jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (48 posts)

Unfair tax burden on the poor.

59
JSChamsposted 4 years ago
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/22/state … poor-most/

You know what is really confusing about this is the simple fact the smoking is one of the greatest health issues we have..but I just would wonder how much caterwauling you would get from the left if you tried to repeal it?
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Tobacco being a non essential and something that does great harm to the country I see it as fine for it to be heavily taxed, numbers of smokers are falling rapidly and this is probably one of the reasons. I do think some of the revenue should be spent on helping people quit etc.
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Now Josak you know that these taxes will not go quietly into a good night don't you? You don't think that tax was put in place because there were so many smokers that would NEVER quit. I smoked for 20 years myself but haven' smoked now for longer than that.
  Basically it's taxing addicts that they know are there for life.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  You quit and I quit so it's certainly not impossible, I found it very hard for sure but it's a choice to continue feeding the habit and considering the cost the healthcare implications create for all of us it's only right to tax it heavily.
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  It is still taking advantage of people who need help not taxation. If you smoked during the period I did you know just how ridiculous that tax is. These people are addicted to a substance and many of them are in the lower income bracket.
  See this is the first instance you can prove the Govt really isn't for the little guy.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  I smoked when it was pretty much required and I enjoyed it, when it became apparent that the science proved it was harmful I quit, it was a tough month but it's as simple as that, the tax can be used to help people buy food etc. (things they actually need).
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  It is fine, then, to use the US tax code as a tool to enforce a lifestyle or actions that one group decides is "moral" or "right" onto another group with less political power?
  
  This seems to me to be contradictory to the spirit, of not the letter, of the idea of freedom that is espoused by our constitution.
  
  Rather than simply making smoking illegal and jailing people for that "crime" we will sneak through the back door and make it so expensive that they can't afford it. Mission accomplished - destroying one persons freedom - but done in such a manner that we can claim we didn't actually destroy that freedom, we just helped them to live the life we think they should.
  
  When we choose one (or more - think alcohol taxes or any other "sin" tax) of these obviously "wrong" actions people indulge in where do we stop? Will there be an end to it at all? Or will we just continue to tax various small, politically weak groups to both provide funding for the larger group so that their taxes can go down while pushing for particular lifestyles we think are "right"?
  reply report
2. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Solution: Make a law where you can only smoke if you are in private with nobody else around, and you exhale into a special filter that eliminates the toxins from the air.
  
  Any other smoking = attempted mass homicide.
  
  Then, ship off all our prisoners to mine rocks on the moon.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Can we please add the burning of hydrocarbons to smoking? The total "pollution" from that is far greater.
  
  Cars. Lawn mowers. Boats. Weed eaters. Gas grills. Oil or gas furnaces. Snow blowers. Motorcycles and 4 wheelers.
  
  None of these are necessary, all produce air pollution. Most are nothing but toys and the few that aren't (cars, furnaces) can be replaced with something that doesn't harm people.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  The pollution is more, but the health effects are less.
  
  We should definitely work to move away from it though, but we couldn't just get rid of it. We can't replace all transportation at this point, not even close. You really couldn't take cars, semis, tankers, etc out of use without destroying the global economy.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Not sure that the total health effect is less - a lifetime of breathing this junk can produce effects that are confused with other things. I think the jury is still out on that.
  
  You're right - cars and particularly trucks would be impossible to get rid of. Not the other things - all the toys - though, and I believe I've seen where they produce more total pollution than all the cars put together.
  
  Actually though, I was a little tongue in cheek - the point was that if we are to ban one unnecessary and harmful thing, why not others? Or is it just a matter of picking them off one by one so people don't get so upset as their freedoms disappear one by one instead of all at one time as we demand that all conform to a "desirable" lifestyle as defined by just one group?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Don't worry, my post wasn't all that serious... unless we find gold on the moon... then I say go for it.
  reply report
3. 90
  Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  The caterwalling would come from the right and the tobacco industry.
  As just happened in California with the defeat of Prop 29.
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Oh no it wouldn't Most of the smokers I personally know are Democrats.
  There is no way in heaven or on earth you would touch cigarettes because of these friggin taxes. That's how you roll.
  reply report
4. 76
  rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  I don't feel sorry for the people who get taxed heavily for buying and smoking. The taxes should be more and even weighed against health issues that arise later in their lives. It is not fair to those who choose not to smoke for health or even economic reasons to have their healthcare costs go up to cover those that refuse to redress the damage smoking does to their bodies and costs not covered by the catastrophic ravages of cancer in their later lives. Sorry to not share in your tax freedom from this stupid addiction.
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  It's not so much tax freedom as looking at the left preying on people they were already preying on to start with . Even more so.
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  But the liberals love their taxes....
  reply report
5. 80
  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Last I checked, the poor aren't taxed at all.
  
