|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
I get why the last thread was deleted. I'll ignore anyone trying to turn this one into a pissing contest. My bad on the last one.
As I was sayin, on March 31st, a new tax on cigarettes is going to go into effect. It will increase the federal tax on cigarettes by more than 100%. The funds will be used to help pay for a program giving health care to poor kids.
Its going to make people quit smoking, which will reduce the money coming in which will necessitate an even higher tax, which will drive more people to quit.
This is a bad idea. And when the cigarette money runs out, our government is going to go after some other group, pray that its not a group you are a part of because they don't use lube before they fuck you.
--
-halo firmly in place-
--
Edited by LastStand4Ever at 03/23/2009 12:26 PM PDT
|
Posts:
2,492
Registered:
11/18/06
|
|
(18 of 63)
Mar 24, 2009 12:03 AM
|
> I get why the last thread was deleted. I'll ignore
> anyone trying to turn this one into a pissing
> contest. My bad on the last one.
>
> As I was sayin, on March 31st, a new tax on
> cigarettes is going to go into effect. It will
> increase the federal tax on cigarettes by more than
> 100%. The funds will be used to help pay for a
> program giving health care to poor kids.
>
> Its going to make people quit smoking, which will
> reduce the money coming in which will necessitate an
> even higher tax, which will drive more people to
> quit.
>
> This is a bad idea. And when the cigarette money
> runs out, our government is going to go after some
> other group, pray that its not a group you are a part
> of because they don't use lube before they fuck you.
I think once they exhaust the smoker's revenue stream, perhaps they'll zero-in on the bigger evil, placing a tax on the use of high fructose corn sweetner. It'll be an interesting battle, Archer Daniels Midland has much better lobbyists than Philip Morris does.
I'm quitting (cigarettes) this Friday, and I intend to blunt my rage by taking it out on right wing posters of stupid, time-wasting bullshit.
Don't blame me, blame the government.
--
Daniel
HBO Forums Abuser
|
|
|
Posts:
30,797
Registered:
9/5/01
|
|
(17 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 11:02 PM
|
> > My husband is cursing up a storm now. LOL.
> >
> > --
> > "The insane are running the asylum"
>
> LMAO. I feel his pain. There is no way I'm paying
> 100 bucks for a carton of cigarettes. I have a week
> to quit.
>
> I wish I believed in god so I could pray for the
> strength.
>
> Oh, if I should seem a tad touchy in the coming
> weeks, please forgive me.
>
> --
> -halo firmly in place-
Mine won't quit.
--
"The insane are running the asylum"
--
Edited by ronnie at 03/23/2009 8:03 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
4,487
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(16 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 10:59 PM
|
> My husband is cursing up a storm now. LOL.
>
> --
> "The insane are running the asylum"
LMAO. I feel his pain. There is no way I'm paying 100 bucks for a carton of cigarettes. I have a week to quit.
I wish I believed in god so I could pray for the strength.
Oh, if I should seem a tad touchy in the coming weeks, please forgive me.
--
-halo firmly in place-
|
|
|
Posts:
30,797
Registered:
9/5/01
|
|
(15 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 10:53 PM
|
My husband is cursing up a storm now. LOL.
--
"The insane are running the asylum"
|
|
|
Posts:
4,487
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(14 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 10:51 PM
|
> >
> > What happens to that benefit whent he money
> stops
> > coming? Those kids are still gonna need health
> care
> > regardless of whether or not I smoke.
> >
> > --
> > -halo firmly in place-
>
> I hear that spam is next. LOL
>
> NYS just increased the tax on cigs by $.80, I think.
Our state one just went up as well. After the federal tax hike, a carton here will be around 100 bucks.
--
-halo firmly in place-
--
Edited by LastStand4Ever at 03/23/2009 7:51 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
3,145
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(13 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 10:50 PM
|
>
> What happens to that benefit whent he money stops
> coming? Those kids are still gonna need health care
> regardless of whether or not I smoke.
>
> --
> -halo firmly in place-
I hear that spam is next. LOL
NYS just increased the tax on cigs by $.80, I think.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,487
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(12 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 9:32 PM
|
> I think the main goal of cigarette taxes is to reduce
> cigarette use, because it causes health problems.
> The extra money to health care programs is just an
> n extra benefit of this.
What happens to that benefit whent he money stops coming? Those kids are still gonna need health care regardless of whether or not I smoke.
--
-halo firmly in place-
|
|
|
Posts:
4,487
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(11 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 9:30 PM
|
> Frank,
>
> The last time they put a big tax on ciggs is when I
> started trying to quit. I never have been able to. I
> felt ok, though, about the taxes because they said
> they were going to use the money to help protect kids
> from starting smoking. You know, marketing campaigns
> to counter the tobacco ads, anti-smoking education,
> etc. But then it came out later that they didn't do
> any of that. They used the tax revenue to do things
> like fill potholes in roads, etc.
