the S-CHIP extension that this will pay for, no doubt it will do some good, but raising taxes on the poor is an interesting way to get this done.

Tell me P&N, do you support H.R.2, will this be a tax on you, or is this only a tax on other people so you couldn?t care less? I don?t smoke, never have and never will, but I can see how this could take money out of the pockets of people who need it.

OMG, think of the poor. "Health surveys show that smokers are more likely to be blue-collar workers, minorities, and have less than a high school education."
Good, if they smoke, they can pay the tax. People are always complaining about one tax or another, this one actually targets the people who are getting sick and costing us money, and directs the tax money to health programs.

LOL at the righties, now they are concerned with the poor? This is just trolling, trying to bash Obama with anything they have. If you are so concerned with this tax hitting the poor, instead let's just raise the capital gains tax to pay for children's health care. Or a surcharge on incomes over $250K. This will be much better, because it isn't so regressive, right?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I quit smoking a month ago. I am against this tax. I am also against anti-smokers. To those that dismiss how tough quitting is, FU.

I'm sure it's very tough, since it's chemically and psychologically addictive. But unless you're old enough to have started smoking BEFORE this knowledge was widely known, that just makes it more questionable to start in the first place. I know smoking is incredibly bad for you and extremely addictive, that's why I never started.

As for the idea of taxing smokers to pay for health care, I don't see a big problem with that. I also wouldn't have a problem taxing fat people and those who refuse to get any exercise (maybe gym memberships could be tax deductions or something). But the spin Malkin and her fan club are trying to put on this is just retarded. Personally I think we could fun every single program Obama proposed, at the expense of conservatives I guess, if we just put a 100% tax on WHINE.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Actually, quitting smoking is alot like quitting heroin, per http://www.sciencentral.com/vi.../nicotine-like-heroin/
I remember hearing alot how nicotine was just as addictive as heroin.

"Tobacco is as addictive as heroin (as a mood & behavior altering agent).
Nicotine is:
1000 X more potent than alcohol
10-100 X more potent than barbiturates
5-10 X more potent than cocaine or morphine
A 1-2 pack per day smoker takes 200-400 hits daily for years. This constant intake of a fast acting drug (which affects mood, concentration & performance).. eventually produces dependence.

Pressures to relapse are both behaviorally & pharmacologically triggered."
http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html
I can empathize, as an ex-smoker myself, but my mantra for quitting was different than most, I just didn't want to pay billion dollar corporations to kill me and make money off of my death. It's stupid, but it worked for me.

100% bullshit. take away a heroin addicts heroin and watch what happens, they can actually die. anyone who compares nicotine with any of the physically addictive hard drugs is a fool.

Anything is possible, including death from withdrawal; however, it it so uncommon it can safely be said you wont. Hell, it's *possible* to die from nicotine OD too. Technically.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh tax it enough and it goes underground. I guess that would be a boon to the police state prohibitionists though. Another black market to expand our police forces to contain.

What is it with our country and declaring war on defenseless plants?

The idiot Democrats in New Jersey raised the cigarette tax per pack to funnel money to the teachers union. Guess what?

Revenue went down. :laugh:

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
One of the other chilling aspects of all this is that they know that they can up the costs of cigarettes by $.60 a pack and it will not significantly reduce the number of people buying those packs, even when most of them are too comfortably afford it in the first place.
It points to smoking being less of a choice then most want to accept.

How does the addictive nature of nicotine have anything to do with the choice aspect of this issue? That sounds more like a willpower and priority issue to me rather than a choice issue. Completely different.

You say you smoke. How often have you tried to quit?
I've been smoke free for 5 years, and I stuggle with it every day.
I've had long talks with my father, who has been smoke free for 20 years, and he struggles with it. There is only so much willpower in a person, not everyone can just quit.

Yes, and it was ridiculously simple. All I had to do was refuse to buy them. I realize not everyone has it that easy, but it is not like there is a gun being pointed at your head either.

The choice doesn't change at all. It is as simple as A or B. Nicotine or a tax increase. Assuming you are a pack a day smoker, that increase will cost you an additional $365 a year or approximately $30/mo or $7/week more than what you pay now to smoke. That isn't exactly a life altering situation for the vast majority of Americans and if you happen to be one of the Americans where it really makes that much of a difference then you are either living beyond your means or you make such little money that you shouldn't be wasting it on smokes in the first place.

