Oh, and no rock climbing, parachuting, hunting, or anything else that could cost us taxpayers money with your medical bills.
Last edited:
Smokers, we're getting $crewed again......
- Thread starter Schmoe
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
Our congressmen are taxing the poorest of the poor, the homeless who sleep under bridges, the old veteran in his one rented room, to provide insurance for the children of soccer moms with McMansions and SUV's and $80,000 a year income. (Consider THAT, Obama, with your "no new taxes for anyone making less that $210,000 a year".)
What the??? How did you come to that conclusion?
Our congressmen are taxing the poorest of the poor, the homeless who sleep under bridges, the old veteran in his one rented room, to provide insurance for the children of soccer moms with McMansions and SUV's and $80,000 a year income. (Consider THAT, Obama, with your "no new taxes for anyone making less that $210,000 a year".)
What the??? How did you come to that conclusion?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
While I can't post stats, I run a mobile homeless shelter hosted one month at a time in area churches. Virtually 100% of the homeless that we see smoke. Most cannot afford cigarettes, so they inhale the cheaper "mini-cigars" ($150/pack vs. $4/pack). All of them ..maybe one or two exceptions. Now many also have other issues that brought them to this status ..alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness, no family support ..or other social dysfunctions ... There are a few that are just "not economically viable" ..but most of them smoke too.
Now ..I'm waiting for someone to say "Well, if they didn't smoke, they would be economically viable"
Now ..I'm waiting for someone to say "Well, if they didn't smoke, they would be economically viable"
You got screwed on the first puff, you've been paying for it ever since.
It's just another way to tax the poor. Look who smokes the most, anyway. Low socioeconomic groups smoke more by percentage than any other group. Booze, Lottery, Tobacco... All ways to tax the poor. They stay calm if you let them happily give you the money instead of taking it from them. This kind of policy cracks me up because it's ingenious. The health nuts love it, the yuppies love it, the hippies love it and the poor people? They get the shaft. What are they supposed to do? Quit? Between working their minimum-wage job, taking care of a bunch of runny-nosed kids, and just trying to survive a pointless life they'd give whatever they had to for the chance to stop and have a smoke... And Uncle Sam is ready to take it from them. What are they going to do, get a political action committee together with all their disposable income and spare time? They're marks and the government knows it.
I'm soo glad I never smoked cigs,EVER
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
Booze, Lottery, Tobacco... All ways to tax the poor.
My observations tend to prove that out.
Booze, Lottery, Tobacco... All ways to tax the poor.
My observations tend to prove that out.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I don't meant to be rude, but comparisons like this really don't help your credibility.
My creditability? I'm not defending a thesis here, but the comparison was my point. It's a tax period on luxury items. Smoking and jogging are not a necessity. I was trying to put the tax raise in prospective for those that don't smoke.
I don't meant to be rude, but comparisons like this really don't help your credibility.
My creditability? I'm not defending a thesis here, but the comparison was my point. It's a tax period on luxury items. Smoking and jogging are not a necessity. I was trying to put the tax raise in prospective for those that don't smoke.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Hazardous drivers affect everyone around them. Should we ban cars?
No. We should pull them over, cite them, prosecute them, and let their insurance companies increase their premiums. Which, in principle, we do.
By the way, since you're clearly an intelligent person, you know that's a terrible example, right? Cars have a whole host of critically important benefits and are only dangerous in dangerous hands, whereas cigarettes have virtually no benefits and are dangerous (to some extent) in anyone's hands. Come on now.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
You also have 40 years studies that have conclusions like:
Quote:
The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
IMO, it doesn't matter. The fact is:
- There is SOME harm to people, as even the extreme skeptics will admit
- That harm is mostly to people who have nothing to do with the smoker, and cannot be avoided (the worst kind of harm)
- There is virtually no net benefit (to put it mildly)
So, why is smoking a right in the first place, other than that it's deeply ingrained?
Hazardous drivers affect everyone around them. Should we ban cars?
No. We should pull them over, cite them, prosecute them, and let their insurance companies increase their premiums. Which, in principle, we do.
By the way, since you're clearly an intelligent person, you know that's a terrible example, right? Cars have a whole host of critically important benefits and are only dangerous in dangerous hands, whereas cigarettes have virtually no benefits and are dangerous (to some extent) in anyone's hands. Come on now.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
You also have 40 years studies that have conclusions like:
Quote:
The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
IMO, it doesn't matter. The fact is:
- There is SOME harm to people, as even the extreme skeptics will admit
- That harm is mostly to people who have nothing to do with the smoker, and cannot be avoided (the worst kind of harm)
- There is virtually no net benefit (to put it mildly)
So, why is smoking a right in the first place, other than that it's deeply ingrained?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
You have to watch out for being sucked into Crusades. They're not for whatever their target is. They're there for your displaced anxiety to be focused on. Smoking and drinking are just low hanging fruit. Easy targets.
Dr. Raymond Cocteau: ANKKK!! John Spartan, you have been fined 3 credits for violating the verbal decency act.
