Sin Taxes

[sandorski]

I smoke, I accept/Pay my Sin Taxes. There are moments I feel repressed, like when new Bylaws are passed concerning Smoking Areas, but I get on with life. Regarding "freedom" issues, from my perspective I don't really freely smoke, I smoke because if I don't I feel weird and get cranky. I am a slave to my cigarrettes, not the State.

Blanco, fess up, it's not the type of Tax that bugs you, it's just Taxes as a concept. Correct?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I find it a little offensive that you think smokers are putting burdens on everyone else. They are only destroying their own body. The fact that you think they owe something to to government is laughable. The government doesn't spend money wisely. Leave it in the smoker's pockets, and let them buy something else with it. Help stimulate the economy.

Smokers pay more for insurance premiums, non-smokers do not. The fact that advocating an increase in tax because of medicaid subsidies, just goes to show that the government already wastes money on stupid things. Why do they need more?

As I mentioned above, smokers cost this country $75 billion a year in Medicaid costs, and another $80 billion in lost productivity. I find THAT, combined with the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that as anything but an indictment of Medicaid, offensive.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I smoke, I accept/Pay my Sin Taxes. There are moments I feel repressed, like when new Bylaws are passed concerning Smoking Areas, but I get on with life. Regarding "freedom" issues, from my perspective I don't really freely smoke, I smoke because if I don't I feel weird and get cranky. I am a slave to my cigarrettes, not the State.

Blanco, fess up, it's not the type of Tax that bugs you, it's just Taxes as a concept. Correct?

Part of the reason is that I'm against the government increasing revenues through taxes.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: sandorski
I smoke, I accept/Pay my Sin Taxes. There are moments I feel repressed, like when new Bylaws are passed concerning Smoking Areas, but I get on with life. Regarding "freedom" issues, from my perspective I don't really freely smoke, I smoke because if I don't I feel weird and get cranky. I am a slave to my cigarrettes, not the State.

Blanco, fess up, it's not the type of Tax that bugs you, it's just Taxes as a concept. Correct?

Part of the reason is that I'm against the government increasing revenues through taxes.

How do they do it then?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Vic
Sin taxes are inherently regressive (i.e., more punitive against the poor than the rich) and also a form of moral authoritarianism (i.e. "we think something is bad for you, we think we know what's best for you, so we're gonna force you to do what we think is best with yourself").

Cry me a river. Tobacco and alcohol effectively cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Their use is entirely optional, whether it's by the rich or the poor, and I see nothing wrong with taking back some of the enormous costs they create for taxpayers. This has nothing to do with the "sinfulness" of these products and everything to do with their cost to society.

Cost... how? By dying? Everyone dies, sooner or later. And, by that same standard, what is it that YOU do that could effectively cost Americans? Unprotected sex? Driving a car (4th leading cause of death in the US)? A dangrous sport of some kind? Fly in an airplane? The arrogance of your reed-thin argument is elitist and offensive.

You're no liberal at all. Just another pompous moral authoritarian who thinks he's entitled to tell other people how to live their lives. Naturally, moral authoritarians also justify themselves through fear. If it's not some wrathful God that will punish us for our sins, it's some other cost that we supposedly will have to pay for the sins of others. You can't justify punishing people that way, especially when those costs (by which I'm sure you meant health care) are your own doing that you supposedly supported for the highest of altruistic reasons. Clearly, you did not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I find it a little offensive that you think smokers are putting burdens on everyone else. They are only destroying their own body. The fact that you think they owe something to to government is laughable. The government doesn't spend money wisely. Leave it in the smoker's pockets, and let them buy something else with it. Help stimulate the economy.

Smokers pay more for insurance premiums, non-smokers do not. The fact that advocating an increase in tax because of medicaid subsidies, just goes to show that the government already wastes money on stupid things. Why do they need more?

As I mentioned above, smokers cost this country $75 billion a year in Medicaid costs, and another $80 billion in lost productivity. I find THAT, combined with the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that as anything but an indictment of Medicaid, offensive.

So what you're saying is, "Get back to work, slaves!"... ?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: sandorski
I smoke, I accept/Pay my Sin Taxes. There are moments I feel repressed, like when new Bylaws are passed concerning Smoking Areas, but I get on with life. Regarding "freedom" issues, from my perspective I don't really freely smoke, I smoke because if I don't I feel weird and get cranky. I am a slave to my cigarrettes, not the State.

Blanco, fess up, it's not the type of Tax that bugs you, it's just Taxes as a concept. Correct?

Part of the reason is that I'm against the government increasing revenues through taxes.

How do they do it then?

Why do they need to?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: senseamp

Typical rightwing scare tactics. If people bought into that tripe, they would vote out politicians who support sin taxes, but they don't. Too bad for you. It's not a problem unless you smoke.