Of all the tax increases this country and our states impose on us regularly, I would say that this one is anything but a big deal in comparison. Again, I will be paying it too.

That's my problem with this tax. Out of sight out of mind for a lot of people however it is just another tax. Am I the only one who sees a problem with us coming to the conclusion that 'meh it's just another tax we should be used to it by now' mentality?

That's how the Democrats work. It's all about taxing 'them'.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I quit smoking a month ago. I am against this tax. I am also against anti-smokers. To those that dismiss how tough quitting is, FU.

I'm sure it's very tough, since it's chemically and psychologically addictive. But unless you're old enough to have started smoking BEFORE this knowledge was widely known, that just makes it more questionable to start in the first place. I know smoking is incredibly bad for you and extremely addictive, that's why I never started.

As for the idea of taxing smokers to pay for health care, I don't see a big problem with that. I also wouldn't have a problem taxing fat people and those who refuse to get any exercise (maybe gym memberships could be tax deductions or something). But the spin Malkin and her fan club are trying to put on this is just retarded. Personally I think we could fun every single program Obama proposed, at the expense of conservatives I guess, if we just put a 100% tax on WHINE.

At least Keith Olbermann and company would be bankrupt.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I quit smoking a month ago. I am against this tax. I am also against anti-smokers. To those that dismiss how tough quitting is, FU.

I'm sure it's very tough, since it's chemically and psychologically addictive. But unless you're old enough to have started smoking BEFORE this knowledge was widely known, that just makes it more questionable to start in the first place. I know smoking is incredibly bad for you and extremely addictive, that's why I never started.

As for the idea of taxing smokers to pay for health care, I don't see a big problem with that. I also wouldn't have a problem taxing fat people and those who refuse to get any exercise (maybe gym memberships could be tax deductions or something). But the spin Malkin and her fan club are trying to put on this is just retarded. Personally I think we could fun every single program Obama proposed, at the expense of conservatives I guess, if we just put a 100% tax on WHINE.

most people start smoking before their brain is developed enough to make an intelligent evaluation of evidence

 

[Carmen813]

You are all forgetting Obama smokes!

 

[Fern]

Whether smoking is good or bad for you is NOT the point.

IMO, the government has no business taxing people for this type of thing. Out of wedlock sex causes many problems, should that be taxed too?

I remind you that smoking is a legal activity.

The government should raise general revenues (such as income tax) to provide for the budget. Then there are use taxes, such as highway taxes which should be used to fund the service provided (public roads). There's no connection between the tax and the use, the gov is merely picking on unpopular people because they can. Th egov just wants to use their money to pay for another one of its programs. It's a 'divide and conquor' ploy.

Granting, or approving of, the government's excusing extra taxes on the basis of influencing personal behavior is inexcusable.

Don't wanna go to college, pay a tax. Get fat, pay a tax. Waste time playing PC/console games, pay a tax. Watching porn?, pay a tax. Didn't vote? Oh well, pay a tax.

What about people particpating in dangerous sports and their increased chance of getting hurt and requiring medical treatment? Should they pay a tax?

We must be much more critical of government's attempts to justify new/increased taxes; if not they'll never stop. Modification of (legal) personal behavior is not their business; we are supposed to have individual freedom here in the US.

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

We?re about to get a 150% tax increase on cigarettes by the looks of it. Which, as pointed out, will directly tax working class Americans. Interesting choice of targets for this new tax, wouldn?t you say so? It?s acceptable to tax people doing something ?immoral?, am I right?

Who are the morality police now? If Dems don?t want you to do something, they?ll up the price of it so only the rich can afford it. You know, rich people like themselves. They can afford this tax, can?t you also afford it?

Now perhaps you?d like to root for the S-CHIP extension that this will pay for, no doubt it will do some good, but raising taxes on the poor is an interesting way to get this done.

Tell me P&N, do you support H.R.2, will this be a tax on you, or is this only a tax on other people so you couldn?t care less? I don?t smoke, never have and never will, but I can see how this could take money out of the pockets of people who need it.

