Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: shootfighter1 on March 30, 2009, 06:32:44 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/29/single-largest-cigarette-tax-hike-goes-effect-wednesday/
Though we argue about income taxes, we are starting to see liberals increasing other forms of taxation to try to offset some of the immense spending (and also curb our habits to what doesn't conform). I supported the ban of cigarette smoke in resturants because it harmed others, this is going too far.
-
When everybody quits, where will that money be made up.
-
When everybody quits, where will that money be made up.
longterm healthcare costs.
I'm betting a lot of the 1/6 of the population who doesn't have health insurance just happens to be heavy % smokers. Smart, rich healthy people are less likely to develop the habit, one could guess?
You'd have a lot fewer ppl entering the ER with lung ailments.
-
longterm healthcare costs.
I'm betting a lot of the 1/6 of the population who doesn't have health insurance just happens to be heavy % smokers. Smart, rich healthy people are less likely to develop the habit, one could guess?
You'd have a lot fewer ppl entering the ER with lung ailments.
You are kidding right??? THe "RICH" are the biggest smokers, coke snorters, drug abusers and alcoholics. You think these celebrity substance abuse places are in such high demand in america becasue the wealthy live well???
The main reason people enter a hospital through the emergency remove is because of ACCIDENTS (unintended unexpected injuries)...those who enter the hospital becasue of lung ailments outside of asthma are those who have neglected their health, have poor nutrition, drug addicts etc... and that population is asthmatics, bronchitis, pneumonia and then comes the lung cancers
-
When everybody quits, where will that money be made up.
THe cigarrette companies market their products around the world and therefore are not HURTING at all. As people quit or reduce consumption in america it is increased in Asia, Middle East, Africa, Central and South America. Also the cigarrette industry owns many food industries like Phillip Morris owns RJR REYNOLDS. So they will raise the price of food in america to offset any lagging sales...
-
If we develop a nationalized health care system, we will see more things like this...taxing what the gov feels is harmful for health or what could raise health expenses.
I am all for reducing smoking but the main issue is should the gov be able to decide what is bad and then tax the shit out of it? That could be a slippery slope.
-
I hate taxes, but I hate tobacco companies even more. Why we allow those companies to exist, and worse subsidize them, is something I'll never understand.
-
I can't imagine the gov still subsidizes the tobacco companies, is that true?
Hey, I love that people can't smoke in most public places anymore. Its a disgusting habit which is bad for the smokers health and harms those around them.
But its scary that the gov can pick something they don't like (AIG bonuses, cigarettes, etc) and levy excessive taxation. Should they have the power to do that?
-
I can't imagine the gov still subsidizes the tobacco companies, is that true?
Hey, I love that people can't smoke in most public places anymore. Its a disgusting habit which is bad for the smokers health and harms those around them.
But its scary that the gov can pick something they don't like (AIG bonuses, cigarettes, etc) and levy excessive taxation. Should they have the power to do that?
Looks like we stopped subsidizing tobacco a few years ago.
My problem isn't with smokers. It's with tobacco companies. They have to hook kids to stay in business. They sell a product that kills people when used as intended. Just an evil enterprise IMO.
I agree the feds have been engaging in some scary behavior. Very erratic. Good thing we have the courts. No way would a 90 percent tax targeted at a handful of people would survive.
-
If we develop a nationalized health care system, we will see more things like this...taxing what the gov feels is harmful for health or what could raise health expenses.
I am all for reducing smoking but the main issue is should the gov be able to decide what is bad and then tax the shit out of it? That could be a slippery slope.
Norway raised the tobacco taxes so a pack of cigs costs around 8-10 dollars.
Smoking drastically went down.
Lots of benefits from that - a better overall health in the population in the long run.
-
THe cigarrette companies market their products around the world and therefore are not HURTING at all. As people quit or reduce consumption in america it is increased in Asia, Middle East, Africa, Central and South America. Also the cigarrette industry owns many food industries like Phillip Morris owns RJR REYNOLDS. So they will raise the price of food in america to offset any lagging sales...
