Tax hike on tobacco takes hold

[Red Dawn]

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

So you're talking about $300 a month just for smokes for a kid. Sorry Matt but most kids don't have $300 a month just for smokes.

 

[Dragula22]

Originally posted by: 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

Clearly you are misunderstanding.

When the red light cameras were installed and achieved 100% accountability for every offender, the number of people getting caught decreased dramatically--to a point where the state wasn't making any money from the usual tickets it was giving. Hence, although the city got safer, they decided to remove the lights to maintain the income through violation tickets.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: 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

Clearly you are misunderstanding.

When the red light cameras were installed and achieved 100% accountability for every offender, the number of people getting caught decreased dramatically--to a point where the state wasn't making any money from the usual tickets it was giving. Hence, although the city got safer, they decided to remove the lights to maintain the income through violation tickets.

Oops, yes, I did mis-read that, and my apologies, but the cameras are up and running here because they are generating tons of revenue. What municipality are you talking about? Do you have a link? I find it hard to believe since England has been using that system for years and it generates TONS of revenue.

-Robert

 

[Dragula22]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

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

So you're talking about $300 a month just for smokes for a kid. Sorry Matt but most kids don't have $300 a month just for smokes.

LOL way to selectively quote. He said, the kids will buy collectively and split amongst themselves.

 

[umbrella39]

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

Well Rush wants you to go out a hug a smoker the next time you see one because of it so it must be good.

 

[winnar111]

The entire point of smoking is to get rid of people before or right around when they turn 65 and collect Medicare and outrageous healthcare expenses.

What's the problem?

 

[umbrella39]

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.

Feel the same way about drinkers?

 

[StageLeft]

Of course an outright ban on smoking would decrease its use. If people had to hide at home to smoke and couldn't EVER smoke at work or in the car, most would simply get sick of trying. It's not fair to compare it to a ban on liqour or drugs. Costs would also sky rocket. A marijuana field can give some people weed to smoke a joint or two but if you've got millions of people who are sucking down a couple dozen fags a day, it would be impossible to illegaly grow that much tobacco and/or import it without its costs going very high.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: winnar111
The entire point of smoking is to get rid of people before or right around when they turn 65 and collect Medicare and outrageous healthcare expenses.

What's the problem?

Because they tend to get sick much earlier. They miss a lot of work with colds, pneumonia, diabetes, eye problems, cancer. You know, the usual stuff that toxic chemicals do to humans. My sister in law was 42 when she died.

-Robert

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: winnar111
The entire point of smoking is to get rid of people before or right around when they turn 65 and collect Medicare and outrageous healthcare expenses.

What's the problem?

Because they tend to get sick much earlier. They miss a lot of work with colds, pneumonia, diabetes, eye problems, cancer. You know, the usual stuff that toxic chemicals do to humans. My sister in law was 42 when she died.

-Robert

And with Medicare spending $10k per person per year, lopping 15 years off someone's life saves $150k on the back end. Not to mention social security.

Of course, nobody ever considers that half of the bargain.

 

[SP33Demon]

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...

Considering that 1/3 of the poor smoke, $10 is a fricking lot, especially for kids that aren't working (many in HS). Where the hell are you from, 90210? It will absolutely decrease smoking for teens, especially in conjunction with pop culture demonizing it (seen MTV lately?) and educating them on the risks.

As long as they keep raising the tax on cigs, that's fine. Hell, they can even raise the tax on trans fats, I don't give a dam. They should especially raise it on liquor more than cigs, that is more dangerous IMO. But that's where the taxes should end: on things that are a direct hazard to our health. As long as they stop there, I don't give a dam. If they start taxing staples like milk and bread, then we're going to have a problem. My .02

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: winnar111
The entire point of smoking is to get rid of people before or right around when they turn 65 and collect Medicare and outrageous healthcare expenses.

What's the problem?

Because they tend to get sick much earlier. They miss a lot of work with colds, pneumonia, diabetes, eye problems, cancer. You know, the usual stuff that toxic chemicals do to humans. My sister in law was 42 when she died.

-Robert

And with Medicare spending $10k per person per year, lopping 15 years off someone's life saves $150k on the back end. Not to mention social security.

Of course, nobody ever considers that half of the bargain.

Have you actually read the spreadsheet comparisons, or are you shooting from the lip again? Have you checked out the cost of treating a lung cancer patient? Or, diabetes, which people are getting earlier and earlier? What about all the thryoid tumors? Liver and kidney treatments? Brain cancers? Esophogeal and mouth cancers? $150,000 on the back end barely touches any of that.

But, are you really arguing that you'd be fine with slamming the door shut and exiting this planet at 65? LOL! You'll be kicking and screaming for medical care at 65! Trust me, I'm 66 and very healthy, but almost all my friends are dealing with some physical issue.

-Robert

 

[lupi]

Lol, so much for the no new taxes below 250k when the majority of smokers fall below that line. Of course this is just the latest campaign platform item to go by the side so there should be no surprise.

