Raising taxes on smokes....

[tiggersmom2]

I say add tax to luxury items like jewelry, expensive cars, boats
homes 300K and higher,etc. I don't buy that stuff either but those
that do can well afford more taxes. Just call me Robin Hood. [/B]

You do know the wealthy ALREADY pay the majority of taxes - right?! I'm not for raising taxes on cigarettes but I think it is riduculous to even fathom raising taxes on these items.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by shortbun
Let me guess, you smoke!
I'm against adding tax to cigs right now. It's the poor that
will be hurt the most. They spend a bigger percent of their
available income on cigs and beer/wine than any other group.
While I am not poor, don't smoke and rarely drink; children will
bear this hardship before their parents kick their addictions.
I say add tax to luxury items like jewelry, expensive cars, boats
homes 300K and higher,etc. I don't buy that stuff either but those
that do can well afford more taxes. Just call me Robin Hood.

I think you are missing the entire point of raising the tax - it isn't to raise revenue so much as it is to discourage smoking. While I understand your fondness for punishing the producers in society, taxing those that buy big houses isn't going to do anything to cut the smoking rate.

 

[Crankyshank]

I think you are missing the entire point of raising the tax - it isn't to raise revenue so much as it is to discourage smoking. While I understand your fondness for punishing the producers in society, taxing those that buy big houses isn't going to do anything to cut the smoking rate.

I agree. And I don't think raising the tax is going to do a darn thing to discourage smoking - no matter how much they raise it.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

AFR:

I think you are missing the entire point of raising the tax - it isn't to raise revenue so much as it is to discourage smoking. While I understand your fondness for punishing the producers in society, taxing those that buy big houses isn't going to do anything to cut the smoking rate.

ITA. Many studies show that the best way to decrease smoking rates is to educate and discourage youth from even starting.

 

[Beauty]

ITA. Many studies show that the best way to decrease smoking rates is to educate and discourage youth from even starting.

Thats an excellent point and I know my son's school has had talks as early as 4th grade and each year afterwards. Its just so sad to see someone young and vital leave behind a 12 year old son because of smoking.

ITA that raising the taxes probably won't do much good because it is an addiction and people are going to do whatever it takes to feed that addiction, but seeing firsthand what smoking causes just make me so angry as much as, if not more for the poor child that now doesn't have a father when he needs him the most.

 

[Bojangles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I think you are missing the entire point of raising the tax - it isn't to raise revenue so much as it is to discourage smoking. While I understand your fondness for punishing the producers in society, taxing those that buy big houses isn't going to do anything to cut the smoking rate.

Good point.

 

[Tiggeroo]

There's no such thing as second hand fat. I say raise it as much as they want. I really think that most kids won't start smoking if they cost $8. a pack.

 

[Lanshark]

Smoking is still a legal activity. I may not choose to partake but if someone else wants to smoke, knowing the risks, then that's their choice. I hate smoke but adding taxes is not going to stop smokers. The government would be attempting to change behaviors based on monitary consequenses. It won't work.

 

[Crankyshank]

My friend shared an article she read today that stated teens spend an average of $103/week. $8 for a pack of smokes is a drop in the bucket for them. Money they'll spend as long as it's considered "cool" to smoke.

 

[Beauty]

My friend shared an article she read today that stated teens spend an average of $103/week. $8 for a pack of smokes is a drop in the bucket for them.

Yep I totally see and believe that!


A totally different debate but in regards to ""If I want to smoke even though I know it could kill me"" whats the difference in the seat belt laws all over the country. What ""IF"" I choose not to wear my seat belt, I know it COULD kill me but its my choice.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Beauty
Yep I totally see and believe that!


A totally different debate but in regards to ""If I want to smoke even though I know it could kill me"" whats the difference in the seat belt laws all over the country. What ""IF"" I choose not to wear my seat belt, I know it COULD kill me but its my choice.

I see exactly what you're saying, and personally, I'm not in favor of mandatory seat belt usage for adults.

 

[jennyanydots]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I think you are missing the entire point of raising the tax - it isn't to raise revenue so much as it is to discourage smoking. While I understand your fondness for punishing the producers in society, taxing those that buy big houses isn't going to do anything to cut the smoking rate.

Interesting point.

 

[Crankyshank]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I see exactly what you're saying, and personally, I'm not in favor of mandatory seat belt usage for adults.

I'm not in favor of mandatory seat belt usage at all.

 

[Planogirl]

Is this tax truly being raised to discourage people from smoking? I've seen cases where governments use tobacco tax for things not tobacco related and that seems wrong to me.

 

[N.Bailey]

I think everyone that is over weight is risking their health as much as any smoker. To sit here and say that you feel their way is so bad is a bit hypocritical when you can look in the mirror and see that you aren't exactly leading a healthy lifestyle either. Over weight people die and leave behind loved ones all the time too.

I'm not defending smokers at all. Believe me, Marlboros were like $4.00 a pack when I gave them up. $4.00 times 4 packs a day (my husband and myself each smoking 2 packs a day) times 30 days on average a month? You do the math. It certainly wasn't cheap! I really think smokers pay more than their share of taxes as it is. If people haven't quit by now, I really doubt their going to.

Perhaps it's time the government move their attention to people being over weight now. Studies suggest that 60% of all Americans fall into this category. Yeah, I'd say that's a BIG problem too!

I've seen many on this board have no problem with their SUV's either. They feel they are perfectly entitled to them. I do too actually. I say, let's throw that $1.00 tax per gallon on gas! Let the highest consumers pay the most money!

 

[jennyanydots]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I see exactly what you're saying, and personally, I'm not in favor of mandatory seat belt usage for adults.

But your failure to use a seat belt DOES impact on the rest of us, in higher auto insurance rates, for starters. I pay $$ for auto liabiltiy insurance, mandated by my state's financial responsibility laws, to protect the victims of any accidnet I might have. If you're not wearing your seat belt, you could sustain a much more serious injury -- resulting in a higher payout by my insurer, and consequently a higher premium for me. Why shoudl I have to be financially responsible for your stupidity?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
But your failure to use a seat belt DOES impact on the rest of us, in higher auto insurance rates, for starters. I pay $$ for auto liabiltiy insurance, mandated by my state's financial responsibility laws, to protect the victims of any accidnet I might have. If you're not wearing your seat belt, you could sustain a much more serious injury -- resulting in a higher payout by my insurer, and consequently a higher premium for me. Why shoudl I have to be financially responsible for your stupidity?

The laws could easily be changed so that insurance companies don't have to pay out if someone isn't wearing their seat belt.

That's what the military does - if I'm in an accident and I'm not wearing my seatbelt, the military is not obligated to pay my medical costs, nor are they obligated to pay out my life insurance if I'm killed.

 

[Beauty]

The laws could easily be changed so that insurance companies don't have to pay out if someone isn't wearing their seat belt.

Thats a very interesting perspective and in ways I can see something like that working a lot better at having people actually wear seat belts as opposed to the way some of them feel now as being strong armed into wearing them.

I think I like that idea. Its still MY CHOICE, however, if I CHOOSE not to wear them I face the consequenses. Its not taking the decision out of my hands entirely.

Can you tell I'm very stubborn?

 

[pirateeast]

So we should raise taxes on cigs to stop people from useing them, well why not band them all together if that is your am, why tax people more, the goverment already gets more from a pack of cigs then the cig companys themselfs get in profit. If your aim is to stop people from smokeing why get the goverment linked into it with more taxes, the more taxes the goverment gets the harder it is for them to do away with it. And don't forget, you may not smoke, but we all do things that are unheathly for us, snacks, fatty food, not excersizeing like we should, should we not tax all these things more to stop people from doing them? I understand the goverment has to tax us to run the programs they have, but taxes were never ment to stop people from doing something, or get them to go a certain way with their life choices. You don't do something, you don't like what the people are doing so you go great, tax them more. But just wait, at some point there will be someone that doesn't like what your doing, how your living your life and think you should be taxed and at that point maybe you will see the point i'm trying to make. So go ahead and ban smokeing, but please stop raiseing my darn taxes.


For you people that don't like the seat bealt laws, just think of the ticket you get for not wearing it as a tax.

 

[Bojangles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
The laws could easily be changed so that insurance companies don't have to pay out if someone isn't wearing their seat belt.

That's what the military does - if I'm in an accident and I'm not wearing my seatbelt, the military is not obligated to pay my medical costs, nor are they obligated to pay out my life insurance if I'm killed.

Fine for adults. We still need laws for those under 18.

I remember "back in the day" when I smoked complaining when they went up to $.90 in the vending machines at work.