No kidding....except much of the revenues are generated per pack. If US people stop smoking, that money will have to be replaced. I could care less if the rest of the world smokes.
-
Smart people are less likely to be smokers. Lots of studies out there.
Income for parents in smoke-free households are higher than those of smokers.
Smoking rates go down for those with more income or education.
Social class, educational level, and residential deprivation level independently related to cigarette smoking habit in both men and women. For those with educational level less than O level compared with those with O level qualifications or higher and 1.84 (95% CI 1.62 to 2.08) for high versus low area deprivation level. For women, the odds ratios for current smoking for manual social class were 1.14 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.27); 1.31 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.46) for low educational level and 1.68 (95% CI 1.49 to 1.90) for high residential deprivation respectively.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=smoking+habit+by+income&aq=f&oq=
-
I've never smoked.
I think outrageously high taxes on cigarettes are wrong though. :-\
-
Me either, but if u want to smoke go ahead. Don't do it near me...but smoke up.
-
No kidding....except much of the revenues are generated per pack. If US people stop smoking, that money will have to be replaced. I could care less if the rest of the world smokes.
It does not matter whether it is per pack or per carton the cigarrette company makes a killing. It costs next to nothig to make cigarrettes so all of the money made is practically profit. Most of the cost of cigarettes like gas and alcohol is from taxes and that money goes to the state and federal coffers. What americans should be asking is WHERE THE HELL IS ALL OF THAT TAX MONEY???
I already said the tobacco industry is spread world wide so they will NEVER hurt for money and if there should be some substantial profit loss for some strange reason, these tobacco firms have already bought and own many food industries like RJR REYNOLDS which owns Nabisco and Borden and I am sure they will come to own more ...
Always care about the health and life of others less they will care nothing for yours...
-
It's just a ridiculous notion that the government should say that since this item is bad for you "we" can levy higher taxes on it. How about soda and candy? When are we going to see comprabable taxes levied on these things? Diabetes and Heart disease are still the leading killers of americans.
-
Hopefully the Indian guy comes through with the cheap dip. I think chew is supposed to go up too. I understand the reasons but smoking is a choice, just like drinking. Luckily for the tobacco companies that China is the highest smoking population world now so it doesn't matter to them.
-
Hopefully the Indian guy comes through with the cheap dip. I think chew is supposed to go up too. I understand the reasons but smoking is a choice, just like drinking. Luckily for the tobacco companies that China is the highest smoking population world now so it doesn't matter to them.
My neighbor across the hall is a pilot and he goes to mexico about once a week so I throw him 20 dollars whenever I need a carton.
-
I've never smoked.
I think outrageously high taxes on cigarettes are wrong though. :-\
What are outrageously high taxes?
I believe it's perfectly fine to tax cigarettes for the cost it adds to health care, the decrease in work capacity everyday (smoke breaks and sick days) et al.
So the tax on cigarettes aren't paying the damage they cause.
Now some people may argue that the tax from cigarettes are used to other means rather than to take care of the effects of cigarette smoking.
But high taxes on cigarettes means that some other taxes can be slightly lower.
It's all about balancing a budget. One dollar in - one dollar out.
So if you can bring in X amount of dollars on cigarette taxes - you don't have to bring in X amount of dollars in other areas.
-
Its also about gov control of behaviors, which is scary.
Another problem is that the gov is creating programs and spending that relies on these larger taxes. Say people do stop smoking...excellent, but other taxes have to go up. The core issue is decreasing gov spending! That was the buzz a year ago but forgotten in many current debates.
-
Another problem is that the gov is creating programs and spending that relies on these larger taxes. Say people do stop smoking...excellent, but other taxes have to go up. The core issue is decreasing gov spending! That was the buzz a year ago but forgotten in many current debates.
That's your argument for not raising taxes on cigarettes?
