Obama proposes 94-cent tax hike on cigarettes
Source: AP
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s budget plan would increase taxes by $580 billion over the next decade, but it relies on many proposals that have been repeatedly rejected by Congress.
Some were rejected as recently as January, when Congress voted to make permanent a series of tax cuts first enacted under President George W. Bush. Among them, a proposal to limit itemized deductions for high-income families.
One new proposal is a 94 cents-a-pack increase in the cigarette tax. The tax would raise an estimated $78 billion over the next decade to pay for early childhood education.
Obama says his tax plan is part of a balanced approach to deficit reduction that includes painful cuts to benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare. Most GOP lawmakers, however, adamantly oppose new taxes.
###
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/obama_proposes_94_cent_tax_hike_on_cigarettes/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hamerfan
(1,404 posts)Smokers are paying way more than their share of taxes as it is.
mac56
(17,566 posts)I'll bet you can guess what it is.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Why can't he go after the booze hounds or on fast food- I'm already paying more than my fair share.
Throd
(7,208 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)as much as they do tobacco, they could pay for universal health care. Needless to say, I do not drink alcohol.
CTyankee
(63,909 posts)category as cigarettes. Wine in moderation is beneficial to health while cigarettes are not.
However, it is an option for me, not a necessity (some southern europeans would disagree). So I will gladly pay my tax on wine. It certainly isn't oppressive...
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Believe it not, the alcoholic beverages lobby is stronger than the tobacco lobby.
Sam
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I do like it. I'm a smoker. A pack a day since the summer of 1984. Works out to approximately $28,000 I've spend for absolutely no good reason.
It may be the catalyst I need to finally quit. If not, hopefully the increased tax cost will offset the health cost I may eventually burden society with.
CTyankee
(63,909 posts)I really didn't WANT to be a smoker any more. I hated the way my skin and my hair smelled. Even my clothes, ugh. That finally did it for me.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)He quit smoking when he realized how much it was costing him to do so.
and i'm so glad he quit! it's been about 4 years now. congrats to your son for quitting!
octothorpe
(962 posts)
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)Maybe it will help me to stop smoking if the price goes up. I am on SS and would have a lot more money if I could kick this nasty habit.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but was under the impression that that's what we are already doing.
doc03
(35,328 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)cause more smokers to Quit and therefore reduce the funds for early childhood education?
I think cigs in many states are now $8. a pack or something like that. Who could afford $9 or more? So good for folks health but declining revenue for this program.
Doesn't make sense....
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Enough is enough and no other sin is taxed nearly as high as tobacco.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)to support that kind of cost.
I wouldn't want to be around those folks when the Tax Increase goes into effect and Bloomberg adds his OWN NYC Tax hike on top.
Gonna be a lot of Angry Traders and Richies ....but, then if some of their Smoking money goes to Taxes...I guess that's a good thing...or they quit.
Not sure how this will go over in the rest of the USA though.
It will be interesting to see if Obama gets some push back on this.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)...is another person's business opportunity.
http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/23-arrested-cigarette-bootlegging-probe
BROOKLYN — Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes Wednesday announced the arrest of 23 people as the result of “Operation Buttlegger,” an eight-month, multi-state investigation targeting distributors of untaxed cigarettes.
In the probe, detectives from the District Attorney’s Office posed as sellers of black-market cigarettes. Based on information from confidential informants, they sold more than 550 cases of untaxed cigarettes, with a retail value of $4,290,000.
~ snip ~
Cigarettes sold in New York City must bear a joint New York City/New York State tax stamp. The average price of a carton of cigarettes purchased legally in New York City is $120 to $150. Untaxed cigarettes can be sold on the black market for $30 to $50 per carton. According to the city Department of Finance, half of all the cigarettes sold in the city are untaxed.
