When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
62 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scrapiron
15 years ago
New bumper sticker campaign: Start smoking now, and smoke heavily. Your childrens health care depends on it. (Especially needed by those on SCHIP who’s parents earn in excess of $60,000 per year). You are now getting a taste of communism, more to come.
Researcher...MO
15 years ago
This is my first post here, and I must say, as a smoker, I am completely disgusted by this, even though I knew it was coming. There was no way bambi wasn’t going to sign SCHIP. So now, I, who has no kids and makes 31K per year, will be paying for the health care of kids whose parents make 2x+ more than I do. Completely and utterly furious over it, but it will not make me stop, just cut back and go to a bargain brand. The ONLY reason I would consider quitting is to withhold the revenue, but I enjoy it too much and life is short. I am considering trying to grow it though…
I do have to admit though rather enjoying the shocked looks I get when I tell other smokers, some of whom were bambi voters, exactly who signed this bill, and the fact that Bush vetoed it. More than once. Bush considered it unfair to single out smokers as the financiers of the bill.
But whether you love or hate smoking and smokers, remember what we’ve been telling you for years: we are the canary in the coal mine, and everyone else is next. It has taken a little longer than I expected, but hold on to your wallets folks!
There were plenty of Republican fingerprints on this tax increase too. Our party is betraying its principles by coddling the democrap tax and spenders (or borrow and spenders). This was part of the SCHIP funding. So on the one hand the gov’t is telling smokers to quit because it’s bad for them, and on the other they are telling smokers to keep smoking to fund libtard programs.
At least smokers are only going to have to pay this tax 62 cents or $6.20 at a time, depending on if they buy by the pack or by the carton. As the owner of a business that sells tobacco products, I had to take an inventory of my stock of tobacco and pay a floor tax on it. With the money that I had to send the treasury to pay that tax this week I could have paid a new employee for an entire year. This is money straight out of my pocket, and straight out of the local economy. And I am only 3 of the 144,000 or so convenience stores in the nation, not counting smoke shops, truck stops, etc.
I’ve had to pay floor taxes on my inventory in the past, but this was the single largest floor tax rate on any product in history. It’s outrageous, and a slap in the face of hard working people everywhere. Maybe instead of paying the tax, every store owner should have driven out to Boston and dumped it all in the harbor!
Researcher...MO
15 years ago
Wow, Wisdom, that is horrid, I had no idea. So is what you are saying that you had to pay tax on product you already had in inventory that wasn’t sold prior to 04/01? I don’t know what a floor tax is.
And eaglewingz08, I agree that there was plenty of repub support, which makes me sick too. What makes it even worse is that if the stupid “universal” health care gets going, and the way it looks now, it will, if I ever DO have a smoking-related illness, I will most likely be told that I can’t be treated because I am a smoker, no matter that I am also a heavy tax-payer as a result. What makes me maddest of all is the whole “smoking related” death, and the idea that smokers are always in poor health and taking time off work. In my anecdotal experience, I am rarely ever sick, my non-smoker co-workers are sick all the time. And God forbid I get hit by a Mack truck with a pack of smokes in my pocket! That death would be considered smoking related (tongue in cheek on that one, but not by much).
Richard
15 years ago
Obama broke a promise? I’m shocked—SHOCKED!—to hear this. Say it isn’t so.
@Researcher…MO: Welcome Reasearcher and I hope that is the first post of many.
Yes, none of us are surprised by this and despite Obie’s pledge the poor and middle class, no matter how little they make, will end up paying more to the government in taxes of some form. Whether it’s collected by the cigarette company or the power company the federal government will NEVER get by with less.
But Obie and the Dems don’t seem to care if we are forced to live with less.
The tobacco tax is the greatest/best tax in the history of the world. The game of the tobacco companies is to make addicts of teenagers. Nothing has had the beneficial effect of reducing teenage smoking (and, thus, overall smoking) than the tobacco tax.
Tobacco is not a life’s necessity. No one needs to smoke. It’s a filthy disgusting habit which turns lungs black and which nauseates those who are forced to breath the sidestream effluent of selfish smokers.
My mother started smoking as a teenager, when cigarettes were cheap. Just today she started radiation therapy when her lung cancer finally metastasized to her brain. I wish that cigarettes had cost $10 a pack when she was a teenager. The price can’t be too high.
And the Dems are going to give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco.
Hallelujah. Sometimes the Dems actually do get it right.
What makes me maddest of all is the whole “smoking related” death, and the idea that smokers are always in poor health and taking time off work.
Are you still living in the 1950s ?! Cigarette smoking is — far and away — the number one cause of premature disability and death! On average, smokers live 10 to 17 fewer years than non-smokers.
When he started smoking, at the age of 14, the tobacco companies knew the health risks, and withheld the information – even lied.
As a non-smoker, I refuse to live with anyone who smokes – for, in my experience, they will say they’ll never smoke around you, but inevitably ALWAYS end up trying to find a way around their promise. I have never found anyone who has proven to be an exception. I make it clear that there is no smoking in my apartment, only to come home to a smell that takes forever to go away, and never comes out of my book collection, walls, or clothing. Smokers don’t mean to be disrespectful with a sense of entitlement, they are just addicted.
It’s a horribly powerful addiction. One which my father took years to shake, even after being put on an oxygen tank. ANYTHING that helps deter this addiction, including a higher tax, is something I am all for.
If it happened sooner, perhaps I’d be able to call my dad and chat today.
Ah, yes. The resident arbiter of all that is good and proper arrives just in time to tell the rest of us peasants what he deems necessary in life.
Just because tobacco is not “necessary” to sustain life, does that give you the right to tell the rest of humanity that they should not have access to it?
Uh, no. It doesn’t.
How about that computer keyboard you’re typing on? Is it “necessary”?
How about that delicious bowl of ice cream I enjoyed a little while ago? Was it “necessary”?
How about the new books I ordered yesterday? Are they “necessary”?
How about the trip you made to Germany recently? Was it “necessary”?
How about the camera that you made the pictures with on your trip to Germany? Is it “necessary”?
One could argue that anything in life beyond basic food and shelter is not “a necessity of life”. That doesn’t give you the right to decide for someone else what they should or should not be doing.
It’s all about personal freedom Larry.
I know that is a strange concept to you and your side of the aisle but that’s what it boils down to.
I don’t smoke. That’s my choice.
I wear a seat belt. That, also, is my choice.
If I choose not to do those things, those are decisions that I have the freedom to make.
I don’t need Nanny Gov’t, or you, to decide what is best for me.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Thanks Larry. We needed more examples of how Dems don’t mind at all interfering in the personal rights and liberties of people’s lives.