If they "need" to smoke then thay can pay the tax.

Pretty simple

Oh and where is option for this is Tax on the stupid and weak?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
You are all forgetting Obama smokes!

Heh, yeah I forgot about that. Maybe now he will finally quit.

 

[Eeezee]

This isn't a tax on the poor, it's a tax on idiocy.

Families making less than $30,000 per year pay more than half of all taxes paid on cigarettes

So? Smoking might be more common amongst the poor, but that doesn't make it an activity restricted to the poor by any means. Smoking is still considered a socially higher class activity despite its health detriments.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh tax it enough and it goes underground. I guess that would be a boon to the police state prohibitionists though. Another black market to expand our police forces to contain.

What is it with our country and declaring war on defenseless plants?

The idiot Democrats in New Jersey raised the cigarette tax per pack to funnel money to the teachers union. Guess what?

Revenue went down. :laugh:

Could it be because...

Smoking Rate Is Declining in U.S.

The CDC says in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that the prevalence of smoking fell in 2007 to 19.8%, nearly a full percentage point from 20.8% in 2006.

The CDC says cigarette smoking prevalence has been dropping steadily among Americans 18 and older since it began keeping records in 1965, when 42.4% smoked.

"We think the proportion is dropping because of excise taxes that make cigarettes more expensive, smoke-free laws [that apply to most workplaces], and the availability of counseling and medications," McKenna says.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh tax it enough and it goes underground. I guess that would be a boon to the police state prohibitionists though. Another black market to expand our police forces to contain.

What is it with our country and declaring war on defenseless plants?

The idiot Democrats in New Jersey raised the cigarette tax per pack to funnel money to the teachers union. Guess what?

Revenue went down. :laugh:

Any proof that it is due any underground movement in selling cigarettes (which you seem to be implying by quoting Genx), or stats showing that smoking didn't decline over the period?

 

[soccerballtux]

I'm poor and, I don't smoke cigarettes, I smoke pipes. Does this affect me?
I'm in the minority (legitimate smokers-- if you smoke cigarettes you aren't a legit smoker) though so I'm probably in support of this.

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

We?re about to get a 150% tax increase on cigarettes by the looks of it. Which, as pointed out, will directly tax working class Americans. Interesting choice of targets for this new tax, wouldn?t you say so? It?s acceptable to tax people doing something ?immoral?, am I right?

Who are the morality police now? If Dems don?t want you to do something, they?ll up the price of it so only the rich can afford it. You know, rich people like themselves. They can afford this tax, can?t you also afford it?

Now perhaps you?d like to root for the S-CHIP extension that this will pay for, no doubt it will do some good, but raising taxes on the poor is an interesting way to get this done.

Tell me P&N, do you support H.R.2, will this be a tax on you, or is this only a tax on other people so you couldn?t care less? I don?t smoke, never have and never will, but I can see how this could take money out of the pockets of people who need it.

If they "need" to smoke then thay can pay the tax.

Pretty simple

Oh and where is option for this is Tax on the stupid and weak?

OK but if their need to smoke is cut off and taken away because they can no longer afford to buy them, what good does this tax hike do, or the next one after it because there are less smokers, and then the next one ofter that because they raise the tax again forcing more people to quit? You cant get money off people who quit, and the more they go up in cost, the more that will quit, and thats more money they will lose. The more the keep raising the price, the more that will be forced to quit, and the tax hike is a losing battle they will never be able to catch up, for the more they charge, the more that will just give up and quit, not for their health, or yours, but because they cant afford it.

How about we tax those who drive electric or hybrid cars? Because they are using them its forcing the power plants to make up the power to charge them suckers spewing more co2 into the air, or making more nuclear waste, then if they just bought a Honda with almost zero emissions. What are they saving, gas? The power plants dont run on sunshine and rainbows, so they got to power up what ever it is your charging up to drive. So we can charge them more tax for forcing the power plants to spew more into the air. I mean come on, if they can afford a $30-$80K electric car, they sure as hell can afford more tax on them then the poor of smokes, thats just going to quit smoking anyway, and wow, really got those extra funds from a quitter, for instead of making a extra 40 cents per person, your losing $4+ a pack or more per day

I mean
"Ok people were going to go up in price, were going to charge you $5.50 a pack of smokes, to help pay for the childrens health care"

"Fuck that, I cant afford it, I quit."