~ snip ~
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I am in favor of legalization of MJ.timistic. If the black market can provide any significant discount on a popular product, they WILL get a big chunk of business.
mac56
(17,566 posts)
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I'll take that either way.
primavera
(5,191 posts)Studies over the years have shown that smoking is more addictive than heroin. Administered intravenously in equal quantities (which, of course, no one would ever do, but to get a sense for the comparative qualities), nicotine produces 10-15 times the euphoric effects of cocaine. And that's just the physiological effect. For many smokers, the hardest part of quitting is the ritual aspects of smoking: the relaxing after-dinner cigarette, the calming respite from the stresses of the work day by getting away for a smoke break, the social pleasure of getting together with friends at a bar to share beers and smoke. Why do you think so many people have tried unsuccessfully to quit? Most smokers don't smoke because they want to (or, at least, not anymore), but because they can't stop. Raising the prices thus only carries you so far. It may discourage casual smokers from smoking regularly enough to become well and truly addicted, but it won't help those who are addicted.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)would`t that be diminishing returns?
it really does`t matter...we ain`t going to solve any of these problems because neither side has the guts to do what is right by the american people.
if they do`t please their corporate masters they won`t get elected
William769
(55,145 posts)Would probably double the 78 billion figure.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)PORTLAND – A woman in Washington sells them out of the trunk of her car, and a man in Virginia admittedly hired a hitman over a disagreement related to the smuggled substance. Friends have friends send them across state lines, and a growing number of illegal shipments from Asia are making their way to the United States.
Narcotics? Military weapons? Nope.
~ snip ~
High cigarette taxes, intended to discourage the unhealthy habit and raise state revenue, have created a black market for cigarette sales across the country — from people sneaking cartons from states with lower taxes to a crime-plagued industry fueled by an influx of international cigarettes costing as little as 20 cents per pack.
In Washington, 35 percent of the cigarettes in the state are contraband, meaning they either came from cheaper tax states such as Oregon or Idaho or from the international market, according to data from the Washington state Department of Revenue. Washington’s state tax on cigarettes is $3.02, Oregon’s is $1.18 and Idaho is 57 cents, according to data on tax rates from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.
~ snip ~
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)America plain and simple does not work any more.
Auggie
(31,167 posts)Screw sin taxes ... they're chump change
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Do you people ever actually pay attention to current events, or do you just see the name Obama and go all "weee I can haz typing!" and shit.
Auggie
(31,167 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)And no, with me and my wife together, we are barely in the 50%ish.
If I was in the top 1%, I wouldn't be wasting my time on internet discussion boards, I'd be out spending my damn money.
Now that we have that settled, refute what I said or admit that you can't. Your choice.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Tax the corporations! Wasn't that what he campaigned on? I do recall some populism in his words last fall.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Oh yea, and we totally didn't get rid of the Bush tax cuts for incomes above 450k just a few months back did we?
frylock
(34,825 posts)that tax increase? :jackoff:
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...for whatever strange reason that doesn't lend itself to any kind of valid argument on your part.
The point is, that definitely applied to the wealthiest Americans. That's just math. And theres nothing you can do to change that fact, no matter how much you'd probably like to.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I care about income 250k AND above, like he FUCKING promised.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Its fucking amazing the Republicans even agreed to do what they did and most of them in the house still voted against it. Welcome to the real fucking world buddy.
frylock
(34,825 posts)and they would have expired. he couldn't even do that. we didn't need the republicans to agree on jack shit.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)That would've led to a massive middle class tax increase, not to mention a 50% tax increase on the working poor. I'm glad Obama is running things and not you. You would fuck all of us with your nut sitting. I'm fairly convinced that for people like you, its about sticking it to the rich a lot more than it is about helping the poor and middle class. You don't have a cause, you just have a vendetta.
frylock
(34,825 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)....in their taxes, one that would've been more crippling than anything "liberals" such as yourself seem to be bitching about these days in terms of chained CPI or the lack of more taxes on the wealthy. So much for your "principles"...
Meanwhile, progressives such as myself will continue to actually look at the math, look at whats at stake and be content with compromises such as the one the President made on the Bush tax cuts and realize that it was the right thing to do under the circumstances that reality was dictating.
frylock
(34,825 posts)then watch the republicans eat themselves. but that would've required some intestinal fortitude. the guy CAMPAIGNED on it. if it wasn't REALITY, then he should've shut up about it.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)What a brave little fucking keyboard warrior you are. You aren't fit to hold Obama's fucking jock.
frylock
(34,825 posts)are those the kind of fucking games we're talking about here, or is that different? keep sniffing that jock.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)But I'd consider a 50% tax increase on the working poor far worse. But maybe that's because I spent time thinking about the math.