You guys always say you want to get Republicans out of your bedrooms but you know why we are there? Because every other room in the house has some left wing fascist freak dictating our behavior.
I don’t smoke and I refuse to permit smoking in my house. But the last thing I would do is go to someone elses house and tell them they can’t.
Larry doesn’t seem to mind that poor blacks are hardest hit by this tax.
“You guys always say you want to get Republicans out of your bedrooms but you know why we are there? Because every other room in the house has some left wing fascist freak dictating our behavior”
Sorry Mike, I just don’t see how the two issues are related. Nobody is saying that smokers can’t smoke – just that if they want to, they’ll have to pay more. Makes sense, though – tax dollars are spent on public hospitals and quitting programs, as well as educational programs and PSAs to deter children from doing so. It’s only in the past few years that we got them to stop filling everyone else’s air with their poison.
How many dead people do we know who are paying taxes? My dad was 62, imagine the tax revenue that could have been gained had he not retired early and lived a normal life span.
I already knew the answer, so don’t suffer under the delusion that you’re educating me.
My point was that anytime an activity is taxed with the intention of reducing said activity, then the resulting decrease in the targeted activity will reduce the desired income coming from the taxes targeted toward that activity.
The Dems have built huge gov’t programs based on the dollars that are produced from tobacco taxes.
Now, they’re killing the golden goose by raising the taxes to the point that less people will be able to afford to smoke.
Sort of like the Gov of NY raising taxes on the “rich” and, in the process, driving those people out of the state. If my memory serves me, California is experiencing a similar exodus.
America, as a country, has been experiencing the same by having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.
I’ve been waiting for opportune times to post on the tobacco tax/health issue. Mike’s brought up the issue here, and I assure you, it will be a recurring theme… as it has (but slightly) in the past.
First of all, Scrap is right in comment #1. You want SCHIPs and other health programs to succeed? You need smokers. I will also add that the smoking related businesses (ala Wisdom, other smoke shops, tobacco farms, etal) are also dependent on tobacco…. and with that comes the government depending on their income revenue.
So for the naive… ie Cary and Larry W. The reality is when you fund health programs on taxing smokers, you are funding a time bomb. You will achieve your goal to have less people smoke, and the real repercussion is you have less funds to pay for your nanny health care programs. For those of you logic challenged on the action/reaction INRE the smoke issue, use, for example, the recent history of Colorado…
…or to speak “physics”…
The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs – equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
Welcome to the “opposite action” of funding a program on the sale of an item, then simultaneously making the sale of that item less apppealing or affordable.
Now… no one believes that smoking is good for your health. And for those that like to say “they didn’t tell us” back decades ago, anyone who has ever smoked anything tobacco *knows* it’s not a healthy habit. I know. I’ve smoked, off and on, since I was 22 years of age. Never once… from my first inhale, was I under the impression that “wow… this is really good for me!” Right. No “surgeon general” note needed. The body tells all.
Nor is this about wise choices for our lifestyles. Were that the case, smoking is only the beginning of a ration of statism criticisms about every aspect of our lives.
Like Aye Chi says, lots of things aren’t “good” for us. Hang, listen to the nanny food analysts from day to day and milk or eggs are great today, and the next day they aren’t. What’s “good” for us, and thereby legal to sell or indulge in on the free market, isn’t the big question.
What *is* the issue at heart is when you yield that judgment of what’s “good” or “bad” to a government entity, freedom is irretrievably lost across the spectrum… and what can possibly be immune? French fries? The type of bed you sleep on? What type of car you drive? Isn’t a high crime neighborhood bad for your health? How about city living in general and the increased exposure to high traffic pollution? More than one glass of wine daily (no matter whether you are driving or not…)
The reality is, any and everything that isn’t “bad” for you can be abused when not used in moderation, and therefore become “bad” and subject to government regulation.
Bottom line here is government is pretending to make a logical moral judgment by attacking a popular target – smokers. Not only is this out of their Constitutional power, it’s just a downright lie. If they genuinely cared about smokers, they wouldn’t fund programs based on smokers, farmers and retail outlets revenue.
This is all about money – laying in a tax that… when smokers quit smoking, and retail outlets go out of business, and farmers quit farming tobacco and depend upon subsidies… will result in a redirected tax onto the masses to make up for the “feel good”, personal choice intrusion health program they funded which as “magically” and “unexpectedly” runs out of money. Fact is, the masses will be reluctant to pass a program if they have to pay. But if those nasty smokers pay… well… kewl.
Yes.. it is again about money. First to get the nation to fund it based on a constituency they despise, and then to transfer that to the population as a whole. We are fools to fall for this.
So for Larry and Cary.. leave your moral arguments behind. Check your stats and future revenues before you bless a government program only meant to find a way to attack you next. You need smokers if you want your health care affordable. Don’t like them personally? Don’t hang around them. This isn’t personal. Cary, your grandfather may have died from lung disease. I had a grandfather die from the same, and never smoked… nor hung around a smoker his entire life. I also have a chain smoker uncle who hung around into his 90s. What’s the correlation? Doesn’t matter… because it’ isn’t about concern for smokers’ health
It’s about taxation…. we”ll start on the people you hate… and work our way to you.
“I already knew the answer, so don’t suffer under the delusion that you’re educating me”
That statement is filled with so much ego, I now know all I need to about you. I knew you knew the answer, but you didn’t think I did – so I was indeed educating you otherwise.
My argument isn’t moral at all, and it wasn’t my grandfather, it was my father – the man I grew up with. There is no theory, I know what took his life. None of your arguments will change that. Frankly, I’m offended that you would accuse me of being naive when it comes to this topic. But I guess it’s typical to patronize when there’s nothing better to go with.
And on another subject – that of class</i? – not a single person has offered condolences for my loss. Just a bunch of selfish, partisan political nonsense. Real classy. You wouldn’t even have had to alter your arguments to say, “I’m sorry for your loss, but this is how I see it… ”
Now that I know who I’m dealing with, I’ll show myself the door.
That is exactly what a floor tax is. Me, and every wholesaler and retailer in America had to take an inventory of their previously purchased, but as of yet unsold, tobacco products and pay the treasury a tax on them.
@Larry (#8)
You know, I’ve been selling cigarettes in my family’s stores for almost thirty years. In that time, I have ID’d literally tens of thousands of people who wanted to buy them. Of those, several thousand were underage, and turned away. I can tell you with 100% certainty is, that in all those years, I have never had an underage kid ask for a generic brand of cigarettes.
What’s my point? Kids are NOT affected by price. They are not affected by tax rates. They don’t care. If they are going to smoke, they are going to smoke, no matter how much the pack costs.
