Those issues have already been addressed in this thread, and you're wrong on both accounts. Try reading it before posting to prove you didn't.
Those issues have already been addressed in this thread, and you're wrong on both accounts. Try reading it before posting to prove you didn't.
Good for you! It's been a few days, did you give in yet or are you still going strong?
On the issue... I smoked for many years, off and on since I first tried it when I was in 7th grade. I never smoked very heavily, roughly 1/2 pack a day on average, and and I have also used smokeless off and on over the years as well (a can lasts me about 4 days or so). I never felt adicted to nicotine and quit on the spot any time I wanted. The hardest part for me was always just getting over the habit of going out for a smoke with my buds or popping a dip in.
I dont have a problem with this tax. Smoking is a personal choice, but one that costs us all money regardless of the choice you make. If it gets people to quit, that's cool too. Both outcomes help reduce the burden, no matter how you slice it. Perhaps an alternative could be just refuse Medicaid for smoking related illnesses, cut all state/federal funded smoking related programs, and tell smokers "If you choose to smoke, you choose to pay for everything it causes."
Along the same lines, I also have absolutely no problem with the bans on smoking in public places. As a smoker, I always made an effort to not expose non-smokers to my stinky health hazard. I moved away from crowds when I was outside, chose to sit in the non-smoker section of restaurants, and I never smoked in my vehicle when there were kids in it. It isn't fair for someone who chooses not to smoke to have to breathe in mine.
While I'm at it, I drink alcohol and wouldn't argue an increased tax on it either. Alcohol related incidents, treatment, and other programs costs us billions per year and the taxes on alcohol haven't been raised in what, about 20 years?
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Skoorb
But not if I can oppress him by making cigarettes cost a ton of money
Then you daughter will just spend more money for them or turn to pot if it is cheaper.
The drug war has been a complete an utter failure to wipe out drug use. Taxing cigarettes into submission will have the same effect.
The best thing you can do is to teach her smoking is a disgusting habit.
Yep, pretty much. All drugs should be legalized and taxed, BUT don't tax them so much that people get them from the black market. Still, for the cost of ciggs now, honestly, the taxes on them aren't ridiculous, sorry. Grow/roll your own if you are that worried about it.
I argue that these points you allude to have not been proven.
Here is what I see...
1) Smokers are being taxed to pay for uninsured children.
2) Smokers are a non-vocal minority and an easy scape goat for balancing the books.
3) Anti-Smokers are using the tired "we're doing it for you!" mentality to oppress smokers.
4) Smokers generate additional health care costs, but also on average live shorter lifespans which balance out their increased short term costs.
So don't assume Harvey, because I read this whole thread and it took a bit.
Originally posted by: extra
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Skoorb
But not if I can oppress him by making cigarettes cost a ton of money
Then you daughter will just spend more money for them or turn to pot if it is cheaper.
The drug war has been a complete an utter failure to wipe out drug use. Taxing cigarettes into submission will have the same effect.
The best thing you can do is to teach her smoking is a disgusting habit.
Yep, pretty much. All drugs should be legalized and taxed, BUT don't tax them so much that people get them from the black market. Still, for the cost of ciggs now, honestly, the taxes on them aren't ridiculous, sorry. Grow/roll your own if you are that worried about it.
Costs for Roll Your Own tobacco increased over 2000% due to this legislation.
(Check Roll Your Own Revolution for a charted breakdown of how the tax impacted each tobacco product)
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: extra
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Skoorb
But not if I can oppress him by making cigarettes cost a ton of money
Then you daughter will just spend more money for them or turn to pot if it is cheaper.
The drug war has been a complete an utter failure to wipe out drug use. Taxing cigarettes into submission will have the same effect.
The best thing you can do is to teach her smoking is a disgusting habit.
Yep, pretty much. All drugs should be legalized and taxed, BUT don't tax them so much that people get them from the black market. Still, for the cost of ciggs now, honestly, the taxes on them aren't ridiculous, sorry. Grow/roll your own if you are that worried about it.