As for the sniffing comment, you aren't fit to do that either. You have no principles. Just a vendetta.
frylock
(34,825 posts)they don't give two shits about the working poor.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)You lost any credibility once you revealed that much.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I didn't want Obama to pressure congress into passing tax cuts for the poor and middle class like I posted upthread. nope. I just want to fuck over the working poor.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)And knowing how this teabagger congress operates, you are well aware that he isn't getting shit out of them without some sort of leverage. You are well aware that those tax rates would've held... all so you could touch yourself while thinking about how you personally stuck it to the rich.
frylock
(34,825 posts)edited to say fuck this. fuck seniors. fuck the social safety net. i'm done.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)If you did, then you wouldn't have been so willing to gamble their tax breaks on the off chance of being able to stick it to the 250k-450k crowd, because just taxing the vast majority of the top 1% more wasn't good enough for you.
Heres an IRREFUTABLE fact for you though. Combined with the added Medicare taxes contained in the ACA and the tax increases from the fiscal cliff showdown, Obama is taxing rich folks more than anyone has since Reagan killed the top rates back in the 1980s. This is a fact that's inconvenient for the bullshit you are trying to sell, but yet one you have no choice but to live with.
Owl
(3,641 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)So dont tell me how Obama got rid of Bush tax cuts. They should have all expired. period. We would not be in this economic mess.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)primavera
(5,191 posts)... when you can get smokers to do it for you?
I'm all in favor of smokers being taxed to cover whatever additional costs to public health that their hazardous choice incurs, but this tendency to try to fund public projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with smokers through taxes on cigarettes, just because smoking is unpopular, so that the rest of the country can get a free ride and not have to pony up and contribute responsibly to the programs that benefit them... no, that's not right. You don't get to demand better public services, just so long as somebody else pays for it and it doesn't cost you personally anything.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Whatever reduces the smoking rate is fine by me.
20 years ago, you couldn't go anywhere in New York City without getting smoke blown on you.
I've been there several times in the last few months and I rarely saw anyone smoking on the street.
Tax it and ban it from public consumption to protect the 99%... I mean the 81%.
primavera
(5,191 posts)That would undoubtedly reduce the smoking rate and, if you're fine with anything that reduces the smoking rate, what's the problem?
Again, if you want to tax smokers for any harms to public health that they may cause, that's valid. If you want to run public education programs that inform people about the hazards of smoking, that's wonderful, and, as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to pay for those with taxes levied on cigarettes. Better still, if you want to fund smoking cessation and nicotine addiction relief programs, that's great, use all of the cigarette taxes you like. If you want to ban cigarettes altogether, I don't think it would work much better than Prohibition or banning weed worked, but I'd respect that here was a logical basis for doing so. Where I part ways with you is that I do not approve of using tobacco addiction as a cash cow to let you off the hook for having to pay for programs that benefit you but you don't want to have to pay for yourself, so you bully somebody else into paying for them for you. You speak of lowering the smoking rate, which we agree is a commendable goal, to which end you're prepared to do anything. Yet most of the tax revenues from cigarettes do not go to reducing the smoking rate or alleviating the public health problems associated with smoking. Rather, they simply go to fund whatever pet project some politician wants to run but doesn't want to have to ask voters for the monies to do it, so they just go back to the smoker piggy bank and make them pay for it. No, I'm sorry, but that's simple exploitation of a vulnerable segment of society and that is most definitely not a commendable thing.
magic59
(429 posts)Gee, what will be next Chained CPI? 5 yrs in office and that is the best he can do?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Won't even bother explaining the absurdly obvious fact that discouraging smoking among the poor is a *positive* for both health and financial reasons...
JVS
(61,935 posts)At some point it is worthwhile to ask if the benefit of that tax revenue is worth the social cost of households having such fucked up budgets.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)In fact, the numbers show that it is such a strong addiction that these households allocate 25% of their income to cigarettes. I find it quite cynical to advocate levying a high tax on something knowing that its addictive nature will help draw revenue, and then dismissing the socially deleterious effects of the policy with the claim that they can just quit.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)But there's nothing stopping them from doing it but themselves. They put in the effort, they quit. Period. The end. This isn't a matter of lack of social opportunities or the national economy being rigged against them or anything else that has to do with freaking "bootstraps" so spare me.
And it is UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED that they should put that effort in. So no I'm not going to cry a river over anyone who doesn't and then complains about having to pay higher taxes on their cigarettes because of it. That is on them.
JVS
(61,935 posts)That's why it's ok to exploit their addiction?
What do you think of the 18th Century British policy of paying for tea with opium?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And if you're saying they lack the capability to quit YOU are the one saying they're weak.
*I* am saying they choose not to and if they CHOOSE not to That. Is. On. Them. Their call, they get to deal with the consequences. I don't need to hear anyone whinging and crying about something they decided for themselves.