Yes, I know cigarettes are bad for you, so does every living human being in the world. But it isn’t the governments job to control our behavior through taxes. That’s just one step closer to authoritarianism.
Besides, 43 Million American adults smoke in the US. Annually, and it kills about 443,000 of them. So roughly 1%. There are about 700,000 physicians in the United States and they cause about 120,000 accidental deaths per year. That means roughly one in six physicians will kill a patient every year, or about 17%. Maybe the feds should be taxing physicians to fund the SCHIP program instead of cigarettes, eh Larry?
Timothy
15 years ago
To the “drive by” posters who give their anti-smoking tripe then leave….riddle me this boyos:
If smoking is soooooo evil, why not make it illegal and ban it?
Answer: They won’t. Gov’t is too addicted to the revenues. They’ll pass laws, pass taxes, but they’ll never kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Take away the smoking taxes and it’s gonna have to come somewhere else…say you’re income taxes to pay for “poor” folks healthcare. But you would squeal like piggies if that happened.
Personally, I hope the tobacco companies leave for another countr and take their jobs and tax revenues elsewhere. I’m sure there are countries that would gladly set aside land for crops and factories. It’s kind of like the Kyoto treaty…..while the west sells it’s soul to lower CO2 (a TRACE element in the atmosphere) while Russia, China, India and Brazil soak up the fossile fuel deposits and laugh all the way to the bank.
I think you are going to get your wish in spades. It isn’t just the tobacco companies that are going to close up shop in the US and head for greener pastures, taking the jobs they provide with them. Companies from all industries are packing up and leaving. Energy companies, manufacturing companies, research companies…one by one they are giving the US the finger and heading for countries that want their business and won’t bust their balls at every turn.
Timothy
15 years ago
May I give you a few examples….
South Eastern Europe (flat taxes and low corporate taxes)
South East Asia (low labor)
South West, Tropical Africa (great soil and eager for outside capital)
Brazil Tropics (large amounts of land)
Cuba (already have good soil for cigars…why not cigs? They’re desperate for the $$$)
Reminds me of the news stories of people leaving NYC and California. After the rich get screwed, they’ll just down the line. For most schmucks, they don’t have the option of leaving.
At this rate, those who have the (a) education, (b) skill sets and (c) capital will go “global” and find some other place that’s a bit more accomodating (aka: Arthur C. Clarke’s “Odyssey” series).
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
Cary,
If $0.62 a pack helps deter smoking, why not $2.00 a pack? For that matter, why not just make it illegal to sell tobacco products? Cigarette smoking is the #1 cause of lung cancer.
And why stop there? Think of all the lives we would save by outlawing booze? If you prefer taxing it, how about $100 per ounce? That would be a goo deterrent.
Am I being ridiculous? Maybe, but what’s more ridiculous is government’s hypocrisy. As has already been pointed out, tobacco taxes (and other “sin taxes”) are just a ploy to rake in more tax revenues. It just happens to be a little easier to pass taxes for such unsavory activities, especially if you can fool some people into believing that the money is going to help the poor saps who just can’t help themselves.
I’m sorry, but wasn’t Cary showing himself the door, offended that we didn’t offer condolences’for his father’s passing a year ago???
As I told you, Cary… this argument isn’t personal. You, however, chose to make it so with your personal snippy remarks.
I’ve lost a cousin, several friends and am awaiting the loss of yet another within that same time frame (from a variety of causes… and none of them smoking, BTW). I live daily, appreciating every moment I have with my mid 90s dad and mid 80s mom. ‘scuse me if I don’t genuinely “patronize” you (as you suggested I did in my comment #19) for your father’s death which, while painful, I’m sure you’ve had ample time to adjust.
You do, however, cast much doubt on who your are, parroting the advocate’s mantra: ….imagine the tax revenue that could have been gained had he not retired early and lived a normal life span. Well now, there’s a bleeding heart, pining away for his Dad.
Frankly, Cary, I don’t believe you are who you pretend to be. Not do I give a rat’s butt. You may find a few dumb enough to be receptive to your banal and emotional arguments. But life and death is a personal choice. Your father didn’t need a surgeon general’s warning to know that smoking made him shorter of breath, drained more of his energy, and wasn’t equivalent to a shot of B12 vitamins. I’ll wager your father also didn’t blame others for his death.
So let me give you belated condolences now, Cary. I am sorry about the passing of your father. No doubt he was worth 10 times the value of space on earth compared to you.
Much like others of that variety who have passed through the boards here.
He approaches every topic he participates in from a position of superior intellect and then, when shown his ignorance, he gathers his toys and dashes from the sandbox tossing some sort of snarky insult over his shoulder on the way out.
Although I don’t smoke – I’m happy enough for tobacco to be legal and to be taxed somewhat heavily. Not extra heavy just to raise taxes like they do as an excuse just to raise more taxes but enough to geniuely cover any extra healthcare that is incurred by smoking. It’s like motorists get slammed with extra taxes on fuel but those taxes just go straight back to the pot as far as I can see – and not directly back into providing better transport and alternatives. In Queensland – they slapped on higher taxes on the latest fear ‘alcopops’ to stop underage drinkers from drinking alcohol – as if that was going to stop them. As usual it’s just another tax ploy. What they should do is legalise cannabis, gambling and prostitution and tax that. At least that is more honest than the usual nanny state bs excuses.
JeffK
15 years ago
Ah yes, this is a tax on the poor – because only poor people smoke, after all.
You clearly haven’t lost a parent, and I hope it’s a long time before you do. I brought up the tax comment in order to illustrate a point. Yes, my father was indeed a 1O times better person than I am. He wouldn’t have bothered with you, and would have gently scolded me for doing so myself. It’s funny, now that I can’t hear him, I’m finally listening.
I’m willing to cut Cary some slack. Doesn’t he live in New York City? That explains it all. I remember when I lived there. Whenever I would re-enter the megapolis it was like entering a bubble and you check your brain at the door. Liberal orthodoxy is so overwhelming that most people living there simply accept it as undeniable truth and have never been exposed to the facts which put the lie to that orthodoxy. It’s sort of like Hillary Clinton’s willing suspension of disbelief.
As far as libs go, I put Cary pretty low on the offensive, arrogant scale. Just look around on other threads and you’ll find plenty that fit that bill.
Cary just needs more exposure to alternate reality and there is a good chance he will become enlightened by the truth.
Such an epiphany is unlikely to happen with some of these moonbats that regularly pollute these pages with their moonbattery.
jaafar
15 years ago
Well, what a convenience. We started out with the fact that Barack Obama told a flat lie. Raising the tobacco taxes to pay for child health insurance was just about the first thing he did. And the tobacco tax — you just can’t find a more regressive tax than that.