That the government may somehow use the money wrong?
What about getting people to stop this deadly habit? Not a priority for you?
-
That's your argument for not raising taxes on cigarettes?
That the government may somehow use the money wrong?
What about getting people to stop this deadly habit? Not a priority for you?
It gives too much power to the politicians.
-
What are outrageously high taxes?
I believe it's perfectly fine to tax cigarettes for the cost it adds to health care, the decrease in work capacity everyday (smoke breaks and sick days) et al.
So the tax on cigarettes aren't paying the damage they cause.
Now some people may argue that the tax from cigarettes are used to other means rather than to take care of the effects of cigarette smoking.
But high taxes on cigarettes means that some other taxes can be slightly lower.
It's all about balancing a budget. One dollar in - one dollar out.
So if you can bring in X amount of dollars on cigarette taxes - you don't have to bring in X amount of dollars in other areas.
Nice theory but never works in reality. As a whole, taxes always go up, they never level off or go down. If I'm wrong I'd like to see evidence of where taxes went down and stayed down because other taxes went up.
-
Nice theory but never works in reality. As a whole, taxes always go up, they never level off or go down. If I'm wrong I'd like to see evidence of where taxes went down and stayed down because other taxes went up.
My guess is that the US taxes are lower now than they were during the golden era of the 50's and the 60's.
I sure know they are lower over here anyway.
One problem is that politicians - like Obama - try to win elections by promising that they will introduce tax cuts.
That's the main reason why USA is in deep problems today IMHO.
A culture where politicians can't get reelected unless they either deliver a big tax cut or a big government funded program.
It's a spiral to economic disaster.
You need leaders who will have guts to refuse to stoop to these populist tendencies.
Everything has to be paid for.
That's the bottom line.
So perhaps the one thing I think Obama has really gotten right was when he actually included the Iraq war in the budget.
Absurd how that was previously left out.
-
Nice theory but never works in reality. As a whole, taxes always go up, they never level off or go down. If I'm wrong I'd like to see evidence of where taxes went down and stayed down because other taxes went up.
-
My guess is that the US taxes are lower now than they were during the golden era of the 50's and the 60's.
I sure know they are lower over here anyway.
One problem is that politicians - like Obama - try to win elections by promising that they will introduce tax cuts.
That's the main reason why USA is in deep problems today IMHO.
A culture where politicians can't get reelected unless they either deliver a big tax cut or a big government funded program.
It's a spiral to economic disaster.
You need leaders who will have guts to refuse to stoop to these populist tendencies.
Everything has to be paid for.
That's the bottom line.
So perhaps the one thing I think Obama has really gotten right was when he actually included the Iraq war in the budget.
Absurd how that was previously left out.
Nonsense. We pay massive taxes now in other ways.
-
I would guess you are incorrect about taxes in the 50s. We have so many taxes and regulatory fees these days and so many different taxes both disclosed and not disclosed (they bake a lot of taxes into things that everyday people don't even see).
Gov officials have failed to reduce spending and under Bush 2 and Obama we are seeing more spending as a percentage of GDP, that is scary and wrong. We are the only ones that can reign in government because once most officials get in (outside of people like Ron Paul) they want more of our money so they can do more things.
-
Hedge, you are not seeing the big picture. Of course I'd like people to quit smoking, I spend part of my day counseling patients on quitting but giving big gov the power to isolate certain behaviors in private industry and in the public arena and levy heavy disproportional taxation upon them limits our freedoms. It also puts them in charge of what is acceptible and not acceptible. I do not trust the government to do this. Government cannot make better decisions for me and my family than we can make ourselves.
Have you ever worked in a giant system and see how inefficient things can be? How things become black & white when in reality things are many shades between.
Again, if many people quit and tax revenues go down, they will find other things to tax. The only way to limit taxation is to limit gov spending and the power of gov. You and I will always disagree because we look at gov and taxation differently. I want gov to regulate, guarantee our freedoms and opportunities for all, keep us safe and perform necessary functions. You see government as a way to control distribution of goods & services, enforce what they feel is 'fair', interfere in the private sectors and create more dependence programs (which propogates large gov/socialistic policies).