>
> I went from a lifetime of smoking Marlboros to using
> a cheap generic brand instead. Now those are as
> expensive as Marlboros used to be.
>
> Most smokers are on the low end of the economic
> ladder. I know smoking is a terrible thing and am
> suffering the consequences already. I want kids to
> get all the help possible not to start or to quit
> early. I want poor kids to get more health care.
>
> It's starting to feel a little unfair, though.
If it was going towards stopping kids from smoking, a noble goal, it would make more sense. As more people quit, there'd be less preasure for kids to start, you'd need less money so the lose of revenue would be no big deal. Tying it to health care for kids, that's just screwing the kids.
--
-halo firmly in place-
|
|
|
Posts:
55
Registered:
3/16/09
|
|
(10 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 5:50 PM
|
Life is starting to feel more and more like the Matrix. You're taxed on what you earn. You're taxed on what you spend your money on. You have to pay to go anywhere or do anything.
I think I'm just gonna walk for two weeks straight into the forest and build a log cabin by hand. I'll probably only have a life expectancy of 5 more years, but at least I won't feel like a host to 20 parasites...
--
Billie Holliday? I love that guy!
|
|
|
Posts:
35,287
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(9 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 4:49 PM
|
Frank,
The last time they put a big tax on ciggs is when I started trying to quit. I never have been able to. I felt ok, though, about the taxes because they said they were going to use the money to help protect kids from starting smoking. You know, marketing campaigns to counter the tobacco ads, anti-smoking education, etc. But then it came out later that they didn't do any of that. They used the tax revenue to do things like fill potholes in roads, etc.
I went from a lifetime of smoking Marlboros to using a cheap generic brand instead. Now those are as expensive as Marlboros used to be.
Most smokers are on the low end of the economic ladder. I know smoking is a terrible thing and am suffering the consequences already. I want kids to get all the help possible not to start or to quit early. I want poor kids to get more health care.
It's starting to feel a little unfair, though.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,014
Registered:
2/22/08
|
|
(8 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 4:46 PM
|
I think the main goal of cigarette taxes is to reduce cigarette use, because it causes health problems. The extra money to health care programs is just an extra benefit of this. The biggest benefit of incentivizing against cigarette use is that it reduces the entire country's healthcare costs.
In other words, the government thought process wasn't:
1.) We need money to help poor kids get health care.
2.) Let's increase cigarette taxes
It was:
1.) A healthy population leads to a healthier economy.
2.) Cigarettes are unhealthy
3.) Tax cigarettes to get people to stop using them, and since we'll have a little extra money, why not give it to people who need it?
--
Ain't life grand?
|
|
|
Posts:
4,487
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(7 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 4:29 PM
|
> The last time big cigarette taxes were imposed, the
> tobacco industry just secretly raised the amount of
> nicotine in cigarettes.
Apparently they need to learn what "secretly" means.
--
-halo firmly in place-
--
Edited by LastStand4Ever at 03/23/2009 1:29 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
35,287
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(6 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 4:26 PM
|
|
The last time big cigarette taxes were imposed, the tobacco industry just secretly raised the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,487
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(5 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 4:04 PM
|
> So in short, can a short-term tax reasonably prove to
> be a long-term benefit, or do you reject that
> possibility?
I have so many answers for this. Please forgive me if its too scattered.
The government has within the power it has stolen the ability to outlaw smoking. If that's the goal, be honest about it and just do it. If its the great public health crisis I'm told it is, just ban it like they have other drugs.
Tying the tax to a program to fund health care for kids is wrong because it is a punative tax that will decrease the number of smokers, guaranteeing a need to raise them even futher to keep up with the cost of the health care. I'm not talking about whether taxing cigarettes is wrong, just whether it is wrong to tie it to this program.
As the price keeps going up, more and more people are going to quit, which is going to decrease revenue for this program so there is no long term benefit to the program. I get that you meant decreasing the number of smokers but this money doesn't go to decrease smoking. If it did, there'd be no problem.
The only way to get around this would be to pay for the health care for these kids in some other manner. Whether its a nationalized health care plan or just some other luxury being taxed, someone is going to have to cover what the increase in tax rates actually eats away rather than adds to the budget of this program.
Do I think getting rid of smoking is a noble enough cause to tax the shit out of smokers? No. But even if it were, this goes about it the wrong way.
--
-halo firmly in place-
|
|
|
Posts:
4,427
Registered:
6/11/07
|
|
(4 of 63)
Mar 23, 2009 3:48 PM
|
All right.
Well then, should we be identifying and addressing public health issues?
Is smoking legitimately one?
Does improving public health have a benefit to all classes of Americans, maybe even especially those who have fewer resources?
So in short, can a short-term tax reasonably prove to be a long-term benefit, or do you reject that possibility?
|
|
|
|
|