Dr. Raymond Cocteau: ANKKK!! John Spartan, you have been fined 3 credits for violating the verbal decency act.
There is also harm to every single person from the chemical industry that sprang to life during the post WWII boom. Pesticides, PVC, organics in the air, pollution, global warming, etc. etc. They kill way more than smoking has. Back to one of my first posts in the population percentage that did smoke back in the 50's. Was it all doom and gloom, was there mass extinction to the human race during those times? I mean, they were advertising that smoking was actually good for you. You can't even watch an old black and white movie without someone smoking. But, the death percentages have remained the same throughout the years. I'm sorry, but I ain't buying that argument.
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
...and the poor people? They get the shaft. What are they supposed to do? Quit? Between working their minimum-wage job, taking care of a bunch of runny-nosed kids, and just trying to survive a pointless life they'd give whatever they had to for the chance to stop and have a smoke... And Uncle Sam is ready to take it from them. What are they going to do, get a political action committee together with all their disposable income and spare time? They're marks and the government knows it.
This is the biggest pile of steaming manure posted in this thread yet.
What's the first thing that SHOULD go when you're tight on funds? The luxury items and the non-essentials. Poor people are living the lives they chose for themselves. Runny-nosed kids cramping your style and stressing you out? YOU SHOULDA KEPT YOUR LEGS CLOSED. The cause of pro-creation is no mystery to the human race...and neither is contraception. Food, housing and transportation should be priority 1, especially if you have children. If you can't afford that carton of Basic 100s, don't gripe because they're too expensive and you're too poor. Learn to live within your means, however meager they may be. Believe me..I'd LOVE to be able to afford a $5000/month cocaine habit, but I have a mortgage, car payment and a family to support. What did I sacrifice? The cocaine. ( I never did cocaine, just using it to make my point). It's not rocket science and it's not the goverment's fault that nicotine freaks can't afford to support their habit. Ditch the habit and support the 'runny nosed kids" that you just HAD to have. Further more...anyone who pays $5 a pack for cigarettes shouldn't be eligible for welfare. They likely wouldn't need welfare if they didn't smoke.
I love nothing more than to see homeless people, or people living below the poverty line with a d*mn cigarette hanging out of their mouths. It doesn't exactly make me feel charitable.
...and the poor people? They get the shaft. What are they supposed to do? Quit? Between working their minimum-wage job, taking care of a bunch of runny-nosed kids, and just trying to survive a pointless life they'd give whatever they had to for the chance to stop and have a smoke... And Uncle Sam is ready to take it from them. What are they going to do, get a political action committee together with all their disposable income and spare time? They're marks and the government knows it.
This is the biggest pile of steaming manure posted in this thread yet.
What's the first thing that SHOULD go when you're tight on funds? The luxury items and the non-essentials. Poor people are living the lives they chose for themselves. Runny-nosed kids cramping your style and stressing you out? YOU SHOULDA KEPT YOUR LEGS CLOSED. The cause of pro-creation is no mystery to the human race...and neither is contraception. Food, housing and transportation should be priority 1, especially if you have children. If you can't afford that carton of Basic 100s, don't gripe because they're too expensive and you're too poor. Learn to live within your means, however meager they may be. Believe me..I'd LOVE to be able to afford a $5000/month cocaine habit, but I have a mortgage, car payment and a family to support. What did I sacrifice? The cocaine. ( I never did cocaine, just using it to make my point). It's not rocket science and it's not the goverment's fault that nicotine freaks can't afford to support their habit. Ditch the habit and support the 'runny nosed kids" that you just HAD to have. Further more...anyone who pays $5 a pack for cigarettes shouldn't be eligible for welfare. They likely wouldn't need welfare if they didn't smoke.
I love nothing more than to see homeless people, or people living below the poverty line with a d*mn cigarette hanging out of their mouths. It doesn't exactly make me feel charitable.
So, because people chose to smoke, we should be targeted to pay higher taxes for the mere fact that we smoke and smokers are now an increasing minority? The last time I checked, this was a free country. Like your analogy and keeping the legs closed, we all wish and know people that that should have happened, but it didn't. So, they pump out kids that they can't afford and what happens, the Gov. steps in and helps them out. Hmmmmm, if I have more kids, I get more money......
Maybe this was a bad idea posting this topic on bitog. I had expected a little better arguments than comparisons. My point was that our taxes are not being evenly distributed nor are we being taxed with representation. The majority and the battle cry "for the children" have all taken over and everyone forgot what it states in the constitution. So, where will it stop? Can't you see that we are heading in a socialistic government? Especially now with the economy. When the economy goes into recession or depression, the government gets larger and more controlling. Your civil liberties will from this point on be in jeopardy. If they can raise taxes over 2000%, just wait until what happens next. Scary stuff people. I hope your ready for it because the only way to pay for all these stimulus plans is by raising taxes. Now, it won't be from income taxes, but through more subtle ones like goods and services, which is in effect what we are seeing with tobacco now. The government is blind. You are counting on getting money from a dwindling source. Tobacco users are declining every year, but the cost to run this health program continues to rise. At some point, where will that extra money come from to support this? We all know democrats believe in the social services. It's going to be a long ride folks and it won't be getting any better. Just talk to anyone from Germany or England.