I don't smoke! But I at least have enough brain power to understand that smoking is a choice, and society should not unfairly place a burden upon them.

They came for the smokers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker...

Why are you surprised about their straw man tactics? I find it hilarious that he labels you a "right winger" like it's an insult when there is absolutely nothing liberal nor left wing about legislating morality. He's echoing the exact same mentality that made homosexuality a crime just a few decades ago.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Cost... how? By dying? Everyone dies, sooner or later. And, by that same standard, what is it that YOU do that could effectively cost Americans? Unprotected sex? Driving a car (4th leading cause of death in the US)? A dangrous sport of some kind? Fly in an airplane? The arrogance of your reed-thin argument is elitist and offensive.

You're no liberal at all. Just another pompous moral authoritarian who thinks he's entitled to tell other people how to live their lives. Naturally, moral authoritarians also justify themselves through fear. If it's not some wrathful God that will punish us for our sins, it's some other cost that we supposedly will have to pay for the sins of others. You can't justify punishing people that way, especially when those costs (by which I'm sure you meant health care) are your own doing that you supposedly supported for the highest of altruistic reasons. Clearly, you did not.

As I said above, the cost comes in the form of long-term care required when smokers die, as they are wont to do, from lung cancer, heart disease, and emphesema. This is a direct result of their exceedingly stupid and self-destructive lifestyle choice.

Your second paragraph is inartfully worded and confusing, so I am at a loss to even respond to it, since I don't really understand what you're saying.

As I think I've made abundantly clear, I view smoking as a very dangerous and completely optional activity. By way of analogy, this is the same reason car insurance doesn't cover racing activities - it's not fair to make other insureds (or even the insurance company) shoulder the cost of people damaging their cars and killing themselves racing. I don't think non-smokers should be the ones bearing the costs associated with smokers' bad choices, and if a "sin tax" is one way to help recoup the enormous cost of smoking generally, I'm all for it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic

So what you're saying is, "Get back to work, slaves!"... ?

Again, I am at a loss to understand your point here. I don't see the analogy between smokers and slaves.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: senseamp

Typical rightwing scare tactics. If people bought into that tripe, they would vote out politicians who support sin taxes, but they don't. Too bad for you. It's not a problem unless you smoke.

I don't smoke! But I at least have enough brain power to understand that smoking is a choice, and society should not unfairly place a burden upon them.

unfairly in your opinion. there are a lot of burdens placed by the society on a lot of choices

They came for the smokers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker...

You did speak up, and your opinion was duly noted.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DonVito
As I said above, the cost comes in the form of long-term care required when smokers die, as they are wont to do, from lung cancer, heart disease, and emphesema. This is a direct result of their exceedingly stupid and self-destructive lifestyle choice.

Your second paragraph is inartfully worded and confusing, so I am at a loss to even respond to it, since I don't really understand what you're saying.

As I think I've made abundantly clear, I view smoking as a very dangerous and completely optional activity. By way of analogy, this is the same reason car insurance doesn't cover racing activities - it's not fair to make other insureds (or even the insurance company) shoulder the cost of people damaging their cars and killing themselves racing. I don't think non-smokers should be the ones bearing the costs associated with smokers' bad choices, and if a "sin tax" is one way to help recoup the enormous cost of smoking generally, I'm all for it.

So only smokers die from illnesses that require long-term care? Obviously not. Your argument there is absurd at best. Most people die in ways that require expensive long-term, whether they ever smoked or not.

My 2nd paragraph said quite clearly that you're a hypocrite and a liar. You claim here on these forums to be a liberal, meaning that you believe in social freedom, but obviously only those freedoms you happen to approve of. You claim to hate religious moral authoritarians like those that support GW Bush, but your thinking and your motivations are just like theirs. I have read where you claimed in the past that socialized health care programs are for the benefit of the less fortunate, almost like a form of charity, but OTOH you want to punish them if they ever make any life decisions that might cause them to have to actually use those programs.

Your 3rd paragraph is not even a remotely comparable analogy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Vic

So what you're saying is, "Get back to work, slaves!"... ?

Again, I am at a loss to understand your point here. I don't see the analogy between smokers and slaves.

Originally posted by: DonVito
As I mentioned above, smokers cost this country $75 billion a year in Medicaid costs, and another $80 billion in lost productivity. I find THAT, combined with the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that as anything but an indictment of Medicaid, offensive.

There was no such analogy. You are saying that all people are slaves, who must not do anything that costs you money or detracts from their productivity. Classic mob rule mentality. Fashions himself the overseer.

