Tax hike on tobacco takes hold

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Kwatt

If the problem we are referring to is lack of socialized insurance OK. If the problem is the added cost of smoking disease. I don't see it.

...

You're working too hard at it. Forget about knee jerk buzz words like "socialized" anything. As would any administration, the Obama administration has an agenda of what it defines as the priorities it wants to attack, and it will cost money. One of the items on their agenda is expanded health care, which I support.

Statistically, most of those most in need of care are those who can least afford it, and many of them are children.

As I said in many of my posts in this thread, tobacco costs everyone money. It significantly raises total health care costs, it raises the incidence of disease and death, it lowers the productivity of our population.

Taxing tobacco has two independent beneficial effects:

1. It raises revenue from those whose continuing use of tobacco DIRECTLY raises those costs and inidentally kills our citizens, including children. These funds will be applied directly to providing health care for children.
   
2. It provides an incentive to tobacco users to quit and an incentive to non-users, especially impressionable kids, not to start in the first place.

As I also said, the only losers are the tobacco producers, the fine, upstanding folks who have bribed and lied to our legislators and pimped their death to our people, especially our kids, for generations for no other reason than to line their own pockets.

Save the kids. Save the people. FUCK THE TOBACCO KILLERS! Sounds like a winning proposition all the way around.

 

[cubeless]

and when the tobacco farmers go out of business then their kids can get subsidized healthcare!!!

and are we going to put an export tax on all the fags shipped overseas? let's raise the price to the world to pay our healthcare!!!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: cubeless

and when the tobacco farmers go out of business then their kids can get subsidized healthcare!!!

It's soil, water nutrients and work. Gosh... Do you think they could grow something else on that land? :roll:

Do you hold similar sympathy for allowing the opium growers in Afghanistan to continue producing their crops?

and are we going to put an export tax on all the fags shipped overseas? let's raise the price to the world to pay our healthcare!!!

That's not a bad idea, but it would be better to work toward making tobacco production obsolete. :thumbsup:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

There are people that have smoked 2 packs a day for most of their life and lived to be well over 100.

Which says nothing about how many MORE people would have lived longer and enjoyed a better quality of life for those years if they hadn't smoked.

That reasoning can apply to many more items than tobacco products.

Most doctors will also admit that a cig or two a day is not really detrimental to your health.

I doubt that. Got proof?

Beyond that, tobacco is highly addictive, and very few smokers stop at "a cig or two a day."

Again, the point I am making is whether over-indulging should be a personal decision or a government mandate.

The internet can be detrimentally addictive too. Shouldn't the government begin heavily taxing internet use beyond whatever they deem reasonable? After all, it's for everyone's own good. You know, the good of the collective.

btw, you won't find any public studies where doctors pronounce that smoking a cig or two a day is not harmful because that's not the PC thing to say. Too many of the rabid, anti-smoking types would get their fur all ruffled over something like that. But ask just about any doctor in private. I've never met a doctor who claimed that one or two smokes a day will do you in.

No one is physically addicted to the internet... you aren't even trying to be reasonable.. just nonsense as usual.

Nonsense is trying to imply that physical addiction is somehow the only one that matters.

Not to mention that, apparently, there are some that still don't quite grasp what I've been saying, even though I've plainly stated it on a number of occassions already.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey
drivel snipped

We've all heard your anti-smoking rants in the past, Harvey. We don't need yet another preachy diatribe of yours on the subject so stop trying to hijack this thread in that direction.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey
drivel snipped

We've all heard your anti-smoking rants in the past, Harvey. We don't need yet another preachy diatribe of yours on the subject so stop trying to hijack this thread in that direction.

All those people who have died because of cancer are looking down and shaking their heads. High taxes on tobacco - I don't give a shiet. While "preachy" is probably not the way to stop people from killing themselves.. Maybe a tax hike is. I am very anti-Obama, but I applaud this.

 

[Kwatt]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Kwatt

If the problem we are referring to is lack of socialized insurance OK. If the problem is the added cost of smoking disease. I don't see it.

...