"Ok people, were now going to have to charge you all $6.00 a pack for Childrens health cost, and because more people quit smoking for some reason we cant seem to figure out."

"Fuck that even more, now I quit."

"Alright people, were not really sure why this is failing, but were going to have to charge $7.75 cents a pack, because people hate kids, and love to make Jesus cry, but to make up for all them who quit, we need to ask this price for the smokes."

Now even the rich people say"
"FUCK YOU, I quit too!"

See it wont even end, and they will never get the money they are thinking they are going for, most of you feel this is a great idea. If the poor are that, just that stupid, then lower the prices of the smokes, more of them will take it up, because according to you all they are that dumb, and then they can make more money off taxes because they will triple the smokers for they can really afford to buy them! And most of you win, because then the poor will just die from the causes of smoking. You cant have it both ways here, ask them to quit for your health, but want them to smoke so they pay the extra taxes, but they cant do that because it costs to much, which means they will quit and live longer, which is something else you do not want them to do, for you want them all to die and get out of your life and way.

MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS PLEASE, IM GOING INSANE!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
H.R.2: Tobacco to pay for State Children?s Health Insurance Program

Pelosi's PR
the legislation is fully offset over the five and ten-year budget window by raising the federal tax on tobacco products

by Michelle Malkin
?Everybody?s going to have to give,? President-elect Barack Obama warned over the weekend. And some people will have to give more than others ? starting with low-income smokers. Democrats are rushing this week to impose massive tax hikes of at least 61 cents on every cigarette pack sold in America, in addition to new increases on other tobacco products. The money will fund a long-plotted federal expansion of the State Children?s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP).

Yes, this is Dr. Big Nanny?s prescription for recession: Punitive tax increases on the poor to feed a universal health care Trojan Horse.

Obama and his liberal Democrat colleagues sure have a funny way of demonstrating ?progressive? values, don?t they? Health surveys show that smokers are more likely to be blue-collar workers, minorities, and have less than a high school education. The National Taxpayers Union noted that tobacco taxes take a 50-times-larger share of income from those earning less than $20,000 than those earning more than $200,000. Put another way: Families making less than $30,000 per year pay more than half of all taxes paid on cigarettes, while families making more than $60,000 pay only 14 percent.

That?s the dictionary definition of ?regressive,? not ?progressive.?

We?re about to get a 150% tax increase on cigarettes by the looks of it. Which, as pointed out, will directly tax working class Americans. Interesting choice of targets for this new tax, wouldn?t you say so? It?s acceptable to tax people doing something ?immoral?, am I right?

Who are the morality police now? If Dems don?t want you to do something, they?ll up the price of it so only the rich can afford it. You know, rich people like themselves. They can afford this tax, can?t you also afford it?

Now perhaps you?d like to root for the S-CHIP extension that this will pay for, no doubt it will do some good, but raising taxes on the poor is an interesting way to get this done.

Tell me P&N, do you support H.R.2, will this be a tax on you, or is this only a tax on other people so you couldn?t care less? I don?t smoke, never have and never will, but I can see how this could take money out of the pockets of people who need it.

hahahahaaaaa I Love this statement-- We?re about to get a 150% tax increase on cigarettes by the looks of it. Which, as pointed out, will directly tax working class Americans.

The OP must be a smoker...soo sad......too bad!!! Define the word--WERE???
All you have to do is quit smoking and it will not affect you...hahahaaaa

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: funboy6942
snip

MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS PLEASE, IM GOING INSANE!

This is easy. I WANT YOU TO STOP SMOKING!!! PERIOD!!!

I really don't care if Obama's S-CHIP expansion plan fails because they can't collect enough cigarette taxes.

I watched my grandfather and father die of cancer when they (and I) were much too young because they were very heavy smokers. :brokenheart:

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Up the booze tax too, and make money off the alkies.

(don't) suck it, boozehounds!