Then the subject was changed — how convenient. The subject became the good and evil of smoking tobacco. How convenient.
I have a prediction. One of the next taxes to be increased is the Social Security tax. Unless you accept the polite fiction that the employer pays half and the employee pays half, the Social Security/Medicare taxes amount to 15%. Since most of us live in places with very visible sales taxes (say 8 percent), the “poor” are basically paying a minimum of 23% in federal tax on every penny they earn. (Investment income is not subject to Social Security taxes). That’s before we add in gas taxes, tobacco taxes, excise taxes, property taxes and all the rest.
People who point out that the “rich” are paying almost all the income tax are right, but they always leave these nasty little regressive taxes out of their calculations. Frankly, if the “poor” had to pay another 20 percent in income taxes, then someone allegedly making $30,000 a year would be paying close to half of that in TAXES.
Gee, maybe rather than arguing about smoking, we could try for something really useful, such as a Truth In Taxation measure. I mean, you know how keen the Nanny State is to make all those nasty nasty private businesses label every last thing in a cap of freeping soup. Why not require the same when purchasing stuff which is taxed? That is to say, your receipt at the gas station would have to spell how much of that fill-up went to local, state, and federal governments. Ditto for your invoice when buying a car, or buying a six-pack of beer.
Of course, that might cause “consumer dissatisfaction.” Chances that the Pelosi gang will even listen to this proposal: ZERO.
I actually don’t mind debating or discussing with Cary up to a point. However, when the going gets tough, he likes to sling around invectives without any sort of factual support.
Then we confronted, he says “goodbye” or “I’m not interested” and dashes for the door making some sort of snarky comment along the lines of “Now that I know what kind of person I am dealing with, I am leaving.”
That’s cowardice.
I have neither the time nor the patience for cowardice.
@jaafar: I like the idea of a Truth in Taxation law. Is anyone in Congress pushing such a measure? Look at your phone bill. It’s loaded with hidden taxes and fees.
@Aye Chihuahua: His blog says New York. Did he move from one fantasy land to another? He’s an aspiring actor so the world of make believe has an attraction for him. That would help explain his viewpoint.
He does seem to get a little huffy when he realizes he has met his match.
Although I don’t smoke – I’m happy enough for tobacco to be legal and to be taxed somewhat heavily. Not extra heavy just to raise taxes like they do as an excuse just to raise more taxes but enough to geniuely cover any extra healthcare that is incurred by smoking.
If the taxes on tobacco were used to fund the additional public healthcare expenses of the users of tobacco, I wouldn’t scoff at any amount of tax on them. The reality is though, that those taxes are used for everything but. This .62 per pack funds healthcare for children. Noble, but the recipients of the benefits have no correlation to the taxpayer demographic. If funding children’s healthcare really is the priority, then why don’t they fund it with taxes on childbirth? On baby formula? Child safety seats? Oh, that wouldn’t be politically correct now would it? Why would you charge the people who choose to have children for the public costs that are created as a result of their choice? Never happen. Not when you can target a politically unfavorable group like smokers. Why don’t you put a tax on alcohol that provides nursing home care? Or a tax on bullets that funds after hours flu clinics?
Or, the federal government could get out of the healthcare business, and leave it to private industry and individual states. You know, like the Constitution says?
@jaafar
That is to say, your receipt at the gas station would have to spell how much of that fill-up went to local, state, and federal governments. Ditto for your invoice when buying a car, or buying a six-pack of beer.
I could almost agree with you except what you are proposing is yet another unfunded mandate on businesses. Everything you mentioned would be the responsibility of the businesses involved. As someone who sell cigarettes, gas, and beer, your proposal would make me responsible for figuring out how much of each purchase was distributed to each governmental entity and communicate that to my customer. Sounds great![sarcasm]
jaafar #35, it will always be impossible to frame a cigarette tax as merely another Obama lie. The point is it comes down to class warfare. The populus eagerly gins up initimidation tactics to abscond with executive bonuses… taking their mobs to their family homes. The cigarette tax is no different. It’s a government assault deliberately aimed at a hated segment of Americans.
They use this hatred to justify their actions, never letting on that their punishment will soon spread to the rest of the nation equally when the costs of the health care outweights the reduced income from cigarette taxes.
You can’t discuss wages and bonuses of executives without class warfare and moral judgments entering the picture… and the same will always be true for cigarette taxes, taxes on the wealthy, gun owners, and other sundry unpopular classes of American’s waiting for their turn in the Obama admin sights.
JeffK
15 years ago
@ Hard Right – statistics or some other reference that proves that the poor will be hardest hit please?
And I don’t even smoke…but the whole “no smoking” thing really aggravates me.
My mother died of emphysema. She smoked for some 50 years, and there’s no doubt that smoking caused her health problems and death. But she knew the risk she took, and it took until her last year of life to finally admit that she’d make that choice foolishly. It took 10 days under an oxygen tent for her to end her use. I’m _not_ in favor of smoking, but the loss of the choice to do so or not is a greater loss to this country than all of the people who might die prematurely due to tobacco use.
This is the same bunch that torched the Branch Davidian Compound at Waco. Doubt they look too highly on people who try and cheat Barack out of cigarette taxes.
barneyfife
15 years ago
MataHarley #41
“it will always be impossible to frame a cigarette tax as merely another Obama lie. The point is it comes down to class warfare. The populus eagerly gins up initimidation tactics to abscond with executive bonuses… taking their mobs to their family homes. The cigarette tax is no different. It’s a government assault deliberately aimed at a hated segment of Americans.”
And he’s getting pretty good at it. Consider this recent threat to bankers:
“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
After he gets the mob fired up, what till he raises taxes on pitchforks!
Mike’s America #46
“So, can we now all agree that this tax hits poor blacks the hardest????”
Yes, but which will hit poor blacks hardest: the higher price or losing their menthol’s?
New bumper sticker campaign: Start smoking now, and smoke heavily. Your childrens health care depends on it. (Especially needed by those on SCHIP who’s parents earn in excess of $60,000 per year). You are now getting a taste of communism, more to come.
This is my first post here, and I must say, as a smoker, I am completely disgusted by this, even though I knew it was coming. There was no way bambi wasn’t going to sign SCHIP. So now, I, who has no kids and makes 31K per year, will be paying for the health care of kids whose parents make 2x+ more than I do. Completely and utterly furious over it, but it will not make me stop, just cut back and go to a bargain brand. The ONLY reason I would consider quitting is to withhold the revenue, but I enjoy it too much and life is short. I am considering trying to grow it though…
I do have to admit though rather enjoying the shocked looks I get when I tell other smokers, some of whom were bambi voters, exactly who signed this bill, and the fact that Bush vetoed it. More than once. Bush considered it unfair to single out smokers as the financiers of the bill.