Just can't wait till people actually do drastically reduce their cig intake due to cost of this first branch of UHC starts to collapse as the funds lapse. Oh course that won't happen since we were promised that the richest 1% would be taxed to fund all these programs....so only the richest 1% must smoke...lol

 

[NoStateofMind]

Where is that illusive smoker who supports this tax?

 

[Dragula22]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: 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

Clearly you are misunderstanding.

When the red light cameras were installed and achieved 100% accountability for every offender, the number of people getting caught decreased dramatically--to a point where the state wasn't making any money from the usual tickets it was giving. Hence, although the city got safer, they decided to remove the lights to maintain the income through violation tickets.

Oops, yes, I did mis-read that, and my apologies, but the cameras are up and running here because they are generating tons of revenue. What municipality are you talking about? Do you have a link? I find it hard to believe since England has been using that system for years and it generates TONS of revenue.

-Robert

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/

But back on topic, I'm on occasional smoker and although i don't mind a tax increase on cigarrettes, I feel the the public money should go to cancer research, preventative education, or a seperate health fund for smoker patients that would effectively lower insurance costs for the general public.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Biggest U.S. tax hike on tobacco takes effect

Smokers are gasping at higher cigarette and cigar prices as the largest federal tobacco tax increase in history takes effect.

"Oh my gosh," Bernardo Torres said Tuesday when a clerk at a CVS Pharmacy in Falls Church, Va., told him the new price, which went up in anticipation of the tax increase. Torres wanted to buy his aunt two cartons of cigarette-size cigars, but he walked away empty-handed after hearing the new price: $134. The tax on little cigars went from 4 cents to $1.01 a pack.

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

next they will have a tax to encourage you to lift the toilet seat when you whiz.

 

[chess9]

LOL! You and the author of that article have drawn the wrong conclusion from the data. Of course some cameras aren't going to produce as much revenue as others. Sounds like Dallas was being fiscally responsible. Anyway, the English have been using those cameras to very profitable effect for years. I have several stories I can tell about people who returned home from trips only to find they got multiple speeding tickes on one of the M-ways.

It's also not just about the revenue, but about saving lives and changing behavior.

-Robert

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Dragula22
But back on topic, I'm on occasional smoker and although i don't mind a tax increase on cigarrettes, I feel the the public money should go to cancer research, preventative education, or a seperate health fund for smoker patients that would effectively lower insurance costs for the general public.

Unpossible!! The govenment is benevolent and only cares about our well being. Government would never put revenue generation ahead of our safety and well being. That article is a right wing pack of lies aimed to slander our overlords.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: chess9
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

The point was the cameras worked, they worked so well that the towships weren't making any money off of them, and as such had to stop using the infrastructure...so here they thought they would make a killing in ticket revinue...but instead they made far less than they had been in the past.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you're talking about $300 a month just for smokes for a kid. Sorry Matt but most kids don't have $300 a month just for smokes.

Red,

You're talking hardcore smokers that are doing a pack a day, most I know do about a pack a week...either that or they share a pack or something, only when they get older do they start smoking more.

And can't speak for most kids, but I could have easily afforded that back in middle and high school if I had wanted to, not like I had anything else to spend my money on.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Considering that 1/3 of the poor smoke, $10 is a fricking lot, especially for kids that aren't working (many in HS). Where the hell are you from, 90210? It will absolutely decrease smoking for teens, especially in conjunction with pop culture demonizing it (seen MTV lately?) and educating them on the risks.

As long as they keep raising the tax on cigs, that's fine. Hell, they can even raise the tax on trans fats, I don't give a dam. They should especially raise it on liquor more than cigs, that is more dangerous IMO. But that's where the taxes should end: on things that are a direct hazard to our health. As long as they stop there, I don't give a dam. If they start taxing staples like milk and bread, then we're going to have a problem. My .02

Demon, I already mentioned that I feel the pop culture war on tobacco has done alot more than raising fees will ever do...my example was my younger brother, who openly admits he feels like a jerk for smoking because of what the perception is of smokers.

And don't know about you but everyone I knew worked in HS, or they got a pretty generous allowance from their parents, they could easily have afforded a pack or two a week at 10 a pop, heck I spend way more than that back then on other things.

As for taxing that which is a hazard to "our" health...my question would be so where does it end? anything in excess is potentially bad...will we incur taxes on everything except organics (already expensive) or the bare essentials....

Also the liquor comment is funny, you do realize that it would lead to an uprising if attempted again, my belief is that many people need a vice, I know the touchy feely PC people love arguing about collateral damage (second hand smoke, drunk drivers...etc)...but life is about risks, people will die...that is just the way things are, I never understand why so many want to prolong life for everyone..shit happens, let it happen.

And again, I don't care about them increasing fines for cigarettes...whatever, but cigars and pipes...kinda silly.

 

[nobodyknows]

I bought a cartoon of cigs a month ago for $48. I smoked the last one this morning around 9:00. I'm a tight bastard and I'll be go to hell if I'm going to pay $7 for a lousy pack of cigarettes, so I'm quitting. Wish me luck!!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

As you say, that's your opinion. Your opinion and a dollar bill aren't worth the price of a single item at a Ninety-Nine Cents Store.