I honestly think these are all wonderful ideas...Personally I would love it if the new administration raised taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, old people, and fast food...that would be perfect

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Wait, a tax on a product that directly contributes to increased health care costs for us all... to pay for health care? THAT BASTARD.

So how about a $.60 tax on every fast-food order? Obesity will be the biggest killer this nation has ever seen.

Seems like that would absolutely nail the poor. Its not the wealthy that line up to feed their family off the $1 menu.

I'm not for regressive taxation in general, but of all regressive taxes ones like these are by FAR the least offensive to me. Smokers cost each and every one of us money on health care. For them to pay more for each pack, and have that extra spent on reducing the cost of health care does not exactly enrage me. It's exactly like the gas tax.

Malkin's post is trying to paint Obama as screwing over poor people when we all know that overall they will be much better off with him than with any of the alternatives, and certainly better off than they are today. It's ridiculous and it's typical of her poorly thought out, flailing dishonesty.

Myth. Unhealthy people are much cheaper to society. They don't use SS or Medicare because they don't make it that far, also all people will have same diseases eventually, however it's the 90 yr old heath nut that survives multiple bypass only to live for the next crisis.
Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people: study
We should be encouraging people to eat fatty foods and smoke - taxes like this won't do it and we will pay, big time.

There was a study in Jama about this I'll see if I can find it. In the meantime put this in your pipe and smoke it:
University of Chicago- Journal of Law & Economics. Studies at the national level indicate that cigarettes are self-financing since external costs such as those due to illnesses are offset by cost savings associated with premature death, chiefly pension costs.

N Engl J Med - If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I quit smoking a month ago. I am against this tax. I am also against anti-smokers. To those that dismiss how tough quitting is, FU.

I'm sure it's very tough, since it's chemically and psychologically addictive. But unless you're old enough to have started smoking BEFORE this knowledge was widely known, that just makes it more questionable to start in the first place. I know smoking is incredibly bad for you and extremely addictive, that's why I never started.

As for the idea of taxing smokers to pay for health care, I don't see a big problem with that. I also wouldn't have a problem taxing fat people and those who refuse to get any exercise (maybe gym memberships could be tax deductions or something). But the spin Malkin and her fan club are trying to put on this is just retarded. Personally I think we could fun every single program Obama proposed, at the expense of conservatives I guess, if we just put a 100% tax on WHINE.

You guys are worse than Prius drivers (another bunch of simpletons who don't understand Jevons paradox and are actually causing more fuel to be used than a F350 driver), again Smokers and Fatties are doing society a favor.

 

[child of wonder]

I'd like to see the stats on how many smokers' medical costs are covered by government assistance or hospital write offs when they develop lung cancer, emphysema, hypertension, etc. because they can't afford health insurance and/or to pay their deductibles.

I'll go out on a limb and assume a big percentage of them fall into the "government assistance" and "hospital write off" categories. Why not make these people contribute to the healthcare system?

Fast food is another thing altogether since simply eating fast food does not make one obese and the body requires food, unlike cigarettes.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This is a tax on the stupid, not necessarily the poor. But a lot of poor people are stupid enough to smoke. So are a lot of rich people, for that matter.

My thoughts exactly. I was going to say those exact same words.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh tax it enough and it goes underground. I guess that would be a boon to the police state prohibitionists though. Another black market to expand our police forces to contain.

What is it with our country and declaring war on defenseless plants?

The idiot Democrats in New Jersey raised the cigarette tax per pack to funnel money to the teachers union. Guess what?

Revenue went down. :laugh:

Any proof that it is due any underground movement in selling cigarettes (which you seem to be implying by quoting Genx), or stats showing that smoking didn't decline over the period?

The decrease was primarily attributed to cigarette smuggling from neighbor states that didn't tax.

http://www.heartland.org/article.html?articleid=24125

In fiscal year 2007, the year the tax rate was increased, the cigarette tax raised $22 million less than the previous year.

Most New Jersey policymakers also were seduced by anti-smoking ideology. Consequently, they refused to acknowledge the precipitous drop in sales that coincided with four tax hikes in seven years. During that period, the national demand for cigarettes dropped by about 18 percent. In New Jersey, demand decreased by a whopping 47 percent.

New Jersey wasn?t losing smokers; it was bleeding cigarette purchases.