You're working too hard at it. Forget about knee jerk buzz words like "socialized" anything. As would any administration, the Obama administration has an agenda of what it defines as the priorities it wants to attack, and it will cost money. One of the items on their agenda is expanded health care, which I support.

Statistically, most of those most in need of care are those who can least afford it, and many of them are children.

As I said in many of my posts in this thread, tobacco costs everyone money. It significantly raises total health care costs, it raises the incidence of disease and death, it lowers the productivity of our population.

Taxing tobacco has two independent beneficial effects:

1. It raises revenue from those whose continuing use of tobacco DIRECTLY raises those costs and inidentally kills our citizens, including children. These funds will be applied directly to providing health care for children.
   
2. It provides an incentive to tobacco users to quit and an incentive to non-users, especially impressionable kids, not to start in the first place.

As I also said, the only losers are the tobacco producers, the fine, upstanding folks who have bribed and lied to our legislators and pimped their death to our people, especially our kids, for generations for no other reason than to line their own pockets.

Save the kids. Save the people. FUCK THE TOBACCO KILLERS! Sounds like a winning proposition all the way around.

I did not know "socialized" was considered a buzz word. I guess I could use "placed under government ownership or control". Socialized was just easier to type.

I am not questioning the benefits of the tax just the beneficiaries of the tax. Medicare/Medicare is "placed under government ownership or control" and I pay that and I may or may not benefit from it. But I will not benefit from the tax as it is stands. Taxing anyone to benefit a group that is not paying the tax itself is what I think is wrong. It amounts to a tax to punish just like the 90% bonus tax.


...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

We've all heard your anti-smoking rants in the past, Harvey. We don't need yet another preachy diatribe of yours on the subject so stop trying to hijack this thread in that direction.

Awww... poor widdwe chickie wickie... Aside from my one "FUCK THE TOBACCO KILLERS!" statement, which I mean sincerely, I've posted multiple replies addressing the very bogus "points" you've been spewing and denying I addressed, and I've directly addressed the points raised by others, and the best you can do is refer to other posts, at other times, in other threads.

As always, you're shallow, vapid and devoid of all reason and common sense. :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey
emoticon spewing and ad homs removed

I'm not surprised you'd avoid the subject of the OP to go on one of your rants Harvey. After all, it's all about you and your soapbox.

:roll:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I'm not surprised you'd avoid the subject of the OP to go on one of your rants Harvey. After all, it's all about you and your soapbox.

:roll:

BUAHAHAhahaha!!! Da poor widdwe boy is so mouse and reading challenged, he couldn't even find my first reply in the thread replying directly to PC Surgeon's OP. Since you are, I'll quote my own post, here:

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Looks like I'm going to quit. Not because I want to but because of principle and economic reasons.

What? You don't want to live longer and be healthier with the extra time? Too freaking bad. You're stuck with at least better odds for that outcome. :thumbsup:

I guess its ok to tax tax trax until its unaffordable. I know many of you will say "Good its better for your health" but IMO, its not so much about health as it is about government over taxation.

That's a bit simplistic as well as wrong. Unless you haven't read or heard any news for months, you know we're in a financial meltdown, and our government needs money from from some source to provide the services we demand of it.

Tobacco is the single greatest preventable cause of disease and premature death in the nation so reducing tobacco use would reduce health care costs. Those users who can quit won't be paying anything under the new tax. Meanwhile, those addicts who can't modify their behavior should and will pay more for to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause.

There's nothing unfair about it. Those who are the direct cause of the problem are the ones who will pay more.

Don't ever let anyone tell you they underestimated you. It's not possible. :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I'm not surprised you'd avoid the subject of the OP to go on one of your rants Harvey. After all, it's all about you and your soapbox.

:roll:

BUAHAHAhahaha!!! Da poor widdwe boy is so mouse and reading challenged, he couldn't even find my first reply in the thread replying directly to PC Surgeon's OP. Since you are, I'll quote my own post, here:

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Looks like I'm going to quit. Not because I want to but because of principle and economic reasons.

What? You don't want to live longer and be healthier with the extra time? Too freaking bad. You're stuck with at least better odds for that outcome. :thumbsup:

I guess its ok to tax tax trax until its unaffordable. I know many of you will say "Good its better for your health" but IMO, its not so much about health as it is about government over taxation.

Important part hilighted, Hardly.

Thanks for playing macro-troll. You may now leave after making a complete fool of yourself.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: YoungGun21

Originally posted by: OCguy
At least he is taxing rich and now poor. (Poor are more likely to smoke)

Actually he isn't taxing anyone. He taxed a product. Nobody is forcing people to smoke. So his "under 250k" promise still holds because he did not raise taxes on people.

Define forcing, this tax, along with the others proposed on foods deemed unhealthy will strike the lower and lower middle classes the hardest, and for those who are already addicted getting them to quit is near impossible.

I know many who will either simply pay this to continue smoking, or try to find an alternate source.

Regardless it doesn't matter, as someone said above Smokers are a slient minority who have been villified by many.

Personally I don't have much of a beef with the taxes on cigarettes, but cigars and the hookah bars, things people normally don't smoke regularly...please, only a matter of time before no one is allowed to buy more than one slice of peperoni pizza or your value meal costs upwards of 40 bucks. The irony is that I bet even with these restrictions people still won't be any healthier.

As for those here talking about relatives who are in agony related to smoking/tobacco use/abuse...all I can say is that is life, if it wasn't tobacco chances are it will be something else, people will get ill, people will die...for years tobacco products were referred with terms like coffin nails etc...people shouldn't need a warning label to know that coffee is hot, or that tobacco is bad, if they do then like darwin they get weeded out...but since we live in a nanny state society we have to cater to the lowest common denominator and do what we believe is "best" for every moron out there.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I'm not surprised you'd avoid the subject of the OP to go on one of your rants Harvey. After all, it's all about you and your soapbox.

:roll:

BUAHAHAhahaha!!! Da poor widdwe boy is so mouse and reading challenged, he couldn't even find my first reply in the thread replying directly to PC Surgeon's OP. Since you are, I'll quote my own post, here:

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Looks like I'm going to quit. Not because I want to but because of principle and economic reasons.

What? You don't want to live longer and be healthier with the extra time? Too freaking bad. You're stuck with at least better odds for that outcome. :thumbsup:

I guess its ok to tax tax trax until its unaffordable. I know many of you will say "Good its better for your health" but IMO, its not so much about health as it is about government over taxation.

Important part hilighted, Hardly.

Thanks for playing macro-troll. You may now leave after making a complete fool of yourself.

btw, why can't you ever make a post without fucking up the quote nesting in the process for those responding? You would've think you'd learned by now.

You know what makes Harvey look like even more of a fool? The fact that nowhere in this thread do I see him calling for the complete banning of tobacco, NOR do I see him criticizing the Obama administration for not going far enough here. I guess Harvey's friends are important to him, but taxing and spending are MORE important to him than his friends lives. If he had ANY honesty he would be calling this plan absurd and pushing for the complete BAN of the product he says killed his friends.

Obama is also a COWARD who is more interested in the revenue that can be generated from smokers over the lives of Americans. Harvey apparently supports this as well. I wonder if his friends would be alive because of this tax change, or would they (And their families) just be out a lot of money along with their loved ones?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
You know what makes Harvey look like even more of a fool? The fact that nowhere in this thread do I see him calling for the complete banning of tobacco, NOR do I see him criticizing the Obama administration for not going far enough here. I guess Harvey's friends are important to him, but taxing and spending are MORE important to him than his friends lives. If he had ANY honesty he would be calling this plan absurd and pushing for the complete BAN of the product he says killed his friends.

Obama is also a COWARD who is more interested in the revenue that can be generated from smokers over the lives of Americans. Harvey apparently supports this as well. I wonder if his friends would be alive because of this tax change, or would they (And their families) just be out a lot of money along with their loved ones?

I'd agree with this...

Taking a stand and making a real statement would be just flat out banning tobacco all together, now that would be something to talk about and monumental in its impact...

But trying to milk more money out of a minority to fund social programs and assist with budget shortfalls, under the veiled guise of bettering society by pricing the items out of the market is somewhat laughable.

Again, this will hurt those in the lower classes the hardest as they are typically the heaviest buyers.

 

[Xellos2099]

heh, I can see EXACTLY what they are trying to do. They increased tax on tobacco to fund program. Less people smoke tobacco and the tax revenue will drop and then government will wonder why and will think of taxing other item to get revenue. b A successful politician will be the one who figure out a way to increase tax without people complain about it.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
heh, I can see EXACTLY what they are trying to do. They increased tax on tobacco to fund program. Less people smoke tobacco and the tax revenue will drop and then government will wonder why and will think of taxing other item to get revenue. b A successful politician will be the one who figure out a way to increase tax without people complain about it.

They have to buy limousines for the big guys. What are you a Commie? You don't want our politicians to have the trappings of success? They need huges staffs, huge offices, jet planes on standby, etc. WE are the world, not the French or those piss ant English. We Rule the Waves. We ARE CAPITALISTS!!! We crush everything in our way. If you are one of the weak little geese, expect to be baked and eaten.

LOL!

-Robert

nb: On a saner note, the program is a good one, if the result is as intended.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: chess9
nb: On a saner note, the program is a good one, if the result is as intended.

The result is to generate revinue by exploiting a minority, which it will be successful at as those who are in trouble with tobacco won't quit now, or more than likely ever, and this really won't do anything to curb youth smoking as if anything they have the disposable income to spend on tobacco and not feel the burn.

And if it does work then it reminds me of the irony of red light cameras, where they were so successful in getting people to drive safer and avoid getting the ticket that the townships that implemented them took down the infrastructure and went back to the old fashiond way because they weren't getting the money they needed from the system to sustain it.

 

[Dragula22]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: chess9
nb: On a saner note, the program is a good one, if the result is as intended.

The result is to generate revinue by exploiting a minority, which it will be successful at as those who are in trouble with tobacco won't quit now, or more than likely ever, and this really won't do anything to curb youth smoking as if anything they have the disposable income to spend on tobacco and not feel the burn.

And if it does work then it reminds me of the irony of red light cameras, where they were so successful in getting people to drive safer and avoid getting the ticket that the townships that implemented them took down the infrastructure and went back to the old fashiond way because they weren't getting the money they needed from the system to sustain it.

Agreed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: chess9
nb: On a saner note, the program is a good one, if the result is as intended.

The result is to generate revinue by exploiting a minority, which it will be successful at as those who are in trouble with tobacco won't quit now, or more than likely ever, and this really won't do anything to curb youth smoking as if anything they have the disposable income to spend on tobacco and not feel the burn.

And if it does work then it reminds me of the irony of red light cameras, where they were so successful in getting people to drive safer and avoid getting the ticket that the townships that implemented them took down the infrastructure and went back to the old fashiond way because they weren't getting the money they needed from the system to sustain it.

Disposable income? $10 a day for smokes? That's about how much it'll cost in MA if you include Patricks tax increase on them.

I think it will benefit children even if it doesn't help fund insurance for children as it definitely will discourage underage smoking.

 

[Possessed Freak]

I for one have never smoked a cigarette in my life, so I am not directly affected by this. However, I dislike the idea of inflating the cost of such a low priced product to double its price. A percentage tax on the product would have been better in my mind, instead of some flat tax on the product (and it would have received quite a bigger outrage when it was announced as a 90? 100? 200? percent use tax on the product).

I *really* dislike the thought that they are taxing this but not using that revenue to help those taxed... this is similar in my mind with the idea of taxing gasoline to pay for schools (just a random non factual example but you can see my point).

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Disposable income? $10 a day for smokes? That's about how much it'll cost in MA if you include Patricks tax increase on them.

I think it will benefit children even if it doesn't help fund insurance for children as it definitely will discourage underage smoking.

Red, $10 a day for kids these days is nothing, not to mention they will most likely split packs amongst a group of them.