But whether you love or hate smoking and smokers, remember what we’ve been telling you for years: we are the canary in the coal mine, and everyone else is next. It has taken a little longer than I expected, but hold on to your wallets folks!
There were plenty of Republican fingerprints on this tax increase too. Our party is betraying its principles by coddling the democrap tax and spenders (or borrow and spenders). This was part of the SCHIP funding. So on the one hand the gov’t is telling smokers to quit because it’s bad for them, and on the other they are telling smokers to keep smoking to fund libtard programs.
At least smokers are only going to have to pay this tax 62 cents or $6.20 at a time, depending on if they buy by the pack or by the carton. As the owner of a business that sells tobacco products, I had to take an inventory of my stock of tobacco and pay a floor tax on it. With the money that I had to send the treasury to pay that tax this week I could have paid a new employee for an entire year. This is money straight out of my pocket, and straight out of the local economy. And I am only 3 of the 144,000 or so convenience stores in the nation, not counting smoke shops, truck stops, etc.
I’ve had to pay floor taxes on my inventory in the past, but this was the single largest floor tax rate on any product in history. It’s outrageous, and a slap in the face of hard working people everywhere. Maybe instead of paying the tax, every store owner should have driven out to Boston and dumped it all in the harbor!
Wow, Wisdom, that is horrid, I had no idea. So is what you are saying that you had to pay tax on product you already had in inventory that wasn’t sold prior to 04/01? I don’t know what a floor tax is.
And eaglewingz08, I agree that there was plenty of repub support, which makes me sick too. What makes it even worse is that if the stupid “universal” health care gets going, and the way it looks now, it will, if I ever DO have a smoking-related illness, I will most likely be told that I can’t be treated because I am a smoker, no matter that I am also a heavy tax-payer as a result. What makes me maddest of all is the whole “smoking related” death, and the idea that smokers are always in poor health and taking time off work. In my anecdotal experience, I am rarely ever sick, my non-smoker co-workers are sick all the time. And God forbid I get hit by a Mack truck with a pack of smokes in my pocket! That death would be considered smoking related (tongue in cheek on that one, but not by much).
Obama broke a promise? I’m shocked—SHOCKED!—to hear this. Say it isn’t so.
@Researcher…MO: Welcome Reasearcher and I hope that is the first post of many.
Yes, none of us are surprised by this and despite Obie’s pledge the poor and middle class, no matter how little they make, will end up paying more to the government in taxes of some form. Whether it’s collected by the cigarette company or the power company the federal government will NEVER get by with less.
But Obie and the Dems don’t seem to care if we are forced to live with less.
The tobacco tax is the greatest/best tax in the history of the world. The game of the tobacco companies is to make addicts of teenagers. Nothing has had the beneficial effect of reducing teenage smoking (and, thus, overall smoking) than the tobacco tax.
Tobacco is not a life’s necessity. No one needs to smoke. It’s a filthy disgusting habit which turns lungs black and which nauseates those who are forced to breath the sidestream effluent of selfish smokers.
My mother started smoking as a teenager, when cigarettes were cheap. Just today she started radiation therapy when her lung cancer finally metastasized to her brain. I wish that cigarettes had cost $10 a pack when she was a teenager. The price can’t be too high.
And the Dems are going to give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco.
Hallelujah. Sometimes the Dems actually do get it right.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Are you still living in the 1950s ?! Cigarette smoking is — far and away — the number one cause of premature disability and death! On average, smokers live 10 to 17 fewer years than non-smokers.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/301/6/593
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
My father died a year ago from COPD – http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Copd/Copd_WhatIs.html
When he started smoking, at the age of 14, the tobacco companies knew the health risks, and withheld the information – even lied.
As a non-smoker, I refuse to live with anyone who smokes – for, in my experience, they will say they’ll never smoke around you, but inevitably ALWAYS end up trying to find a way around their promise. I have never found anyone who has proven to be an exception. I make it clear that there is no smoking in my apartment, only to come home to a smell that takes forever to go away, and never comes out of my book collection, walls, or clothing. Smokers don’t mean to be disrespectful with a sense of entitlement, they are just addicted.
It’s a horribly powerful addiction. One which my father took years to shake, even after being put on an oxygen tank. ANYTHING that helps deter this addiction, including a higher tax, is something I am all for.
If it happened sooner, perhaps I’d be able to call my dad and chat today.
Ah, yes. The resident arbiter of all that is good and proper arrives just in time to tell the rest of us peasants what he deems necessary in life.
Just because tobacco is not “necessary” to sustain life, does that give you the right to tell the rest of humanity that they should not have access to it?
Uh, no. It doesn’t.
How about that computer keyboard you’re typing on? Is it “necessary”?
How about that delicious bowl of ice cream I enjoyed a little while ago? Was it “necessary”?
How about the new books I ordered yesterday? Are they “necessary”?
How about the trip you made to Germany recently? Was it “necessary”?
How about the camera that you made the pictures with on your trip to Germany? Is it “necessary”?
One could argue that anything in life beyond basic food and shelter is not “a necessity of life”. That doesn’t give you the right to decide for someone else what they should or should not be doing.
It’s all about personal freedom Larry.
I know that is a strange concept to you and your side of the aisle but that’s what it boils down to.
I don’t smoke. That’s my choice.
I wear a seat belt. That, also, is my choice.
If I choose not to do those things, those are decisions that I have the freedom to make.
I don’t need Nanny Gov’t, or you, to decide what is best for me.
@Cary:
But Cary, if tobacco is taxed into oblivion then how will all of the wonderful Utopian programs be paid for?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Thanks Larry. We needed more examples of how Dems don’t mind at all interfering in the personal rights and liberties of people’s lives.
You guys always say you want to get Republicans out of your bedrooms but you know why we are there? Because every other room in the house has some left wing fascist freak dictating our behavior.
I don’t smoke and I refuse to permit smoking in my house. But the last thing I would do is go to someone elses house and tell them they can’t.
Larry doesn’t seem to mind that poor blacks are hardest hit by this tax.
@Aye Chihuahua:
If you really think that tax revenue from cigarettes is the sole source of income for government programs….
nah, you don’t really believe that.
@Cary:
Perhaps you should look into what the tobacco taxes are being spent on before you speak up.
@Mike’s America:
“You guys always say you want to get Republicans out of your bedrooms but you know why we are there? Because every other room in the house has some left wing fascist freak dictating our behavior”
Sorry Mike, I just don’t see how the two issues are related. Nobody is saying that smokers can’t smoke – just that if they want to, they’ll have to pay more. Makes sense, though – tax dollars are spent on public hospitals and quitting programs, as well as educational programs and PSAs to deter children from doing so. It’s only in the past few years that we got them to stop filling everyone else’s air with their poison.
