Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 36,417
- 10,721
- 136
Our founding fathers must have lived in magicland then. That is unless you can recognize the middle ground between excessive taxes and no taxes. There is a limit to how much you can bleed people, don't you care at all?
Government expansion is not without consequence. This IS NOT free money. This money is NOT yours to do with as you please, even though you think of it that way.
Essentially it all boils down to a very simple fact. Money is power. You're taking power away from the people and giving it to those who will dictate to us. Some day the people are going to want a Democracy again and you'll be standing on the wrong side it.
This is a tax on the poor by Obama and the democrats. The biggest rates of increase were on small cigars and loose tobacco for rolling cigarettes. Heck they even increased the taxes on cigarette paper.
He didn't say he's happy to pay '36.2% federal ETR' tax. He didn't argue based on agreeing to some level of taxation and wanting 'balance'.
My post parodies the flawed position of the 'anti tax' crowd who are so irrational on the issue, virtually always only arguing against taxes but never for a 'right level'.
Should we go from 70 to 91? No. 39 to 70? No. 36 to 39? No. 28 to 36? No. 20 to 28? No. 10 to 20? No. 5 to 10? no. 2 to 5? No. And so on.
They may temporarily agree to some rate, but then it's on to arguing for lowering them again. There's no real rationale provided for why any particular rate is the right rate.
Welcome to democracy, where policies can be as irrational as the citizens. It's funny, as a kid, when I remember the status of tobacco being the banning of tv ads, I remember predicting that smokers' rights would gradually erode as the percent of the public smoking decreased. When almost everyone smoked, smokers had no problem with rights; as the ranks decrease, more and more steps are taken moving closer to a ban, whether or not we get to one. Office and public area bans, bans around kids, higher taxes, and so on.
There's no clear 'right' answer I see on this, though everyone might think their position is right, whether it's the Libertarians (get the government out of it) or the 'it provides healthcare for children and that's the important thing' people, or the fans of discouraging smoking. The people trying to generalize it to 'it means the government will get involved in every little thing' are wrong, too, when they go too far with that.
Funny enough, we often end up with a pretty sensible balance and a better policy than the clear alternatives. Banning trans fat as was done, for example, makes sense IMO.
The pot legalization advocates have a 'legalize and heavily tax it' position. Isn't that where we are and are going with cigarettes?
I'm not a big fan of any ideology-driven policy on tobacco - and no one position jumps out at me as 'the obviously right policy'. So, democracy has a decent, somewhat messy one.
Democracy is the main thing to keep the policy in check - and we'd do well to fix our democracy where that doesn't happen as it should, with the excessive role of money.
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.
I doubt that. Got proof?
Beyond that, tobacco is highly addictive, and very few smokers stop at "a cig or two a day."
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
That reasoning can apply to many more items than tobacco products.
Again, the point I am making is whether over-indulging should be a personal decision or a government mandate.
I doubt that. Got proof?
Beyond that, tobacco is highly addictive, and very few smokers stop at "a cig or two a day."
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.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
if this money is used for anything other than smoking cessation programs, it necessarily creates a conflict of interest as higher taxes will reduce smoking, ultimately reducing the tax benefit.
beyond all that though, the government should not be using legislation or taxation to control its citizens PERSONAL behavior. continually increasing spending and taxes is not a sustainable path.
beyond all that though, the government should not be using legislation or taxation to control its citizens PERSONAL behavior. continually increasing spending and taxes is not a sustainable path.
Irrelevant. Other available solutions may help, but that's not a reason to negate this action which is available, effective and politically possible.
[/quote]Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Harvey
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.
Irrelevant. With this tax, the government isn't mandating that smokers must stop smoking. This is a revenue measure. Smokers are still free to smoke, but they'll be paying more of the costs directly and proportionally associated with how much they smoke.[/quote]
Unlike tobacco use, Internet use does not intrinsically cause diseases and death. However, taxes on Internet use have been proposed and shot down, probabaly because there's a bigger constituancy opposed to taxing it than to taxing tobacco.
Same answer as the last time you posted that unsupported speculation...
I doubt that. Got proof?
You need to meet more doctors. I've got doctors in my family so I may have met more of them than you, and it's just as true for me to say I've never met a doctor who claimed that smoking was anything but harmful to anyone's health.
A very good friend of mine spent the last three years of his life renting a room in my home. He was a chronic smoker who died of COPD. I spent many evenings speeding him to the hospital emergency room, and I watched him pull his last dying breath, there. It's not fun to watch.
The ONLY doctors I've ever met who didn't advise their patients to quit were attending physicians at hospital and hospice facilities where the patients were already terminal, and stopping smoking wasn't going to change that or improve the quality of the their remaining hours. All any of us could do, including more than one of my tobacco casualty friends, was lament that they learned the lesson too late to save themselves.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
I wish that was an outrageous statement, but MA already makes it illegal to not have health coverage. We guaranteed to fail - both desired outcomes are mutually exclusive either smoking does not decrease, or it does and the childrens funding runs out. The federal government should not be doing charity work. Its extremely ineffective at solving the root problems, and inefficient to boot. The closer you get to home the better.
I'm not sure what your point is, but whether or not you intended it, this is a good example of what should happen.
Second hand tobacco is a proven danger to kids (and everyone else). If the tax helps fund health care for uninsured kids, it's paying to the burden tobacco adds to the cost of their health and everyone else who would be affected by their second hand smoke. If it induces smokers to quit, it reduces the cost of their care, improves the quality of their lives and leaves them with more of their own money in their pockets.
The only losers are the tobacco industry, and I've wished them a speedy end for decades.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
Right, but if they quit, then children without health insurance will not longer be funded. Conflict of interest. We need better solutions, bc this one is not sustainable.
It doesn't matter. EVERYONE's health care costs are directly impacted by both first and second hand smoke.
GREAT! It's fine with me if legislators want to direct the revenue from this tax to funding kid's health, which is just part of the larger problem, and it's being funded directly by the smokers who are the direct cause of the problem.
It's no point, at all. Overall health costs will fall as tobacco use falls because the health hazards and actual damage due to both first and second hand smoke will be reduced. I'd love it if it could happen overnight, but it won't so this is a good and equitable revenue source for the present while it encourages behavior that will reduce costs in the future, and again, it places the added cost of tobacco related health problems directly on those who are the source of the problem.
Poor people are more likely to smoke. You said only people with poor judgement smoke. Therefore, poor = poor judgement.
That doesnt sound like democrat speak to me. Are you in the middle of a conversion? :Q
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter