Code Project

Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

Does this bother anyone else?

57 Posts 14 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching

F fred_

Based on your sig, is your respose based on religios beliefs?
G Offline
G Offline
Gary Kirkham

wrote on last edited by

#36

fred_ wrote:

is your respose based on religios beliefs?

No. I was answering your question: "Isn't that taxation without representation?"

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
1 Reply Last reply

0
J John Carson

Rob Graham wrote:

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.

Sure. After all, prohibition worked a treat.

John Carson
T Offline
T Offline
Tim Craig

wrote on last edited by

#37

John Carson wrote:

Sure. After all, prohibition worked a treat.

Not to mention that kind of policy also keeps pot, cocaine, heroin, meth,.... off the market in the US. :rolleyes:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!
O 1 Reply Last reply

0
F 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
T Offline
T Offline
Tim Craig

wrote on last edited by

#38

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? and visa-versa

Pretty obviously, you smoke and you can't.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!
R 1 Reply Last reply

0
O Oakman

fred_ wrote:

yet the revenue they raised isn't going to smokers

It shouldn't. It should to the non-smokers who are forced to breathe the same air.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
F Offline
F Offline
fred_

wrote on last edited by

#39

Oakman wrote:

It shouldn't. It should to the non-smokers who are forced to breathe the same air

Isn't that the reason public smoking is mostly banned? Isn't going to those people either.
O 1 Reply Last reply

0
C Christian Graus

Well, it's an interesting question, why tobacco was historically not banned and dope was. Subsidies are just an example of the corruption inherit in the US system of government. Here, the money goes in to health directly, AFAIK.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
F Offline
F Offline
fred_

wrote on last edited by

#40

Christian Graus wrote:

why tobacco was historically not banned and dope was

Assume you mean marijuana? If so that was the reefer madness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness[^] which had origins in the fears of black people that were generally we too poor to afford alcohol or banned from it.
1 Reply Last reply

0
J John Carson

Rob Graham wrote:

The only problem with the present tax increase, is that does absolutely nothing to alleviate the burden to the health system posed by smokers.

A buck is a buck. This tying of revenue to specific expenditure is largely pointless. Unless the tied expenditure amounts to more that the total that would be spent on something in the absence of tying (and thus compels an increase in total funding), there is no guarantee that the tying will increase expenditure at all: other sources of funding can be reduced as an offset. Equally, spending money from a cigarette tax on something not smoking-related could free up money from funding that other thing, making more money available for caring for sick smokers. Or it may be that, say, the cost of lung cancer treatment has caused other areas to be starved of funds in the past, and so spending cigarette taxes on them now is just making up for the past displacement of funds to smokers. Tying or not tying is largely window dressing.

John Carson
F Offline
F Offline
fred_

wrote on last edited by

#41

Generally I agree about tying. However the smokers are demonized by this tax. And in my experience in this state ( cannot speak for all as I haven't researched it ), I can be treated for smoking related issues using ( I have private) insurance, but smoking-cessation treatments aren't covered. There really is no benefit flowing back to that payer of the tax
O 1 Reply Last reply

0
T Tim Craig

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? and visa-versa

Pretty obviously, you smoke and you can't.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!
R Offline
R Offline
Rob Graham

wrote on last edited by

#42

And you don't and you can't. ;P
O T 2 Replies Last reply

0
C Chris Austin

For growing hops and barley?

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. --?
O Offline
O Offline
Oakman

wrote on last edited by

#43

Chris Austin wrote:

For growing hops and barley?

Tax evasion

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
C 1 Reply Last reply

0
R Rob Graham

And you don't and you can't. ;P
O Offline
O Offline
Oakman

wrote on last edited by

#44

Rob Graham wrote:

And you don't and you can't.

And I did (4 packs a day) and I don't even try.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
1 Reply Last reply

0
F fred_

Oakman wrote:

It shouldn't. It should to the non-smokers who are forced to breathe the same air

Isn't that the reason public smoking is mostly banned? Isn't going to those people either.
O Offline
O Offline
Oakman

wrote on last edited by

#45

fred_ wrote:

Isn't that the reason public smoking is mostly banned?

Ever see Mommie light up in the car when she has two kids strapped down in the back seat? Ever get called into the boss's private office and put up with him lighting up while he discusses something important to you?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
1 Reply Last reply

0
F fred_

Generally I agree about tying. However the smokers are demonized by this tax. And in my experience in this state ( cannot speak for all as I haven't researched it ), I can be treated for smoking related issues using ( I have private) insurance, but smoking-cessation treatments aren't covered. There really is no benefit flowing back to that payer of the tax
O Offline
O Offline
Oakman

wrote on last edited by

#46

fred_ wrote:

I can be treated for smoking related issues using ( I have private) insurance,

And collecting on it for your self-induced problems drives the rate up for everyone.

fred_ wrote:

but smoking-cessation treatments aren't covered.

You want to quit? Quit. Don't worry about the insurance. I went from 4 packs a day to zero at noon on April 12, 1993 without asking my insurance company to pony up a nickle.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
1 Reply Last reply

0
T Tim Craig

John Carson wrote:

Sure. After all, prohibition worked a treat.

Not to mention that kind of policy also keeps pot, cocaine, heroin, meth,.... off the market in the US. :rolleyes:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!
O Offline
O Offline
Oakman

wrote on last edited by

#47

Tim Craig wrote:

Not to mention that kind of policy also keeps pot, cocaine, heroin, meth,.... off the market in the US

You betcha. It's much easier to find it in the schools than the supermarkets.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

modified on Saturday, April 4, 2009 5:40 PM
1 Reply Last reply

0
O Oakman

Chris Austin wrote:

For growing hops and barley?

Tax evasion

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
C Offline
C Offline
Chris Austin

wrote on last edited by

#48

:laugh:

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. --?
1 Reply Last reply

0
C Chris Austin

Rob Graham wrote:

If they really gave a damn about the impact smokers have on the health care system they would stop subsidizing Tobacco farmers (to the tune of 530 million since 1997) and prohibit the sale of all tobacco products (as they do for other dangerous drugs)

Thats a lot of money. I imagine it is just a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidizes the corn farmers get. My nephew's father lives off the money he is paid for not farming his high dollar land in Iowa. Shameful.

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. --?

modified on Friday, April 3, 2009 5:37 PM
V Offline
V Offline
Vikram A Punathambekar

wrote on last edited by

#49

Chris Austin wrote:

My nephew's father lives off the money he is paid for not farming his high dollar land in Iowa

Umm, what? Mind explaining?

Cheers, Vıkram.

Carpe Diem.
C 1 Reply Last reply

0
R Rob Graham

And you don't and you can't. ;P
T Offline
T Offline
Tim Craig

wrote on last edited by

#50

Yep, and I didn't try because I don't care about his tax. ;P Just helped him categorize his position on the argument. Now a tax I could get behind is politicians paying taxes on their slush funds.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!
1 Reply Last reply

0
F 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
S Offline
S Offline
Synaptrik

wrote on last edited by

#51

Smoked for 15 years. Would still smoke if my lungs allowed it. No objection to it. Regardless of who the taxes go directly to the idea I was playing advocate to was that it acts as an offset to the burden placed on the system by smokers. But then I quit when it was still less than 2 bux a pack.

This statement is false
1 Reply Last reply

0
C Chris Austin

For growing hops and barley?

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. --?
S Offline
S Offline
Synaptrik

wrote on last edited by

#52

Commerce clause. Wheat farmers had to stop growing wheat for personal consumption as it interfered with inter-state commerce. Now that's a law I don't quite agree with.

This statement is false
C 1 Reply Last reply

0
S Synaptrik

Commerce clause. Wheat farmers had to stop growing wheat for personal consumption as it interfered with inter-state commerce. Now that's a law I don't quite agree with.

This statement is false
C Offline
C Offline
Chris Austin

wrote on last edited by

#53

My understanding of the commerce clause is that it only applies if you are operating in attempt to make a profit. In my case I wouldn't sell diddly. But, I do think the wheat thing was established because of a quota system or something like that. i.e. that buy growing it you were interfering with interstate commerce. Really stupid.

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. --?
S 1 Reply Last reply

0
V Vikram A Punathambekar

Chris Austin wrote:

My nephew's father lives off the money he is paid for not farming his high dollar land in Iowa

Umm, what? Mind explaining?

Cheers, Vıkram.

Carpe Diem.
C Offline
C Offline
Chris Austin

wrote on last edited by

#54

Not much to explain. My nephew's father has some beautiful farm land in Fort Dodge, Iowa that he does not farm because he receives subsidizes to keep his land fallow.

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. --?
V 1 Reply Last reply

0
C Chris Austin

Not much to explain. My nephew's father has some beautiful farm land in Fort Dodge, Iowa that he does not farm because he receives subsidizes to keep his land fallow.

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. --?
V Offline
V Offline
Vikram A Punathambekar

wrote on last edited by

#55

Sorry, that is the point I don't understand - why does the Govt pay people *not* to farm? Apparently, it's in the Govt's interest your relative doesn't plough his land - but why?

Cheers, Vıkram.

Carpe Diem.
C 1 Reply Last reply

0

Log in to reply

1
2
3