 

[BlancoNino]

How about a tax on being gay? Since having HIV/AIDS is considered a disability and states spend millions of dollars on people with disabilities, we should tax gay people.

Do you get my point now? We shouldn't be taxing gay people, and we shouldn't be spending money on disabilities for people with HIV/AIDS either.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic

So only smokers die from illnesses that require long-term care? Obviously not. Your argument there is absurd at best. Most people die in ways that require expensive long-term, whether they ever smoked or not.

My 2nd paragraph said quite clearly that you're a hypocrite and a liar. You claim here on these forums to be a liberal, meaning that you believe in social freedom, but obviously only those freedoms you happen to approve of. You claim to hate religious moral authoritarians like those that support GW Bush, but your thinking and your motivations are just like theirs. I have read where you claimed in the past that socialized health care programs are for the benefit of the less fortunate, almost like a form of charity, but OTOH you want to punish them if they ever make any life decisions that might cause them to have to actually use those programs.

Your 3rd paragraph is not even a remotely comparable analogy.

I'm not sure why you're being so personally insulting, and I find it creepy that you seem to be cataloguing my posting history (which I'd argue you've mischaracterized to some extent) for reasons known only to you.

I think my car insurance analogy was apt (notably, you haven't responded to it except by categorically discarding it), and I don't see smokers as "the less fortunate," when it comes to their decision to smoke. I am all for helping people in need, but I don't see why the public should collectively bear the burden of subsidizing others' foolish lifestyle decisions.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How about a tax on being gay? Since having HIV/AIDS is considered a disability and states spend millions of dollars on people with disabilities, we should tax gay people.

Do you get my point now? We shouldn't be taxing gay people, and we shouldn't be spending money on disabilities for people with HIV/AIDS either.

You have a disassociative disorder.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How about a tax on being gay? Since having HIV/AIDS is considered a disability and states spend millions of dollars on people with disabilities, we should tax gay people.

Do you get my point now? We shouldn't be taxing gay people, and we shouldn't be spending money on disabilities for people with HIV/AIDS either.

Being gay is not, IMO, a choice, nor is it the case that all homosexual behavior leads inexorably to HIV. If, however, there were hypothetically some way to tax unsafe sexual activity per sex act, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it - I for one would probably pay the tax willingly, just as I pay "sin taxes" when I purchase alcohol.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How about a tax on being gay? Since having HIV/AIDS is considered a disability and states spend millions of dollars on people with disabilities, we should tax gay people.

Do you get my point now? We shouldn't be taxing gay people, and we shouldn't be spending money on disabilities for people with HIV/AIDS either.

Being gay is not, IMO, a choice, nor is it the case that all homosexual behavior leads inexorably to HIV. If, however, there were hypothetically some way to tax unsafe sexual activity per sex act, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it - I for one would probably pay the tax willingly, just as I pay "sin taxes" when I purchase alcohol.

But having gay sex is a choice. Nor is it the case that all smoking and alcoholic behaviors lead inexorably to health problems.

Once again, because the government spends your money best, doesn't it?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I'm not sure why you're being so personally insulting, and I find it creepy that you seem to be cataloguing my posting history (which I'd argue you've mischaracterized to some extent) for reasons known only to you.

I think my car insurance analogy was apt (notably, you haven't responded to it except by categorically discarding it), and I don't see smokers as "the less fortunate," when it comes to their decision to smoke. I am all for helping people in need, but I don't see why the public should collectively bear the burden of subsidizing others' foolish lifestyle decisions.

My original post in this thread, to which you told me, "Cry me a river!"

Originally posted by: Vic
Sin taxes are inherently regressive (i.e., more punitive against the poor than the rich) and also a form of moral authoritarianism (i.e. "we think something is bad for you, we think we know what's best for you, so we're gonna force you to do what we think is best with yourself").

The rich can afford to pay sin taxes, the poor not so easily. When you support sin taxes, you in fact support an authoritarian system that says the rich can play as much as they want but the poor better get their asses back to work, playing's too good for them, they might get hurt and cost a more fortunate person like yourself some money.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

But having gay sex is a choice. Nor is it the case that all smoking and alcoholic behaviors lead inexorably to health problems.

Once again, because the government spends your money best, doesn't it?

I addressed your first point in my post. I don't think being gay is a choice, but having unsafe sex (whether straight or gay) clearly is, and if we could hypothetically tax it, I wouldn't necessarily be offended by that.

As I have said repeatedly, I readily acknowledge that not all alcohol use leads to health problems, but all smoking is toxic to the body, and if a person smokes over the long term, they will almost invariably suffer severe and terminal health problems.