  However, you're right. It is unfair. No one should be taxed anything.
  reply report
59
JSChamsposted 4 years ago
Wow, nobody cares about this tax?
reply report
1. 71
  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  JS, are you a smoker perchance? I'm an ex-smoker, and I think the tax serves a useful purpose even though it is regressive. I also think there should be a federal weight tax on non-commercial motor vehicles to discourage people from buying gas-guzzlers. We could quit trying to regulate the manufacturers and work on discouraging their customers for Hummers, and other heavy cars for personal use.
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Have not smoked in 20 years. See the whole point of this is the fact that smoking is a major health issue. So here's the Democrat party and their view is let's tax it to pieces.
  
  Now......are you looking after the health of the nicotine addict or are you gaining tax revenue at all cost?
  You really don't want people to quit.
  reply report
  91
  Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Howdy, JSChams. I just want to point out two of your claims are unsupportable distortions of the truth.
  
  The first is the assumption that resistance to repealing the cigarette tax will come mostly from Democrats. What proof do you offer to support your claim? “Most of the smokers I personally know are Democrats.”
  
  Concern for the health of the nicotine addict and the life-long healthcare costs associated with smoking is the reason cigarette taxes are so high. The findings released by the Center of Disease Control in Sept 2011 clearly state, “Implications for Public Health Practice: Enhanced efforts are needed to accelerate the decline in cigarette smoking among adults. Population-based prevention strategies, such as tobacco taxes, media campaigns, and smoke-free policies, in concert with clinical cessation interventions, can help decrease cigarette smoking and reduce the health burden and economic impact of tobacco-related diseases in the United States.” {1} Did you notice the first mentioned strategy, JSC, was tobacco taxes?
  
  In addition, read further into the report to learn even more. “Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 raised the federal tax rate for cigarettes from $0.39 to $1.01 per pack. Increasing the price of cigarettes can prevent initiation among nonsmokers and reduce cigarette consumption, particularly among youths and low-income smokers” {2} High taxes are an effective means to discourage young nonsmokers from getting hooked particularly among "low-income smokers.”
  
  Now, I invite you to share with us your fact-based data indicating the government does not want people to quit and the cigarette tax is a conspiracy on the part of one party to just raise revenue. Do you have any?
  
  Thank you, JSChams. I, for one, am looking forward to your evidence.
  
  {1} http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6035.pdf#page=21 p.1207
  {2} http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6035.pdf#page=21 p.1210
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Oh well I am glad they are concerned. It's rather like taking and leaving heroin on the streets and taxing the poo out of it.
  No I don't have graphs , charts, or polls. Sorry I am so undisciplined.
  It's nothing that hasn't already been going on with minorities. Just an extension. If you tries to get rid of that tax they would demand it come into being somewhere else because taxes are eternal. Right?
  reply report
  91
  Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Hi, JSChams.
  
  Testing your political beliefs and your assumptions against data and facts in the real world does not make you disciplined; it makes you better informed.
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  I use a little different method Quill. You learn a lot from it.
  See after I get all the data data data data figures and what the supposed facts are I turn and look out the window and observe the actual behavior of the people.
  The proof is in the pudding.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Read: I hear the facts then dismiss them because they disagree with me
  
  Just kidding
  reply report
59
JSChamsposted 4 years ago
Let someone try to repeal all those taxes. I think it would be fun to try so we can watch all those Democrats hit the microphone and try to justify keeping it. It's about the children you know.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  I am quite happy to defend the taxes, smoking is a matter of choice, its not a necessity if people choose to smoke there is nothing wrong with taxing that to the hilt.
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Why don't we just make tobacco illegal? It's certainly more harmful than alcohol?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  I don't support crushing people's freedom like that. There are many people who smoke responsibly, have a pipe or a cigarette after working all day and that is fine. Ultimately giving people the right to choose is better in a situation like this.
  