Costs for Roll Your Own tobacco increased over 2000% due to this legislation.
(Check Roll Your Own Revolution for a charted breakdown of how the tax impacted each tobacco product)
And I don't like paying more for my car insurance being male.
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: extra
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Skoorb
But not if I can oppress him by making cigarettes cost a ton of money
Then you daughter will just spend more money for them or turn to pot if it is cheaper.
The drug war has been a complete an utter failure to wipe out drug use. Taxing cigarettes into submission will have the same effect.
The best thing you can do is to teach her smoking is a disgusting habit.
Yep, pretty much. All drugs should be legalized and taxed, BUT don't tax them so much that people get them from the black market. Still, for the cost of ciggs now, honestly, the taxes on them aren't ridiculous, sorry. Grow/roll your own if you are that worried about it.
Costs for Roll Your Own tobacco increased over 2000% due to this legislation.
(Check Roll Your Own Revolution for a charted breakdown of how the tax impacted each tobacco product)
And I don't like paying more for my car insurance being male.
Ack, don't get me started on that, Car Insurance is one crazy system, because it's required!
Prices vary from company to company so wildly it's insane.
But it doesn't have anything to do with tobacco.
I am honored to be helping "The Children"
(adults can currently receive health care through SCHIP in 14 states and in 4 states there are more adults than children in the program)
"redistribution of the wealth" Yea Baby!
"Master Settlement Agreement" Where did it go.
Not only is the tax being used for purposes other than the "damages" caused by the demon weed.. uh.. flower. It's not being used for the "The Children"
Yup gives me a warm feeling.... Or maybe it's the piss running down my back.
...
(adults can currently receive health care through SCHIP in 14 states and in 4 states there are more adults than children in the program)
"redistribution of the wealth" Yea Baby!
"Master Settlement Agreement" Where did it go.
Not only is the tax being used for purposes other than the "damages" caused by the demon weed.. uh.. flower. It's not being used for the "The Children"
Yup gives me a warm feeling.... Or maybe it's the piss running down my back.
...
Yep! And that's as it should be. They're causing health problems for everyone, including and especially children, and they're not contributing anything close to what their destructive pollution costs everyone else. Targeting the revenue toward health insurance for children is using those funds to address area of the problems smokers cause.
Smokers ARE the problem. They pollute everyone's environment. Their habit raises health care costs and lowers economic productivity for everyone far beyond what the smokers are currently contributing through taxes and their own health insurance... assuming they're paying anything at all.
This tax isn't intended to do anything for "them," meaning the smokers. It's intended to raise sorely needed revenues to address specific problems from those who are causing the problems.
Non-smokers don't have to "do it for" smokers. Smokers can avoid paying the tax by quitting smoking. If they can't quit, they should pay for the damage they do to everyone else.
That's utter bullshit for a number of reasons. Smokers have a higher incidence of disease, which raises total health care costs, lowers their contributions to health care premiums and lowers total productivity. Their shorter lifespans also they pay less into the system over their shortened lifespans and use more of the available health care resources, shifting the burden to those who manage to stay alive and healthy longer.
Smokers are a burden on all of society. It would be less expensive and better all the way around if they quit, and it would be even better if we could ban tobacco from the planet, but that's not going to happen soon, let alone soon enough. Until it does, measures like this tax bill that force those who insist on smoking to pay for the damages they cause are reasonable and fair.
Every single adult in my family is/was a smoker. I am the only one who hasn't...and I'm the one who got cancer! Ain't that a kick in the pants...
Actually a good thing came out of it, I told them I wasn't visiting anymore unless they quit It worked on my Mom! (I do have legit reasons, chemo destroyed my lungs and I basically start coughing/puking from inhaling just a little bit of smoke).
Personally, I'm glad smoking is banned in public areas in NYS. I've got no problem with you doing it in your own home, but keep it the hell away from me.