If your real beef is with all taxes, just say that. I think your obsession with "sin tax" is very much like your objection to DUI laws, because you view them as restrictive on your partying. I have a hard time feeling a great deal of empathy with your sentiments.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DonVito
I'm not sure why you're being so personally insulting, and I find it creepy that you seem to be cataloguing my posting history (which I'd argue you've mischaracterized to some extent) for reasons known only to you.

I think my car insurance analogy was apt (notably, you haven't responded to it except by categorically discarding it), and I don't see smokers as "the less fortunate," when it comes to their decision to smoke. I am all for helping people in need, but I don't see why the public should collectively bear the burden of subsidizing others' foolish lifestyle decisions.

My original post in this thread, to which you told me, "Cry me a river!"

Originally posted by: Vic
Sin taxes are inherently regressive (i.e., more punitive against the poor than the rich) and also a form of moral authoritarianism (i.e. "we think something is bad for you, we think we know what's best for you, so we're gonna force you to do what we think is best with yourself").

The rich can afford to pay sin taxes, the poor not so easily. When you support sin taxes, you in fact support an authoritarian system that says the rich can play as much as they want but the poor better get their asses back to work, playing's too good for them, they might get hurt and cost a more fortunate person like yourself some money.

By that token, all sales and property taxes are regressive. Do you favor the repeal of these taxes as well?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How about a tax on being gay? Since having HIV/AIDS is considered a disability and states spend millions of dollars on people with disabilities, we should tax gay people.

Do you get my point now? We shouldn't be taxing gay people, and we shouldn't be spending money on disabilities for people with HIV/AIDS either.

Being gay is not, IMO, a choice, nor is it the case that all homosexual behavior leads inexorably to HIV. If, however, there were hypothetically some way to tax unsafe sexual activity per sex act, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it - I for one would probably pay the tax willingly, just as I pay "sin taxes" when I purchase alcohol.

Nor is it the case that all smokers and all drinkers will die from their behavior. In fact, the odds that a lifelong smoker will die from a direct cause of their addiction is 1-in-4.

I like your last part. You are quite the nanny-stater.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

But having gay sex is a choice. Nor is it the case that all smoking and alcoholic behaviors lead inexorably to health problems.

Once again, because the government spends your money best, doesn't it?

I addressed your first point in my post. I don't think being gay is a choice, but having unsafe sex (whether straight or gay) clearly is, and if we could hypothetically tax it, I wouldn't necessarily be offended by that.

As I have said repeatedly, I readily acknowledge that not all alcohol use leads to health problems, but all smoking is toxic to the body, and if a person smokes over the long term, they will almost invariably suffer severe and terminal health problems.

If your real beef is with all taxes, just say that. I think your obsession with "sin tax" is very much like your objection to DUI laws, because you view them as restrictive on your partying. I have a hard time feeling a great deal of empathy with your sentiments.

My real beef with all the taxes? Isn't that what this whole thread is about?

I view tham as restrictive on my wallet. I guess alcohol is turning into something that only the rich can enjoy, great!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DonVito
I'm not sure why you're being so personally insulting, and I find it creepy that you seem to be cataloguing my posting history (which I'd argue you've mischaracterized to some extent) for reasons known only to you.

I think my car insurance analogy was apt (notably, you haven't responded to it except by categorically discarding it), and I don't see smokers as "the less fortunate," when it comes to their decision to smoke. I am all for helping people in need, but I don't see why the public should collectively bear the burden of subsidizing others' foolish lifestyle decisions.

My original post in this thread, to which you told me, "Cry me a river!"

Originally posted by: Vic
Sin taxes are inherently regressive (i.e., more punitive against the poor than the rich) and also a form of moral authoritarianism (i.e. "we think something is bad for you, we think we know what's best for you, so we're gonna force you to do what we think is best with yourself").

The rich can afford to pay sin taxes, the poor not so easily. When you support sin taxes, you in fact support an authoritarian system that says the rich can play as much as they want but the poor better get their asses back to work, playing's too good for them, they might get hurt and cost a more fortunate person like yourself some money.

By that token, all sales and property taxes are regressive. Do you favor the repeal of these taxes as well?

No, they are not, because sales and property taxes are by dollar amount and not per unit as sin taxes are. Sales and property taxes are also designed for the purpose of supporting various government functions, whereas sin taxes exist solely for the purpose of punishing particular actions.

Interesting argument tactic here. You're trying to trap me into being against other forms of taxation, most likely because you support all forms of taxation, and believe that all people should do so, despite the fact that all taxes are paid for the benefit of the rich and to protect their assets and financial system.

 

[BDawg]

I like the part where the (d)OP(e) says that he doesn't want to post it in P&N because all we care about is Republicans vs. Democrats and almost immediately blurts this out.

These taxes (usually advocated by liberals) are aimed clearly at the middle and lower-class, while calling them "sin" taxes.