  Besides prohibition taught us what happens when you ban popular substances.
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Biggest load of bilge I have heard this week. It seems the left is all for freedom of choic for things like smoking and abortion but all their other little ideas have to be mandatory.
  It's basically insuring the freedom to remain addicted to a substance so revenues can be collected from the addicts. Nothing more and nothing less.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Not at all I just support people having the right to make their own personal choices, who they marry, if they get an abortion, if they want to smoke. Those are decisions about their own life that you and I have no right to interfere in. As I said prohibition taught us those bans don't work anyway.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Smoking affects other people... it's called secondhand smoke.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  As I understand it if one smokes responsibly (outside) it's safe for others?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Reasonably... that doesn't keep people from blowing smoke in my face whenever I go downtown.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  The worst part is kids who have smoker parents.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Do you think it should be banned?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  I think we would be better off without it, but trying to ban it would be no more effective than the war on drugs or prohibition.
  reply report
59
JSChamsposted 4 years ago
It's this dangerous substance but we won't make it illegal we will tax the addicts who are mostly poor.
The hypocrisy of the left in full display.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  On the contrary that's called freedom, people have the right to choose to harm themselves if they wish and since everyone else often ends up bearing the cost they should pay high taxes on it.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Unfortunately, the money collected in cigarette taxes don't go to help anyone. It usually goes into a general fund or to special projects the lawmakers want done.
  reply report
  59
  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  Oh but try to repeal that.......just you dare and listen to who will starve and who will die.
  Not a single solitary tax not like that. You can never repeal them not even until the sun burns itself into an itty bitty cinder.....
  reply report
88
Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago
With regard to smoking, it sure seems that those who can least afford it are the more prone to it today. I see a lot of young kids in the late teens and early twenties who could sure use their money more wisely but they do not go without their cigarettes...nor their tatooes. Neither are essential but seem to be a necessary element in establishing a personality. Most will waste at least a decade of their life in this fashion before they consider a change of course. In terms of the smokes, that may be enough to permanently damage their health. In terms of the tatoo....a more expensive proposition to get rid of that to acquire. On the basis of that ignorance, and that is exactly what it is, there is no doubt that the tax does penalize those with less self-discipline in their lives. As with any money collected by the government...it basically disappears in the face of more and more debt. Taxation is only a partial answer to our problems. Spending is the cancer eroding our government from within. As to the moral aspects of the tax code, I do not see that the point of establishing that code had anything to do with sexual preference at the time it was established. Those who desire that path think everything should change to suit their needs but it is okay to penalize a young man on limited income for his choice to smoke....I don't buy it. ~WB
reply report
1. 83
  Doodleheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  My understanding is that tobacco is not the cancer-causing agent. The agents are the chemicals put into the tobacco to cause addition or taste.
  Remove the chemicals and I expect the health problems would decrease, the cost would decrease, and so forth. Just another ploy.
  reply report
60
ITcoachposted 4 years ago
Hi Everyone,

I am feeling pleasure to see a post related to smoking. I think there is no cause of reduction of smokers. If it goes too expensive then the smokers rises with the same rhythm. One cause that can reduce the smokers, is that should be highly discouraged on all platforms. The individuals who give up smoking should be appreciated in some ways.
reply report
83
Doodleheadposted 4 years ago
If they are so against smoking (tptb) then why don't "they" stop themselves from making the cigs.
I mean "they" are "in charge". It's their stupid problem.
reply report
83
kathleenkatposted 4 years ago
I find it interesting how the left side has pushed taxes on things like smoking and liquor sales. It is very interesting to me, because the left is also pushing to legalize marijuana (and also put taxes on it).

So, let's tax things because they are "bad" and we "don't want people to do them for their health," yet, try to make it easier for these people do do "bad" things? Hmm, sounds like an undercover motive to tax more, if you ask me...
reply report
80
Kangaroo_Jaseposted 4 years ago
lol, Americans WISH they could tax cigarettes, not even close to taxation levels on Australian cigarettes.
reply report