How many dead people do we know who are paying taxes? My dad was 62, imagine the tax revenue that could have been gained had he not retired early and lived a normal life span.
@Aye Chihuahua:
It varies from state to state, but in most they go to health related programs.
@Cary:
I already knew the answer, so don’t suffer under the delusion that you’re educating me.
My point was that anytime an activity is taxed with the intention of reducing said activity, then the resulting decrease in the targeted activity will reduce the desired income coming from the taxes targeted toward that activity.
The Dems have built huge gov’t programs based on the dollars that are produced from tobacco taxes.
Now, they’re killing the golden goose by raising the taxes to the point that less people will be able to afford to smoke.
Sort of like the Gov of NY raising taxes on the “rich” and, in the process, driving those people out of the state. If my memory serves me, California is experiencing a similar exodus.
America, as a country, has been experiencing the same by having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.
I’ve been waiting for opportune times to post on the tobacco tax/health issue. Mike’s brought up the issue here, and I assure you, it will be a recurring theme… as it has (but slightly) in the past.
First of all, Scrap is right in comment #1. You want SCHIPs and other health programs to succeed? You need smokers. I will also add that the smoking related businesses (ala Wisdom, other smoke shops, tobacco farms, etal) are also dependent on tobacco…. and with that comes the government depending on their income revenue.
So for the naive… ie Cary and Larry W. The reality is when you fund health programs on taxing smokers, you are funding a time bomb. You will achieve your goal to have less people smoke, and the real repercussion is you have less funds to pay for your nanny health care programs. For those of you logic challenged on the action/reaction INRE the smoke issue, use, for example, the recent history of Colorado…
…or to speak “physics”…
Welcome to the “opposite action” of funding a program on the sale of an item, then simultaneously making the sale of that item less apppealing or affordable.
Now… no one believes that smoking is good for your health. And for those that like to say “they didn’t tell us” back decades ago, anyone who has ever smoked anything tobacco *knows* it’s not a healthy habit. I know. I’ve smoked, off and on, since I was 22 years of age. Never once… from my first inhale, was I under the impression that “wow… this is really good for me!” Right. No “surgeon general” note needed. The body tells all.
Nor is this about wise choices for our lifestyles. Were that the case, smoking is only the beginning of a ration of statism criticisms about every aspect of our lives.
Like Aye Chi says, lots of things aren’t “good” for us. Hang, listen to the nanny food analysts from day to day and milk or eggs are great today, and the next day they aren’t. What’s “good” for us, and thereby legal to sell or indulge in on the free market, isn’t the big question.
What *is* the issue at heart is when you yield that judgment of what’s “good” or “bad” to a government entity, freedom is irretrievably lost across the spectrum… and what can possibly be immune? French fries? The type of bed you sleep on? What type of car you drive? Isn’t a high crime neighborhood bad for your health? How about city living in general and the increased exposure to high traffic pollution? More than one glass of wine daily (no matter whether you are driving or not…)
The reality is, any and everything that isn’t “bad” for you can be abused when not used in moderation, and therefore become “bad” and subject to government regulation.
Bottom line here is government is pretending to make a logical moral judgment by attacking a popular target – smokers. Not only is this out of their Constitutional power, it’s just a downright lie. If they genuinely cared about smokers, they wouldn’t fund programs based on smokers, farmers and retail outlets revenue.
This is all about money – laying in a tax that… when smokers quit smoking, and retail outlets go out of business, and farmers quit farming tobacco and depend upon subsidies… will result in a redirected tax onto the masses to make up for the “feel good”, personal choice intrusion health program they funded which as “magically” and “unexpectedly” runs out of money. Fact is, the masses will be reluctant to pass a program if they have to pay. But if those nasty smokers pay… well… kewl.
Yes.. it is again about money. First to get the nation to fund it based on a constituency they despise, and then to transfer that to the population as a whole. We are fools to fall for this.
So for Larry and Cary.. leave your moral arguments behind. Check your stats and future revenues before you bless a government program only meant to find a way to attack you next. You need smokers if you want your health care affordable. Don’t like them personally? Don’t hang around them. This isn’t personal. Cary, your grandfather may have died from lung disease. I had a grandfather die from the same, and never smoked… nor hung around a smoker his entire life. I also have a chain smoker uncle who hung around into his 90s. What’s the correlation? Doesn’t matter… because it’ isn’t about concern for smokers’ health
It’s about taxation…. we”ll start on the people you hate… and work our way to you.
@Aye Chihuahua:
“I already knew the answer, so don’t suffer under the delusion that you’re educating me”
That statement is filled with so much ego, I now know all I need to about you. I knew you knew the answer, but you didn’t think I did – so I was indeed educating you otherwise.
@MataHarley:
My argument isn’t moral at all, and it wasn’t my grandfather, it was my father – the man I grew up with. There is no theory, I know what took his life. None of your arguments will change that. Frankly, I’m offended that you would accuse me of being naive when it comes to this topic. But I guess it’s typical to patronize when there’s nothing better to go with.
And on another subject – that of class</i? – not a single person has offered condolences for my loss. Just a bunch of selfish, partisan political nonsense. Real classy. You wouldn’t even have had to alter your arguments to say, “I’m sorry for your loss, but this is how I see it… ”
Now that I know who I’m dealing with, I’ll show myself the door.
Larry and Cary…. Why does that remind me of this?
@Mike’s America:
Good one, Mike. Real classy.
@Researcher (#5)
That is exactly what a floor tax is. Me, and every wholesaler and retailer in America had to take an inventory of their previously purchased, but as of yet unsold, tobacco products and pay the treasury a tax on them.
@Larry (#8)
You know, I’ve been selling cigarettes in my family’s stores for almost thirty years. In that time, I have ID’d literally tens of thousands of people who wanted to buy them. Of those, several thousand were underage, and turned away. I can tell you with 100% certainty is, that in all those years, I have never had an underage kid ask for a generic brand of cigarettes.
What’s my point? Kids are NOT affected by price. They are not affected by tax rates. They don’t care. If they are going to smoke, they are going to smoke, no matter how much the pack costs.
Yes, I know cigarettes are bad for you, so does every living human being in the world. But it isn’t the governments job to control our behavior through taxes. That’s just one step closer to authoritarianism.
Besides, 43 Million American adults smoke in the US. Annually, and it kills about 443,000 of them. So roughly 1%. There are about 700,000 physicians in the United States and they cause about 120,000 accidental deaths per year. That means roughly one in six physicians will kill a patient every year, or about 17%. Maybe the feds should be taxing physicians to fund the SCHIP program instead of cigarettes, eh Larry?