Actually a good thing came out of it, I told them I wasn't visiting anymore unless they quit
It worked on my Mom! (I do have legit reasons, chemo destroyed my lungs and I basically start coughing/puking from inhaling just a little bit of smoke).Personally, I'm glad smoking is banned in public areas in NYS. I've got no problem with you doing it in your own home, but keep it the hell away from me.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Might have already been covered but....
If I tell you that "people in tax group A won't see an increase of taxes" then that means I must know their income. Sales tax is a flat tax, where income doesn't matter.
Also, sales tax is placed upon products you choose to buy. Obama is not forcing anybody under $250k to buy tabacco. He is saying "you can choose what you want to do, but the price to enter that game is now higher". You don't have to go play ball.
Don't bitch about sales tax on products raising the taxes of anybody under $250k. I make under that, and I haven't seen my taxes increase yet. Let me know when a smoking tax affects non-smokers as well, and then I'll get in an uproar right along with you.
Capital gains tax
This has not been done. As far as I know. But, would this be considered a tax increase? A lot of people under 250K do not own stocks so it will only affect a part of the population. And only the ones who are arguably better off.
I am not comparing them as to justification. Just want to know what others position is. The rate will not be increased. It would just be a sped up.
Most likely will not happen anyway.
...
You, for example. Nice of you to omit my reply of similarly few words with an equally simple and true concept:
No, they just kill them and make them sick. :thumbsdown:
Thanks for trolling. :thumbsdown:
Ns1
No Lifer
- Jun 17, 2001
- 55,413
- 1,570
- 126
Originally posted by: Harvey
No, they just kill them and make them sick. :thumbsdown:
Thanks for trolling. :thumbsdown:
Along with a million other things.
Too bad those same kids still don't have insurance to protect them from things like you know, diabetes and cancer (I'm referring to the kinds of diabetes and cancer not caused by second hand smoke in case that's not clear enough)
Yeah because every sick or dieing child is a result of smokers. :roll:
Prove that and I'll be on your side. Otherwise we need to start taxing a lot more things to pay for child health care.
Still trolling, I see. Did I say EVERY sick or dying child is a result of smokers? NO, I did not, and neither did Ns1. He said:
I replied:
No, they just kill them and make them sick. :thumbsdown:
Demanding proof that they cause EVERY death or illness is absurd. We already have plenty of links establishing conclusively that smokers directly cause disease and death for themselves and others, and the tax measure, itself, specifies that the revenues would be applied to children's health care. That's direct application of funds from smokers, the source of the problem, to addressing one of the problems they cause.
If you're a smoker, you may want to see if it's the source of your short term memory loss and logic failure you're suffering. :Q
Originally posted by: Harvey
Still trolling, I see. Did I say EVERY sick or dying child is a result of smokers? NO, I did not, and neither did Ns1. He said:
I replied:
No, they just kill them and make them sick. :thumbsdown:
Demanding proof that they cause EVERY death or illness is absurd. We already have plenty of links establishing conclusively that smokers directly cause disease and death for themselves and others, and the tax measure, itself, specifies that the revenues would be applied to children's health care. That's direct application of funds from smokers, the source of the problem, to addressing one of the problems they cause.
If you're a smoker, you may want to see if it's the source of your short term memory loss and logic failure you're suffering. :Q
Since you can't seem to grasp it. I'll spell it out in crayon for you one more time.
Does smoking cause health problems for kids? A: Yes
Is smoking the only cause for health problems with kids? A: No
So should smokers be burdened with all of childrens health care needs? (Harvey's answer) Yes
But Harvey, children get sick other ways too, how about childhood obesity? (Harvey's answer) Tax the smokers!
Harvey, how can you rationalize charging smokers for all the healthcare for children when you cannot attribute all the healthcare costs to smokers? (Harvey's answer) Because I want to :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
How about we spread the tax so its equally derived from causing factors of child health care? (Harvey's answer) No! Charge the smokers!
Fucking myopic panda.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter