Tax hike on tobacco takes hold

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder how long before Black Market Cigs hit the market and how long before someone gets killed over it? Truck carrying them are now big targets for hijackings. Bumming a smoke will also be a thing of the past.

When the profit margin of selling black market cigarettes under the cost of the regulated market with high taxes is high enough. I dont know what % that is, but when it happens just add cigarettes to the bottom line of the drug cartels.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

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.

Obesity runs a very close second (Ironically enough, a study in 2000 claimed that iatrogenesis was the third largest cause of death in the US). Since obesity is such a big factor, do you also suggest we tax the crap out of foods the government decides is unhealthy for us all? After all, doing so would reduce health care costs too and the higher taxes would contribute to our coffers. After all, those fat ass food addicts that can't modify their behavior should pay more to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause. Right?

Food would be a lot harder to tax in this manner. Smoking is, if you will, a luxury. Food is vital to survival. I'm of the opinion that basic essentials (Milk, potatoes, etc) should not be taxed whatsoever. But what if a homeless person only has fast food available to them? The ability to discriminate doesn't work so well here.

So, greater taxation fast food doesn't seem plausible although it could improve general health.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

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.

Obesity runs a very close second (Ironically enough, a study in 2000 claimed that iatrogenesis was the third largest cause of death in the US). Since obesity is such a big factor, do you also suggest we tax the crap out of foods the government decides is unhealthy for us all? After all, doing so would reduce health care costs too and the higher taxes would contribute to our coffers. After all, those fat ass food addicts that can't modify their behavior should pay more to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause. Right?

I have to say thats the best argument I've seen tasteslikechicken make. I better print this post before he edits it out of spite

 

[1prophet]

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.

Actually the best thing would be Hollywood, television, and other parts of modern culture that promoted cigarettes to put them in a negative light in all of their programming and movies, and change smoking from being cool to uncool.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

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.

Obesity runs a very close second (Ironically enough, a study in 2000 claimed that iatrogenesis was the third largest cause of death in the US). Since obesity is such a big factor, do you also suggest we tax the crap out of foods the government decides is unhealthy for us all? After all, doing so would reduce health care costs too and the higher taxes would contribute to our coffers. After all, those fat ass food addicts that can't modify their behavior should pay more to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause. Right?

Food would be a lot harder to tax in this manner. Smoking is, if you will, a luxury. Food is vital to survival. I'm of the opinion that basic essentials (Milk, potatoes, etc) should not be taxed whatsoever. But what if a homeless person only has fast food available to them? The ability to discriminate doesn't work so well here.

So, greater taxation fast food doesn't seem plausible although it could improve general health.

With the taxes from fast foods and luxury foods we could use part of it to feed the homeless. I would imagine that the taxes that would be generated from highly taxing non-basic foods would easily cover feeding the homeless, with plenty to spare.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

With the taxes from fast foods and luxury foods we could use part of it to feed the homeless. I would imagine that the taxes that would be generated from highly taxing non-basic foods would easily cover feeding the homeless, with plenty to spare.[/quote]

As I explained, smoking is a luxury whereas food is a necessity.

 

[StageLeft]

Obesity runs a very close second (Ironically enough, a study in 2000 claimed that iatrogenesis was the third largest cause of death in the US). Since obesity is such a big factor, do you also suggest we tax the crap out of foods the government decides is unhealthy for us all? After all, doing so would reduce health care costs too and the higher taxes would contribute to our coffers. After all, those fat ass food addicts that can't modify their behavior should pay more to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause. Right?

Key difference is that smoking doesn't really serve any positive benefits and you'll be hard pressed to find a long term smoker to is glad for their habit. Junk food has a place in most people's lives, even healthy ones.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
With the taxes from fast foods and luxury foods we could use part of it to feed the homeless. I would imagine that the taxes that would be generated from highly taxing non-basic foods would easily cover feeding the homeless, with plenty to spare.

As I explained, smoking is a luxury whereas food is a necessity.

Foods that are necessary for our well being would be exempted from taxes. Outrageous and unreasonable taxes would only be applied to "fast foods and non-essential foods" so we'd still be sticking it only to those who had the gall to purchase luxury items.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Although I did argue against the extra taxes being thrown about, this particular one doesn't bother me at all. I think there should be a sliding scale of taxation on these so that by the end of next year a carton costs $500. I am petrified that one day my daughter will do something stupid like start smoking. Teens are blissfully retarded much of the time and if a pack costs her $50, she'll be less likely to start. The numbers are quite convincing that increased costs do have a reverse correlation effect on teen smoking. The adults I'm less concerned about, but impressionable kids are a worry.

Wow, so instead of smoking cigs she'll just smoke pot. It'll be cheaper.
Oh, and if you're kid wants to smoke it's because you failed as a parent.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
They're financing healthcare for children with the money raised by the tax hike. Good or bad?

They won't get that money from me. I won't play the part of Peter in this Paul game.

Then if you really stop smoking because of this, you can look back a few years from now and say thank God for government, because if it's truly going to get you to quit, it's helping you see the light that you haven't seen yourself. Seriously.

The government doesn't need to be in the business of running our day to day lives, and dictating what "free" people can do.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: eleison
My aunt is in the hospital. The doctors think she has stage 4 lung cancer. I say, 'F' it; tax cigs to the max to the point of banning it. If you want to smoke, sorry, tough shiet. If you need to smoke (drug dependency), government should give you patches instead.

So is it the government's fault your aunt has cancer? Another question, if your aunt couldn't, or shouldn't have been trusted to do what is in the best interest of her health, what other decisions should the government have made for her?

.....and I'm sorry to hear about your aunt. My mother recently passed away from cancer, it is a terrible disease.

Things that I have learn:

Some people are irrational. Sometimes they need to be "influenced" to do certain things. They need to be influenced to wear seat belts. They need to be influenced to not do drugs. They need to be influenced not to drink and drive.

While saying these things, I do believe people should be given a choice. I'm not saying we should make smoking cigs a capital offense.. we should make it more "inconvenient" for people. Be it by imposing stiff taxes, or out right banning cigs but with no real legal consequences (like a speeding ticket), I don't care. If people are really need their nicotine fix, government should give them a patch. Because of this (and my aunt who probably does not have long to live;she is in a lot of pain right now), I have no issues with high cig taxes. Ban them for all I care.

Nobody should be going through with what my cousins are going through right now..

 

[Jack Flash]

Not the same situation. Some only have fast food as options for sustenance.

EDIT: Couldn't get the quote to work.

 

[Ns1]

Too bad people can't grow their own tobacco and say FU to govt

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Actually poor diet is the single greatest preventable cause of diease and premature death.

Actually, the U.S. Surgeon General disagrees.

Purpose

Tobacco is the single greatest cause of disease and premature death in America today, and is responsible for more than 430,000 deaths each year. Nearly 25 percent of adult Americans currently smoke, and 3,000 children and adolescents become regular users of tobacco every day. The societal costs of tobacco-related death and disease approach $100 billion each year. However, more than 70 percent of all current smokers have expressed a desire to stop smoking; if they successfully quit, the result will be both immediate and long-term health improvements. Clinicians have a vital role to play in helping smokers quit.

The analyses in the Clinical Practice Guideline, Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence, demonstrate that efficacious treatments for tobacco users exist and should become a part of standard caregiving. Research also shows that delivering such treatments is cost-effective. In summary, the treatment of tobacco use and dependence presents the best opportunity for clinicians to improve the lives of millions of Americans nationwide in a cost-effective manner.

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Also, your whole spiel is what the tobacco lawsuits were for. Oh wait, the states paid lawyers $1000 per hour and the vast majority of the tobacco lawsuit money was/is squandered.

That's like saying that, because a particular well intentioned law was mis-directed or came up short of expectations, we should never try to enact any future well-intended legislation and doing it right. Good thinking, there, Slick. :roll:

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

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.

Obesity runs a very close second (Ironically enough, a study in 2000 claimed that iatrogenesis was the third largest cause of death in the US). Since obesity is such a big factor, do you also suggest we tax the crap out of foods the government decides is unhealthy for us all? After all, doing so would reduce health care costs too and the higher taxes would contribute to our coffers. After all, those fat ass food addicts that can't modify their behavior should pay more to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause. Right?

Obesity is caused by the over-consumption of food, not food itself. One person can eat two eggs, hashbrowns and toast in the morning and be perfectly healthy. An obese person can eat 6 eggs, a pound of hashbrowns and 8 slices of toast with jelly and slowly kill themselves.

In contrast, any level of cigarette consumption is bad for you (and those in your vicinity).

Smokers need to come to terms with the fact that their habit is no longer revered in our society. Coupled with the fact that secondhand smoke is a *known* health risk, expect more taxes and more restrictions in the future. In the grand scheme of things, cigarettes will end up being a tiny blip in the time line of human history (at least smoking in it's current cancer-inducing form).

 

[chess9]

If I were able to raise taxes, I'd raise the taxes on these items:

1. Sodas-$5.00 a can;
2. McDonald's, et al-$10 a burger;
3. Cigarettes-$1,000 per cigarette;
4. Cigars-$2,000 per cigar;
5. Fried foods-$10 an order;
6. Alcohol-$50 a can or bottle, except low alcohol wine.

My modest proposals.

-Robert

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Next is beer and alcohol. Then it will be fatty foods like hamburgers and pizza. After a while someone will decide that the internet is bad for your health, a proposition that can easily be reasoned since sitting on your ass and typing/clicking a mouse does nothing to promote your health, so they raise taxes sky high on internet usage.