To the “drive by” posters who give their anti-smoking tripe then leave….riddle me this boyos:
If smoking is soooooo evil, why not make it illegal and ban it?
Answer: They won’t. Gov’t is too addicted to the revenues. They’ll pass laws, pass taxes, but they’ll never kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Take away the smoking taxes and it’s gonna have to come somewhere else…say you’re income taxes to pay for “poor” folks healthcare. But you would squeal like piggies if that happened.
Personally, I hope the tobacco companies leave for another countr and take their jobs and tax revenues elsewhere. I’m sure there are countries that would gladly set aside land for crops and factories. It’s kind of like the Kyoto treaty…..while the west sells it’s soul to lower CO2 (a TRACE element in the atmosphere) while Russia, China, India and Brazil soak up the fossile fuel deposits and laugh all the way to the bank.
@Timothy
I think you are going to get your wish in spades. It isn’t just the tobacco companies that are going to close up shop in the US and head for greener pastures, taking the jobs they provide with them. Companies from all industries are packing up and leaving. Energy companies, manufacturing companies, research companies…one by one they are giving the US the finger and heading for countries that want their business and won’t bust their balls at every turn.
May I give you a few examples….
South Eastern Europe (flat taxes and low corporate taxes)
South East Asia (low labor)
South West, Tropical Africa (great soil and eager for outside capital)
Brazil Tropics (large amounts of land)
Cuba (already have good soil for cigars…why not cigs? They’re desperate for the $$$)
Reminds me of the news stories of people leaving NYC and California. After the rich get screwed, they’ll just down the line. For most schmucks, they don’t have the option of leaving.
At this rate, those who have the (a) education, (b) skill sets and (c) capital will go “global” and find some other place that’s a bit more accomodating (aka: Arthur C. Clarke’s “Odyssey” series).
Cary,
If $0.62 a pack helps deter smoking, why not $2.00 a pack? For that matter, why not just make it illegal to sell tobacco products? Cigarette smoking is the #1 cause of lung cancer.
And why stop there? Think of all the lives we would save by outlawing booze? If you prefer taxing it, how about $100 per ounce? That would be a goo deterrent.
Am I being ridiculous? Maybe, but what’s more ridiculous is government’s hypocrisy. As has already been pointed out, tobacco taxes (and other “sin taxes”) are just a ploy to rake in more tax revenues. It just happens to be a little easier to pass taxes for such unsavory activities, especially if you can fool some people into believing that the money is going to help the poor saps who just can’t help themselves.
Jeff V
I’m sorry, but wasn’t Cary showing himself the door, offended that we didn’t offer condolences’for his father’s passing a year ago???
As I told you, Cary… this argument isn’t personal. You, however, chose to make it so with your personal snippy remarks.
I’ve lost a cousin, several friends and am awaiting the loss of yet another within that same time frame (from a variety of causes… and none of them smoking, BTW). I live daily, appreciating every moment I have with my mid 90s dad and mid 80s mom. ‘scuse me if I don’t genuinely “patronize” you (as you suggested I did in my comment #19) for your father’s death which, while painful, I’m sure you’ve had ample time to adjust.
You do, however, cast much doubt on who your are, parroting the advocate’s mantra: ….imagine the tax revenue that could have been gained had he not retired early and lived a normal life span. Well now, there’s a bleeding heart, pining away for his Dad.
Frankly, Cary, I don’t believe you are who you pretend to be. Not do I give a rat’s butt. You may find a few dumb enough to be receptive to your banal and emotional arguments. But life and death is a personal choice. Your father didn’t need a surgeon general’s warning to know that smoking made him shorter of breath, drained more of his energy, and wasn’t equivalent to a shot of B12 vitamins. I’ll wager your father also didn’t blame others for his death.
So let me give you belated condolences now, Cary. I am sorry about the passing of your father. No doubt he was worth 10 times the value of space on earth compared to you.
@MataHarley:
Cary is a drama queen Mata.
Much like others of that variety who have passed through the boards here.
He approaches every topic he participates in from a position of superior intellect and then, when shown his ignorance, he gathers his toys and dashes from the sandbox tossing some sort of snarky insult over his shoulder on the way out.
He pulled the same routine over here.
Whenever the discussion gets just a tad bit tough he dashes.
Oh well, some people enhance their surroundings through their presence. Others through their absence.
Although I don’t smoke – I’m happy enough for tobacco to be legal and to be taxed somewhat heavily. Not extra heavy just to raise taxes like they do as an excuse just to raise more taxes but enough to geniuely cover any extra healthcare that is incurred by smoking. It’s like motorists get slammed with extra taxes on fuel but those taxes just go straight back to the pot as far as I can see – and not directly back into providing better transport and alternatives. In Queensland – they slapped on higher taxes on the latest fear ‘alcopops’ to stop underage drinkers from drinking alcohol – as if that was going to stop them. As usual it’s just another tax ploy. What they should do is legalise cannabis, gambling and prostitution and tax that. At least that is more honest than the usual nanny state bs excuses.
Ah yes, this is a tax on the poor – because only poor people smoke, after all.
Idiots…
They already have a tax on idiots – it called the Lottery.
@MataHarley:
You clearly haven’t lost a parent, and I hope it’s a long time before you do. I brought up the tax comment in order to illustrate a point. Yes, my father was indeed a 1O times better person than I am. He wouldn’t have bothered with you, and would have gently scolded me for doing so myself. It’s funny, now that I can’t hear him, I’m finally listening.
@Aye Chihuahua:
I’ve found that when I participate in a debate with someone who only wants to “win”, it inevitably comes down to who gets the last word. You win.
Goodbye.
@Aye Chihuahua:
@MataHarley:
I’m willing to cut Cary some slack. Doesn’t he live in New York City? That explains it all. I remember when I lived there. Whenever I would re-enter the megapolis it was like entering a bubble and you check your brain at the door. Liberal orthodoxy is so overwhelming that most people living there simply accept it as undeniable truth and have never been exposed to the facts which put the lie to that orthodoxy. It’s sort of like Hillary Clinton’s willing suspension of disbelief.
As far as libs go, I put Cary pretty low on the offensive, arrogant scale. Just look around on other threads and you’ll find plenty that fit that bill.
Cary just needs more exposure to alternate reality and there is a good chance he will become enlightened by the truth.
Such an epiphany is unlikely to happen with some of these moonbats that regularly pollute these pages with their moonbattery.
Well, what a convenience. We started out with the fact that Barack Obama told a flat lie. Raising the tobacco taxes to pay for child health insurance was just about the first thing he did. And the tobacco tax — you just can’t find a more regressive tax than that.