-
The problem with hedgehog's thinking is pretty clear. He sees cigarettes as something bad(as we all do, and I'm a smoker) and he thinks the government should put an end to it. Well there are two fundamental problems here
1. It's not the governments responsibility to be looking out for my personal health
It sounds great in theory, but I'm engaging in behavior that is damaging to me, and I think its okay. The government should kindly fuck off.
2. If they raise taxes on cigarettes, where do they stop?
It happens like clockwork in this country. We start taxing/regulating something which sounds great and then five years later the government has gone way too far. If we start taxing cigarettes it will lead to taxing of sweets/sodas/etc, which is unacceptable. The government tries to control behavior via certain regulations/taxes. We need to tell the government to mind their own business.
Hedge, you are not seeing the big picture. Of course I'd like people to quit smoking, I spend part of my day counseling patients on quitting but giving big gov the power to isolate certain behaviors in private industry and in the public arena and levy heavy disproportional taxation upon them limits our freedoms. It also puts them in charge of what is acceptible and not acceptible. I do not trust the government to do this. Government cannot make better decisions for me and my family than we can make ourselves.
Have you ever worked in a giant system and see how inefficient things can be? How things become black & white when in reality things are many shades between.
Again, if many people quit and tax revenues go down, they will find other things to tax. The only way to limit taxation is to limit gov spending and the power of gov. You and I will always disagree because we look at gov and taxation differently. I want gov to regulate, guarantee our freedoms and opportunities for all, keep us safe and perform necessary functions. You see government as a way to control distribution of goods & services, enforce what they feel is 'fair', interfere in the private sectors and create more dependence programs (which propogates large gov/socialistic policies).
-
Hedge, you are not seeing the big picture. Of course I'd like people to quit smoking, I spend part of my day counseling patients on quitting but giving big gov the power to isolate certain behaviors in private industry and in the public arena and levy heavy disproportional taxation upon them limits our freedoms. It also puts them in charge of what is acceptible and not acceptible. I do not trust the government to do this. Government cannot make better decisions for me and my family than we can make ourselves.
Have you ever worked in a giant system and see how inefficient things can be? How things become black & white when in reality things are many shades between.
Again, if many people quit and tax revenues go down, they will find other things to tax. The only way to limit taxation is to limit gov spending and the power of gov. You and I will always disagree because we look at gov and taxation differently. I want gov to regulate, guarantee our freedoms and opportunities for all, keep us safe and perform necessary functions. You see government as a way to control distribution of goods & services, enforce what they feel is 'fair', interfere in the private sectors and create more dependence programs (which propogates large gov/socialistic policies).
Nice.
-
I smoke very very rarely and I personally can't stand the smell of that shit unless I'm totally dead drunk. But I don't want people to stop smoking. It's their business, cigarettes are legal and it is every human beings right to destroy their health in any way they see fit. If it makes them happy,let them smoke. Fuck the government and their regulations.
Next I wont be able to stare at my computer screen for too long because the government says my eyes will be damaged. After that, I can't eat fast food, drink beer, watch porn, see violent movies or use four letter words because those things aren't good for me either. I for one, don't trust a room full of convicted felons, sexual deviants, bible thumpers, atheists, socialists, robber Barron, hair piece wearing, plastic surgery having scumbags to tell me what I should or shouldn't put in my body.
-
Good reply 'grab an umbrella'. I know Hedge started with a positive thought (stopping harmful smoking) but where does it stop and who is the gov to say what is bad for us on a large scale? Then the question is what's next and who decides. Thats not a road I want to go down. Honestly, if Obama wasn't president and the same policies were being pushed, I think they would be much less popular. People need to separate their admiration and love for Obama from the policies that are being enacted and proposed.