After all, it's for your own good, people, and clearly the government should be able to tax the crap out of something legal to force you to do what they believe is in your best interests.

Let's slippery slope the other way.

Government lowers taxes on tobacco and alcohol to almost nothing. Supply is through the roof. Kids as young as 10 start smoking and drinking developing emphysema and cerosis of the liver before their twenties. Society is in ruins. But, at least it was in the interest of personal freedoms.

Doesn't work that way. There are already laws regarding minors and the purchase/use of tobacco products. Besides, it's clear your slippery slope is not happening in any way shape or form whereas we are migrating toward my slippery slope. Taxes ARE being used in this case to enforce behavior and it comes close to being a form of monetary punishment to those who do use tobacco products.

I think we've seen the damage deregulation does in other areas.

Your point is that if the price comes down, kids use will go up. I would say that kids use will not becuase there are laws against the sale of either to minors. It has nothing to do with the price of the product.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: chess9
If I were able to raise taxes, I'd raise the taxes on these items:

1. Sodas-$5.00 a can;
2. McDonald's, et al-$10 a burger;
3. Cigarettes-$1,000 per cigarette;
4. Cigars-$2,000 per cigar;
5. Fried foods-$10 an order;
6. Alcohol-$50 a can or bottle, except low alcohol wine.

My modest proposals.

-Robert

Let's push congress to impose these taxes so society is better off!

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: CPA
Your point is that if the price comes down, kids use will go up. I would say that kids use will not becuase there are laws against the sale of either to minors. It has nothing to do with the price of the product.

There's debate about lowering the drinking age, who's to say it couldn't be lowered further? That told what I said isn't intended to be a convincing argument, rather it's simply to make an equally ridiculous counterpoint.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: newnameman
"I can make a firm pledge," Obama said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...79POSG0&show_article=1

It says, "under my plan". He was referring to a specific plan. Did he say that during his *administration* he would support no new tax of any kind? context is needed for this.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
They're financing healthcare for children with the money raised by the tax hike. Good or bad?

They won't get that money from me. I won't play the part of Peter in this Paul game.

Then if you really stop smoking because of this, you can look back a few years from now and say thank God for government, because if it's truly going to get you to quit, it's helping you see the light that you haven't seen yourself. Seriously.

I will never thank Government for taxing me.

Because you're a citizen of magicland where all government services are free, and no taxes are needed to pay for anything.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

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.

Obesity runs a very close second (Ironically enough, a study in 2000 claimed that iatrogenesis was the third largest cause of death in the US). Since obesity is such a big factor, do you also suggest we tax the crap out of foods the government decides is unhealthy for us all? After all, doing so would reduce health care costs too and the higher taxes would contribute to our coffers. After all, those fat ass food addicts that can't modify their behavior should pay more to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause. Right?

Obesity is caused by the over-consumption of food, not food itself. One person can eat two eggs, hashbrowns and toast in the morning and be perfectly healthy. An obese person can eat 6 eggs, a pound of hashbrowns and 8 slices of toast with jelly and slowly kill themselves.

In contrast, any level of cigarette consumption is bad for you (and those in your vicinity).

There are people that have smoked 2 packs a day for most of their life and lived to be well over 100. Most doctors will also admit that a cig or two a day is not really detrimental to your health.

As far as obesity, many who are obese got that way by overindulging on the wrong kind of foods. So let's force 'em to eat a head of broccoli instead of a gallon Cherry Garcia. If they have to over-indulge, at least make 'em over-indulge on something healthy.

btw, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not actually arguing about the government taxing food. I'm trying to make a point about how ridiculous it is to have the government use taxation as a method of behavorial control.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Because you're a citizen of magicland where all government services are free, and no taxes are needed to pay for anything.

I think my 36.2% federal ETR should suffice, thanks.


Not that I smoke cigs or anything, I just think people should be allowed to do wtf they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: chess9
If I were able to raise taxes, I'd raise the taxes on these items:

1. Sodas-$5.00 a can;
2. McDonald's, et al-$10 a burger;
3. Cigarettes-$1,000 per cigarette;
4. Cigars-$2,000 per cigar;
5. Fried foods-$10 an order;
6. Alcohol-$50 a can or bottle, except low alcohol wine.

My modest proposals.

-Robert

Let's push congress to impose these taxes so society is better off!

LOL I would love to see the revolt should that actually happen...a dem would never get elected to office again, ever.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chess9
6. Alcohol-$50 a can or bottle, except low alcohol wine.

My modest proposals.

-Robert

Public Service Announcement: an ounce of alchol today (possibly best as a glass of red wine) is very good for your health, if you can avoid becoing an alcoholic.