Then the subject was changed — how convenient. The subject became the good and evil of smoking tobacco. How convenient.
I have a prediction. One of the next taxes to be increased is the Social Security tax. Unless you accept the polite fiction that the employer pays half and the employee pays half, the Social Security/Medicare taxes amount to 15%. Since most of us live in places with very visible sales taxes (say 8 percent), the “poor” are basically paying a minimum of 23% in federal tax on every penny they earn. (Investment income is not subject to Social Security taxes). That’s before we add in gas taxes, tobacco taxes, excise taxes, property taxes and all the rest.
People who point out that the “rich” are paying almost all the income tax are right, but they always leave these nasty little regressive taxes out of their calculations. Frankly, if the “poor” had to pay another 20 percent in income taxes, then someone allegedly making $30,000 a year would be paying close to half of that in TAXES.
Gee, maybe rather than arguing about smoking, we could try for something really useful, such as a Truth In Taxation measure. I mean, you know how keen the Nanny State is to make all those nasty nasty private businesses label every last thing in a cap of freeping soup. Why not require the same when purchasing stuff which is taxed? That is to say, your receipt at the gas station would have to spell how much of that fill-up went to local, state, and federal governments. Ditto for your invoice when buying a car, or buying a six-pack of beer.
Of course, that might cause “consumer dissatisfaction.” Chances that the Pelosi gang will even listen to this proposal: ZERO.
Well, just an idea.
@Mike’s America:
Actually, he dwells in California.
I actually don’t mind debating or discussing with Cary up to a point. However, when the going gets tough, he likes to sling around invectives without any sort of factual support.
Then we confronted, he says “goodbye” or “I’m not interested” and dashes for the door making some sort of snarky comment along the lines of “Now that I know what kind of person I am dealing with, I am leaving.”
That’s cowardice.
I have neither the time nor the patience for cowardice.
@jaafar: I like the idea of a Truth in Taxation law. Is anyone in Congress pushing such a measure? Look at your phone bill. It’s loaded with hidden taxes and fees.
@Aye Chihuahua: His blog says New York. Did he move from one fantasy land to another? He’s an aspiring actor so the world of make believe has an attraction for him. That would help explain his viewpoint.
He does seem to get a little huffy when he realizes he has met his match.
@Mike’s America:
You may be correct on that.
I was almost certain he had said California at some point, but I may be completely wrong.
Ummm jeff, it was stated that the poor will be hardest hit-you idiot.
You need to double up on your Sesame street viewing.
@GaffaUK
If the taxes on tobacco were used to fund the additional public healthcare expenses of the users of tobacco, I wouldn’t scoff at any amount of tax on them. The reality is though, that those taxes are used for everything but. This .62 per pack funds healthcare for children. Noble, but the recipients of the benefits have no correlation to the taxpayer demographic. If funding children’s healthcare really is the priority, then why don’t they fund it with taxes on childbirth? On baby formula? Child safety seats? Oh, that wouldn’t be politically correct now would it? Why would you charge the people who choose to have children for the public costs that are created as a result of their choice? Never happen. Not when you can target a politically unfavorable group like smokers. Why don’t you put a tax on alcohol that provides nursing home care? Or a tax on bullets that funds after hours flu clinics?
Or, the federal government could get out of the healthcare business, and leave it to private industry and individual states. You know, like the Constitution says?
@jaafar
I could almost agree with you except what you are proposing is yet another unfunded mandate on businesses. Everything you mentioned would be the responsibility of the businesses involved. As someone who sell cigarettes, gas, and beer, your proposal would make me responsible for figuring out how much of each purchase was distributed to each governmental entity and communicate that to my customer. Sounds great![sarcasm]
jaafar #35, it will always be impossible to frame a cigarette tax as merely another Obama lie. The point is it comes down to class warfare. The populus eagerly gins up initimidation tactics to abscond with executive bonuses… taking their mobs to their family homes. The cigarette tax is no different. It’s a government assault deliberately aimed at a hated segment of Americans.
They use this hatred to justify their actions, never letting on that their punishment will soon spread to the rest of the nation equally when the costs of the health care outweights the reduced income from cigarette taxes.
You can’t discuss wages and bonuses of executives without class warfare and moral judgments entering the picture… and the same will always be true for cigarette taxes, taxes on the wealthy, gun owners, and other sundry unpopular classes of American’s waiting for their turn in the Obama admin sights.
@ Hard Right – statistics or some other reference that proves that the poor will be hardest hit please?
Here you go JeffK:
Dagnabbit….
hmmm…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105550/Among-Americans-Smoking-Decreases-Income-Increases.aspx
@JeffK: If you had bothered to read the post the info was linked there.
But Lightbringer also linked to additional info.
So, can we now all agree that this tax hits poor blacks the hardest????
So much for hope and change.
Some of these folks are probably still waiting for their 40 acres and a mule.
Hey folks…the pot smokers grow their own…maybe tobacco smokers should give it a try!
Here ya go. Until they restrict tobacco production, that is.
Very interesting – who knew there were so many varieties of tobacco!
http://www.thetobaccoseed.com/
http://tinyurl.com/dkceud
http://www.newhopeseed.com/tobacco/tobacco_seed_varieties.htm
And I don’t even smoke…but the whole “no smoking” thing really aggravates me.
My mother died of emphysema. She smoked for some 50 years, and there’s no doubt that smoking caused her health problems and death. But she knew the risk she took, and it took until her last year of life to finally admit that she’d make that choice foolishly. It took 10 days under an oxygen tent for her to end her use. I’m _not_ in favor of smoking, but the loss of the choice to do so or not is a greater loss to this country than all of the people who might die prematurely due to tobacco use.
@suek: You might want to see what these folks have to say about that first before you start an illicit tobacco farm:
http://www.atf.gov/antdiversion.htm
This is the same bunch that torched the Branch Davidian Compound at Waco. Doubt they look too highly on people who try and cheat Barack out of cigarette taxes.
MataHarley #41
“it will always be impossible to frame a cigarette tax as merely another Obama lie. The point is it comes down to class warfare. The populus eagerly gins up initimidation tactics to abscond with executive bonuses… taking their mobs to their family homes. The cigarette tax is no different. It’s a government assault deliberately aimed at a hated segment of Americans.”
And he’s getting pretty good at it. Consider this recent threat to bankers:
“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
After he gets the mob fired up, what till he raises taxes on pitchforks!
Mike’s America #46
“So, can we now all agree that this tax hits poor blacks the hardest????”
Yes, but which will hit poor blacks hardest: the higher price or losing their menthol’s?
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15081