Does this bother anyone else?

fred_

The Fed's upped the cigarette taxes, 108%, yet the revenue they raised isn't going to smokers. It goes to health benefits. They state it will encourage folks to quit. Isn't stupid to depend on a revenue stream that's purpose is to decrease? Isn't that taxation without representation?

Gary Kirkham

fred_ wrote:

Isn't that taxation without representation?

No. If you are a US citizen, then you have representation. The fact that your representative may do something contrary to your wishes doesn't negate that.

Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read

fred_

But this a is punitive tax placed on a segment of the population [edit] based on moral judgement [/edit]with out any benefit to the segment being taxed. Something stinks of being UN-American about it.

Gary Kirkham

Take it up with your representative. :)

Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read

kmg365

fred_ wrote:

Isn't stupid to depend on a revenue stream that's purpose is to decrease?

It depends if objective is revenue or control, in the later case it makes sense.

fred_

He's busy visiting socialists in Europe

fred_

Based on your sig, is your respose based on religios beliefs?

fred_

What it really is based on is smokers are easy targets and a minority that is easy to justify inflicting injustice on because it can be made to appear as concern for a higher morality.

Rob Graham

It's pretty difficult to make the taxation without representation charge, since there is no prohibition on smokers serving in congress (even Obama smokes, at least up until very recently- said he was going to quit after inauguration). It is stupid to argue the purpose is to reduce smoking, then use the proceeds to fund something that will need a growing stream of revenue. At this point, almost everyone that was going to be forced into not smoking by price increases has quit. The remaining hard core will either pay the freight or turn to smuggled sources (most likely the latter). This tax will cause the growth of an already healthy criminal enterprise, and one which has been shown to be a source of funding for terrorist enterprises. It is a stupid tax, which will accomplish neither of its purported objectives, but it will make the anti-smoking Nazis feel good about their successful persecution of evil smokers.

Rob Graham

kmg365 wrote:

t depends if objective is revenue or control, in the later case it makes sense.

It is hypocritical in the extreme for anyone to claim the intent here is to control (reduce) smoking. Congress are willing participants in the continued marketing of an addictive drug to citizens in order to profit from its consumption. If there were any real concern for the welfare of smokers, they would abolish the industry by making the growth of tobacco, the manufacture of tobacco products, and the importation of tobacco products all illegal. That they don't, and instead use it as a convenient revenue source to fund other pet concerns is proof of their continued complicity. The only intent here is to extract some more funds from those addicted by a product whose producers they continue to subsidize through farm subsidies ($530M since 1997).

Le centriste

Hey, it worked here! The downside is that it encourages cigarettes smuggling. Here is how it used to work in Canada: Canadian manufacturers ship cigarettes to the USA, tax-free. Smugglers buy them in the USA and smuggle them back to Canada, selling them at a very cheap price, comparable to the USA's. That was in the 90's, when I was a smoker. Nowadays, I don't know.

Synaptrik

fred_ wrote:

et the revenue they raised isn't going to smokers.

fred_ wrote:

It goes to health benefits.

Because smokers won't need health benefits? Its an offset to the costs that smokers put on the health system. And, no I'm not arguing for it. Just presenting a devil's advocate perspective.

This statement is false

fred_

But the health benefits are not for smokers per se. It's for expanding low income health coverage.

Rob Graham

The proposed use of the tax is to fund expanded coverage under SCHIP (Child health care). Hopefully the vast majority of the beneficiaries don't smoke and never have.

fred_

Am curious to know out of all the responders how many are opposed to smoking and if so do you feel you can be objective in this discussion? and visa-versa

Mike Gaskey

fred_ wrote:

Am curious to know out of all the responders how many are opposed to smoking and if so do you feel you can be objective in this discussion?

I don't, quit 1-1-2000. My wife still smokes. by the way, the new taxes are misleading. If I heard it right, the tax on bulk tobacco far exceeded that of a pack. The tax on a bulk pound went from $1 and change to more than $20. Really hurt the guy on the low end of the economic scale, the one who rolls (legal shit) his own. Heard a guy from back east (Conn. or NY) say he'll now grow his own.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

kmg365

It seems to me budgets don't matter anymore. The scope is bigger than cigarettes. When you deal with the bigger picture of regulation of what toilet you use, what light bulbs you are allowed to buy (incandescents illegal in 2 years), cow fart taxes (cap and trade), yes it is a control issue. I don't think you can deconstruct this to make it a simple revenue issue.

Chris Austin

fred_ wrote:

Isn't that taxation without representation?

You can't vote?

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?

Chris Austin

I'm not opposed to smoking and I'll light a cigar on occasion. But, and this one is difficult, now that I am a parent I am not unhappy about how difficult they have made it for smokers in public places.

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?

fred_

I do vote. Don't recall this coming up as a referendum, more was forces of the new Democratic Congress pushing their agenda for socialized children's health care, and making the smokers ( an easy target minority ) the recipients of paying the bill. If they financed it any other way the howls would have been much louder.