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.

BUAHAHAHahahaha!!!! Now, THAT is funny. :laugh:

As much I would like to see such a ban as an eventual goal, it isn't practical because it doesn't deal with currently addicted users. They are addicts, and they will continue to smoke until they find their own motivations to quit.

As I and others have posted in this thread, smoking is a danger to others, including non-smokers, and it raises the cost of health care for everyone. We've already posted the links and quotes. If you insist on challenging that, come back with evidence to support your claim.

Instead, I favor the more practical tactic of this tax for two reasons:

1. It causes those who are the direct source of those dangers added health care costs to contribute to paying for the damages they cause in direct proportion to the damage they do. The more they smoke, the more they pay for the added damage they do.
   
2. It provides some incentive for tobacco users to quit. We'd lose the future revenue from those who do, but we'd also stop the progressive damage they do. That works for me.

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

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.

If I did advocate an immediate, complete ban of tobacco, you'd be all over me for doing it... but I didn't. Now, you're all over me because I favor a more practical approach that considers the human factor and provides a direct connection between the source and the cost of the problems revenues.

Obviously, all that carbon monoxide in your cig smoke has done significant damage to the few neurons remaining in your otherwise vacant skull. :Q

But I see a glimmer of hope, here. If YOU want to promote such a ban, and YOU can come up with a practical way to impliment it, including dealing with current addicts, I'll be glad to support your effort. We'll be waiting for your post. :thumbsup:

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?

How does that square with the fact that the revenue from this tax would be applied to health care that would enhance the lives of all those Americans? :roll:

Wait a freaking minute!!! WTF is wrong with you? Don't you realize that, as far as we know, Obama is still a smoker so you could achieve one of your major goals. This tax would cost HIM money. You are one conflicted jackass. :laugh:

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Considering that 1/3 of the poor smoke, $10 is a fricking lot, especially for kids that aren't working (many in HS). Where the hell are you from, 90210? It will absolutely decrease smoking for teens, especially in conjunction with pop culture demonizing it (seen MTV lately?) and educating them on the risks.

As long as they keep raising the tax on cigs, that's fine. Hell, they can even raise the tax on trans fats, I don't give a dam. They should especially raise it on liquor more than cigs, that is more dangerous IMO. But that's where the taxes should end: on things that are a direct hazard to our health. As long as they stop there, I don't give a dam. If they start taxing staples like milk and bread, then we're going to have a problem. My .02

Demon, I already mentioned that I feel the pop culture war on tobacco has done alot more than raising fees will ever do...my example was my younger brother, who openly admits he feels like a jerk for smoking because of what the perception is of smokers.

And don't know about you but everyone I knew worked in HS, or they got a pretty generous allowance from their parents, they could easily have afforded a pack or two a week at 10 a pop, heck I spend way more than that back then on other things.

As for taxing that which is a hazard to "our" health...my question would be so where does it end? anything in excess is potentially bad...will we incur taxes on everything except organics (already expensive) or the bare essentials....

Also the liquor comment is funny, you do realize that it would lead to an uprising if attempted again, my belief is that many people need a vice, I know the touchy feely PC people love arguing about collateral damage (second hand smoke, drunk drivers...etc)...but life is about risks, people will die...that is just the way things are, I never understand why so many want to prolong life for everyone..shit happens, let it happen.

And again, I don't care about them increasing fines for cigarettes...whatever, but cigars and pipes...kinda silly.

Agreed, the pop culture education has done a lot more than raising fees, but you can't say that it won't be a deterrence as well. When I was a young punk and faced with this dilemma, I'd have chosen liquor over cigs due to the cost alone. Miller Light case on sale is a lot cheaper than cigs that never go on sale to that % off (such as 25%). Correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course anything in excess is bad, but certain drugs that are addictive and hurt others should be taxed. Eating 10 donuts isn't going to directly hurt others, whereas cigs and drinking will. It's a double whammy of addiction intertwined with possible direct harm to others. Another person shouldn't prevent my attempt at prolonging my life through the use of a drunken car or secondhand smoke in a bar.

I'll smoke a stogie every now and then but acknowledge that it can harm others through secondhand smoke. My good bud is highly allergic to smoke and I take great care to make sure none of it is around him if we're celebrating. On top of that, while you or I may not have "addictions" to cigars/pipes others will ruin it for us. But all in all, we can stop indulging in it because it's really just a luxury and a higher tax won't really affect us in the long run. It will make people who are addicted to take a step back and re-evaluate whether it's still worth it financially and from a health standpoint. Overall, I do think they should only raise the tax on cig's but that would be hypocritical/discriminatory so of course it would never happen.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Smoking is voluntary. Nobody who makes less than $250K a year has to buy cigarettes. It's not a tax on anybody because not a single person has to pay it if they don't want.

Sin taxes are 100% avoidable. If you're getting hurt by a sin tax in a recession (or any other time) it's because you're chosing to be. Quit or cut down to a reasonable level.

Sin taxes are a lot like the lottery, its nothing but a self imposed tax people put on themselves.