Maybe this was a bad idea posting this topic on bitog. I had expected a little better arguments than comparisons. My point was that our taxes are not being evenly distributed nor are we being taxed with representation. The majority and the battle cry "for the children" have all taken over and everyone forgot what it states in the constitution. So, where will it stop? Can't you see that we are heading in a socialistic government? Especially now with the economy. When the economy goes into recession or depression, the government gets larger and more controlling. Your civil liberties will from this point on be in jeopardy. If they can raise taxes over 2000%, just wait until what happens next. Scary stuff people. I hope your ready for it because the only way to pay for all these stimulus plans is by raising taxes. Now, it won't be from income taxes, but through more subtle ones like goods and services, which is in effect what we are seeing with tobacco now. The government is blind. You are counting on getting money from a dwindling source. Tobacco users are declining every year, but the cost to run this health program continues to rise. At some point, where will that extra money come from to support this? We all know democrats believe in the social services. It's going to be a long ride folks and it won't be getting any better. Just talk to anyone from Germany or England.
I don't hear you griping about the Gas Guzzler tax, which is basically a tax levied on expensive cars that get horrible gas mileage. Is the goverment singling out wealthy people because they CHOOSE to buy these types of cars? It's designed to discourage the purchase of these types of vehicles, yet they still sell....because people that can afford it aren't phased by it. If smokers can't afford their habit, they need to quit. If someone can't afford to buy a Lamborghini because of the tax, he should (actually, he'll be forced to) pick a different vehicle.
I fail to see a difference. Smoking is a choice. Driving a Gallardo is a choice. Yet the smoking tax is so evil? It's because the people who are griping are addicts...addicted to a product proven to cause numerous complications and diseases.
Sorry...no sympathy from someone who can't afford (and doesn't want) a nasty habit. Sorry you're not getting the sympathetic response you expected.
I fail to see a difference. Smoking is a choice. Driving a Gallardo is a choice. Yet the smoking tax is so evil? It's because the people who are griping are addicts...addicted to a product proven to cause numerous complications and diseases.
Sorry...no sympathy from someone who can't afford (and doesn't want) a nasty habit. Sorry you're not getting the sympathetic response you expected.
Sympathy is for the devil, could care less about that. I can afford this easily, it's not the point. Your comparing apples to oranges. Do you REALLY think that the whole point to the gas guzzler tax was to discourage people to buy them? Yeah, right. It was a tool to increase taxes to a small minority of people that were not represented bases on unit populations. You think the sell of gas guzzlers actually declined? The people that bought those vehicles could well afford it and it didn't stop them. What slowed the sells down were two fold, fuel jumping up to 5 bucks a gallon and everyone losing their jobs or their retirement plan that wouldn't have the money available in the first place to purchase them. It sure as #ell wasn't the gas guzzler tax. It's just not going to be the "smoking tax" as you put it, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
fueleconomy.gov
What is the Gas Guzzler Tax?
The Energy Tax Act of 1978 established a Gas Guzzler Tax on the sale of new model year vehicles whose fuel economy fails to meet certain statutory levels. The gas guzzler tax applies only to cars (not trucks) and is collected by the IRS.
The fuel economy figures used to determine the Gas Guzzler Tax are different from the fuel economy values provided on this web site and in the Fuel Economy Guide. The tax does not depend on your actual on-the-road mpg, which may be more or less than the EPA published value. The purpose of the Gas Guzzler Tax is to discourage the production and purchase of fuel inefficient vehicles. The amount of any applicable Gas Guzzler Tax paid by the manufacturer will be disclosed on the automobile's fuel economy label (the window sticker on new cars).
What is the Gas Guzzler Tax?
The Energy Tax Act of 1978 established a Gas Guzzler Tax on the sale of new model year vehicles whose fuel economy fails to meet certain statutory levels. The gas guzzler tax applies only to cars (not trucks) and is collected by the IRS.
The fuel economy figures used to determine the Gas Guzzler Tax are different from the fuel economy values provided on this web site and in the Fuel Economy Guide. The tax does not depend on your actual on-the-road mpg, which may be more or less than the EPA published value. The purpose of the Gas Guzzler Tax is to discourage the production and purchase of fuel inefficient vehicles. The amount of any applicable Gas Guzzler Tax paid by the manufacturer will be disclosed on the automobile's fuel economy label (the window sticker on new cars).
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
I love nothing more than to see homeless people, or people living below the poverty line with a d*mn cigarette hanging out of their mouths. It doesn't exactly make me feel charitable.
It's the little pleasures in life that bring so much satisfaction ..
I love nothing more than to see homeless people, or people living below the poverty line with a d*mn cigarette hanging out of their mouths. It doesn't exactly make me feel charitable.
It's the little pleasures in life that bring so much satisfaction ..
- Status
Similar threads
