Jul -- News: So much for 'no taxes under $250K'...

— Anya —

Trudging Scribe

Post 3945/23359

Posted on 04-02-09 01:54:58 PM


I really don't care, but my grandmother still smokes...I think I can hear her complaining from here. ____________________

Nicole

she's more meow now than man, twisted and evil

Disk-kun
Level: 146

Posts: 1102/6469
EXP: 38288999
For next: 224295

Since: 07-07-07

Pronouns: she/her
From: Boston, MA

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 13 hours

Posted on 04-02-09 03:35:24 PM

Link | Quote

Well, I don't care that much as I'm not a smoker, and while I guess there are arguments that we should increase taxes like these if they deter people from smoking (which in turn reduces the burden on the health system, etc. etc.), I do think it does break the campaign promise...

____________________

— Bloodstar —
11360

Buy me a trip to the moon
So I can laugh at my mistakes

Post 1676/11363

Joined 07-06-07
Active 9 hours ago

Posted on 04-02-09 05:26:17 PM

Link | Quote

It's times like this that I'm glad my mom stopped smoking. I kinda wish this had been done sooner, though... :/

____________________

636 Days

1676 Posts

1730990 EXP

41788 EXP Next

1549 EXP per post

63.535 seconds Idle Time

Overall Ranking: 14

emcee
Member
Level: 37

Posts: 62/267
EXP: 320001
For next: 18252

Since: 08-11-07

Since last post: 12.9 years
Last activity: 12.7 years

Posted on 04-02-09 09:31:05 PM

Link | Quote

This article uses the statement "a 10% increase in price causes an 8% decline in unit sales", to support its argument against this tax. However, if that statement is true than I would support this tax. If in fact this tax did lead to a 10% decrease in cigarette usage, the overall benefits would overshadow the negatives stated in this article.

I just don't buy it though. Yeah, they found an economist that backs up that claim, but I'm sure there's 15 more that each give completely different numbers for price elasticity. Either way the idea that a 10% decrease in cigarette sales is seen as a bad thing is a bit ridiculous. And raising taxes on cigarettes without any expectation of a decrease in smoking, raises some ethical concerns, as in the only motive is to make more money of an addictive and deadly product.

Increasing the price isn't going to get the vast majority of smokers to stop. Look at how expensive cocaine is. Believe it or not, nicotine is every bit as addictive as cocaine. If cigarettes go up $20 a pack most people will just pay $20 a pack. Increasing the price of cigarettes will do very little reduce the health cost of cigarette addiction, while increasing the financial costs.

As for Obama breaking campaign promises. Yeah, politicians do that.

Tina
Beep boop
Level: 79

Posts: 1155/1549
EXP: 4472102
For next: 107365

Since: 08-10-07

Since last post: 3.4 years
Last activity: 3.4 years

Posted on 04-03-09 03:41:57 AM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by emcee
Increasing the price isn't going to get the vast majority of smokers to stop. Look at how expensive cocaine is. Believe it or not, nicotine is every bit as addictive as cocaine. If cigarettes go up $20 a pack most people will just pay $20 a pack. Increasing the price of cigarettes will do very little reduce the health cost of cigarette addiction, while increasing the financial costs.

Of course they will. Welcome to being addicted.

Personally, as someone who had to live with a fairly heavy smoker, I've gotten extremely sick of leaving to go somewhere and being told the I smell like cigarettes, or being forced to breate that shit in, and so much else -- so if they managed to cut back on it, I have no problems whatsoever.

By the way, I'm fairly sure the "no taxes under $250K" was for income taxes, not frivolous spending.

____________________

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 7916/14435
EXP: 127636127
For next: 2148027

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 04-03-09 10:31:13 AM

Link | Quote

Crime rate will shoot...anyone think about that?

I think Denis Leary said it best when he mentioned 'Go ahead and raise taxes, we'll still break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes.' and goes around the lines 'What? Do you think we don't know smoking's bad for us? You could have a box with a skull and crossbones on the front that says tumors and people who be waiting in line to light into those things!'

The fact is, it's freedom of choice. It's their right to do what they want...though it becomes a less reachable one if the government puts their foot down about it.

Oh and I'm sure I understand that perspective X. I know a 'reasonable request' is getting someone the CORRECT box of cigarettes. If they ask for Marbolo 100s in a box, you BETTER not get them Camel Light Menthols in a soft pack. Pushing a pack of cigs up 60 cents is ASKING for a large amount of grief.

____________________

Tina
Beep boop
Level: 79

Posts: 1167/1549
EXP: 4472102
For next: 107365

Since: 08-10-07

Since last post: 3.4 years
Last activity: 3.4 years

Posted on 04-03-09 10:37:54 AM

Link | Quote

I dunno about that... gas was up to $4, and aside from outrage, nothing really happened.

I'm ... really skeptical that a 10% increase in price is going to cause people to break into houses.

____________________

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 7919/14435
EXP: 127636127
For next: 2148027

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 04-03-09 10:40:56 AM (last edited by Sakura at 04-03-09 07:42 AM)

Link | Quote

Well, like I said in the other thread, there probably won't be riots because...just like everything else...people will take it up the ass and then everything will be just fine as if nothing happened.

Gas could go up to 10 a gallon, cigarettes 15 a pack, detergent 40 bucks a pop...they'd get by.

People don't WANT to take the time to lash out at the government for something they think is wrong in the majority...but they will do a lot of complaining about it. But the government doesn't have to yield to just 'complaints'.

____________________

Tina
Beep boop
Level: 79

Posts: 1168/1549
EXP: 4472102
For next: 107365

Since: 08-10-07

Since last post: 3.4 years
Last activity: 3.4 years

Posted on 04-03-09 10:44:55 AM

Link | Quote

Might want to stick with more realistic values, champ. Really. It makes the rest of your post silly.

____________________

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 7926/14435
EXP: 127636127
For next: 2148027

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 04-03-09 12:04:28 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Tina
Might want to stick with more realistic values, champ...

Was 4 to 5 bucks a gallon for gas realistic not too long ago?

It'll happen if allowed.

____________________

emcee
Member
Level: 37

Posts: 80/267
EXP: 320001
For next: 18252

Since: 08-11-07

Since last post: 12.9 years
Last activity: 12.7 years

Posted on 04-03-09 12:27:24 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Tina
Of course they will. Welcome to being addicted.

Personally, as someone who had to live with a fairly heavy smoker, I've gotten extremely sick of leaving to go somewhere and being told the I smell like cigarettes, or being forced to breate that shit in, and so much else -- so if they managed to cut back on it, I have no problems whatsoever.

By the way, I'm fairly sure the "no taxes under $250K" was for income taxes, not frivolous spending.

If increasing the sale tax on cigarettes isn't actually going to get a significant amount of people to actually quit, then what exactly is the point? Is it just to bring in more federal revenue? If that's the case it goes back to the ethical issues, and also leads to the question, "why specifically cigarettes?". Or is it to somehow 'punish' people for getting addicted in the first place (as if their body isn't already doing that)?

Skreeny
Member
I have a custom title.
Level: 54

Posts: 395/636
EXP: 1172671
For next: 61199

Since: 09-15-07

Since last post: 9.3 years
Last activity: 1.2 years

Posted on 04-03-09 06:59:00 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by emcee
If increasing the sale tax on cigarettes isn't actually going to get a significant amount of people to actually quit, then what exactly is the point? Is it just to bring in more federal revenue? If that's the case it goes back to the ethical issues, and also leads to the question, "why specifically cigarettes?".

Looking at most of the things in this thread (ignoring the whole "taxing cigarettes more will lead to an increase in crime" thing), at worst, they'll get a significant amount of money that they otherwise would not. At best, they'll make smoking significantly less appealing--while the addicts may still be, well, addicts, this could easily make it more difficult for people to pick up the habit.

I mean, really. Would you start smoking if it cost $15 a pack?

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 7980/14435
EXP: 127636127
For next: 2148027

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 04-03-09 07:09:06 PM

Link | Quote

I guess if you were rich enough to afford it.

Course that'd be yet another reason to ostracize that class over class envy...

____________________

emcee
Member
Level: 37

Posts: 86/267
EXP: 320001
For next: 18252

Since: 08-11-07

Since last post: 12.9 years
Last activity: 12.7 years

Posted on 04-04-09 01:39:50 AM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Skreeny
Looking at most of the things in this thread (ignoring the whole "taxing cigarettes more will lead to an increase in crime" thing), at worst, they'll get a significant amount of money that they otherwise would not. At best, they'll make smoking significantly less appealing--while the addicts may still be, well, addicts, this could easily make it more difficult for people to pick up the habit.

I mean, really. Would you start smoking if it cost $15 a pack?

I wouldn't start smoking because it's addictive, causes lung cancer, heart disease, chronic respiratory problems, and stains teeth. But maybe that's just me.

The vast majority of smokers start as minors (I know that's true, and if pressed, I'll take the 30 seconds or so to actually look a supporting statistic, otherwise you'll just have to take my word for it). Minors of course can't buy cigarettes regardless of the price.

I'm not saying increasing the cigarette tax won't lead to a small amount of people kicking the habit, or few less people picking it up. I saying that small benefit isn't worth the significant burden added to those who are to addicted to quit.

Register - Login
Views: 99855307	Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users Ranks - Rules/FAQ - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies	05-04-22 11:44:16 AM

Query execution time:	0.111660 seconds
Script execution time:	0.027458 seconds
Total render time:	0.139118 seconds