I think the villification of smoking has already done about as much as possible to discourage smoking amongst the younger generations short of an outright ban on tobacco, my younger brother often says how he feels like a jerk if he smokes which is why he has quit, not because of cost, or rational based on better health...just because he feels like people like him less when he smokes...

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: chess9
nb: On a saner note, the program is a good one, if the result is as intended.

The result is to generate revinue by exploiting a minority, which it will be successful at as those who are in trouble with tobacco won't quit now, or more than likely ever, and this really won't do anything to curb youth smoking as if anything they have the disposable income to spend on tobacco and not feel the burn.

And if it does work then it reminds me of the irony of red light cameras, where they were so successful in getting people to drive safer and avoid getting the ticket that the townships that implemented them took down the infrastructure and went back to the old fashiond way because they weren't getting the money they needed from the system to sustain it.

Take the red light runners' driver's licenses. And have them picking up trash on weekends for 6 months. That'll cut back on it. The problem really is that most people in state legislatures drive like fucking idiots. They think that license plate that says "StateHouse1" is a license to run amok on the highways. Which is why we don't have sane punishments for violationg traffic laws.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
I for one have never smoked a cigarette in my life, so I am not directly affected by this. However, I dislike the idea of inflating the cost of such a low priced product to double its price. A percentage tax on the product would have been better in my mind, instead of some flat tax on the product (and it would have received quite a bigger outrage when it was announced as a 90? 100? 200? percent use tax on the product).

I *really* dislike the thought that they are taxing this but not using that revenue to help those taxed... this is similar in my mind with the idea of taxing gasoline to pay for schools (just a random non factual example but you can see my point).

They get our health care dollars already. We spend about two to three times as much on health care for smokers as for non-smokers.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I'm not surprised you'd avoid the subject of the OP to go on one of your rants Harvey. After all, it's all about you and your soapbox.

:roll:

BUAHAHAhahaha!!! Da poor widdwe boy is so mouse and reading challenged, he couldn't even find my first reply in the thread replying directly to PC Surgeon's OP. Since you are, I'll quote my own post, here:

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Looks like I'm going to quit. Not because I want to but because of principle and economic reasons.

What? You don't want to live longer and be healthier with the extra time? Too freaking bad. You're stuck with at least better odds for that outcome. :thumbsup:

I guess its ok to tax tax trax until its unaffordable. I know many of you will say "Good its better for your health" but IMO, its not so much about health as it is about government over taxation.

Important part hilighted, Hardly.

Thanks for playing macro-troll. You may now leave after making a complete fool of yourself.

btw, why can't you ever make a post without fucking up the quote nesting in the process for those responding? You would've think you'd learned by now.

You know what makes Harvey look like even more of a fool? The fact that nowhere in this thread do I see him calling for the complete banning of tobacco, NOR do I see him criticizing the Obama administration for not going far enough here. I guess Harvey's friends are important to him, but taxing and spending are MORE important to him than his friends lives. If he had ANY honesty he would be calling this plan absurd and pushing for the complete BAN of the product he says killed his friends.

Obama is also a COWARD who is more interested in the revenue that can be generated from smokers over the lives of Americans. Harvey apparently supports this as well. I wonder if his friends would be alive because of this tax change, or would they (And their families) just be out a lot of money along with their loved ones?

Well, sir, calling Harvey a fool is the dumbest comment I've seen in a long time. Anyway, Harvey knows that banning cigs would be a waste of time because we'd have a black market in cigs just like we do in grass, coke, meth, etc.

So, who is the idiot?

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Disposable income? $10 a day for smokes? That's about how much it'll cost in MA if you include Patricks tax increase on them.

I think it will benefit children even if it doesn't help fund insurance for children as it definitely will discourage underage smoking.

Red, $10 a day for kids these days is nothing, not to mention they will most likely split packs amongst a group of them.

I think the villification of smoking has already done about as much as possible to discourage smoking amongst the younger generations short of an outright ban on tobacco, my younger brother often says how he feels like a jerk if he smokes which is why he has quit, not because of cost, or rational based on better health...just because he feels like people like him less when he smokes...

Yes, when ONE girl tells him he smells awful, quitting starts to sound doable. SEX SELLS.

-Robert