Nobody is exploiting anyone's addiction. Increasing the tax on it is an incentive to get them to break it.
primavera
(5,191 posts)It's always somebody else's problem. It's a free country, ergo people are choosing to be poor, why should I lift a finger to help them?
Smoking is an addiction that is incredibly hard to break. Most people who have successfully quit describe it as the hardest thing they've ever done and most who do manage it only do so it with substantial help in the form of therapy, group support, and/or pharmacological assistance. Increasing taxes on cigarettes has not been shown to be an adequate incentive to quit. If it were, there would be no smokers left, as we already tax cigarettes higher than any other commodity in the world.
And, as long as you are using the monies collected from cigarette taxes not to reduce smoking rates or to alleviate the health consequences of smoking, but instead are using those funds to pay for public programs that benefit you but you don't want to have to spend your own money on, then you most certainly are exploiting smokers. If your goal were as altruistic as you would have us believe, you would advocate for using cigarette taxes to develop programs that help smokers quit. If you want smokers to foot the bill for completely unrelated programs so that you don't have to, you no longer get to claim some moral high ground about how you're really just thinking about the best interests of public health. In that case, you're just opportunistically picking on a vulnerable population to enrich yourself at their expense.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It's always somebody else's problem. It's a free country, ergo people are choosing to be poor, why should I lift a finger to help them?
So you're just going to ignoring what I write then? Is that it? I specifically addressed this in my last response and I'm saying nothing of the kind. Play with your strawmen somewhere else.
"Smoking is an addiction that is incredibly hard to break."
What part of "didn't say it was easy" are you having problems comprehending exactly?
But there is a profound, massive difference between something that is personally difficult but is constrained ONLY by a person's own damn personal willpower like quitting smoking or losing weight and something that is constrained by external factors like whether there exists sufficient employment to give all the poor a decent standard of living.
In the former case if a person "can't quit" it's because they didn't try hard enough. The end. Period. Done. Don't particularly care why that person didn't try hard enough... whether it was due to insufficient motivation or they just didn't really care about quitting or laziness or whatever.
Do. Not. Care.
Irrelevant.
THEY made the call to stop short. THEY made the call to walk into a store and buy another pack. THEY made the call to light up the cigarettes and put them in their mouth. THEY decided "oh I don't want to feel these cravings anymore so I'm GIVING THE HELL UP". And THEY made the call to start in the first place when everyone on the damn planet knows smoking is addictive and they weren't addicted when they started so you can't blame addiction for that call that got them in this situation in the first place now can you?
THEM.
NOBODY else is doing that for them. That is in no way whatsoever analogous to blaming poor people for being poor.
primavera
(5,191 posts)... that you need feel no compassion for the hardships faced by others. In the absolutist sense that you frame it, virtually everything is a personal choice. Hey, you didn't have to marry that guy in the first place, so it's really your own fault for being a battered spouse. Hell, everyone knows you aren't supposed to walk along a public street at night, so you deserve to get mugged. Waah, waah, so you're poor, if you only tried harder, you could go out and knock over liquor stores to pay for college tuition and then you wouldn't be poor - obviously it's 100% your choice. You bought a house or invested your retirement funds in stocks like all of the financial analysts told you and now the bubble's burst and you're wiped out, well boo, hoo - nobody forced you to make that choice, you could have just kept your money in your mattress and now you wouldn't be having this problem, now would you?
Yes, some dumb kid who foolishly believes himself to be immortal and wants to be James Dean makes the choice to go into a store and buy a pack of cigarettes. And, according to you, whatever befalls him afterward is deserving of no sympathy whatsoever. You're all heart. I take it YOU never did anything stupid before in your life, right? Must be nice.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)In the absolutist sense that you frame it, virtually everything is a personal choice. Hey, you didn't have to marry that guy in the first place, so it's really your own fault for being a battered spouse.
To quote what I just said in my last post, since you apparently neglected to bother reading it...
"But there is a profound, massive difference between something that is personally difficult but is constrained ONLY by a person's own damn personal willpower like quitting smoking or losing weight and something that is constrained by external factors "
Now I'm going to give you some little hints to help you along since you seem to be having so many difficulties with this. Someone else forcibly beating on you? That's an EXTERNAL FACTOR. There being insufficient job opportunities and a massively unequal distribution of wealth in society? That's an EXTERNAL FACTOR.
You deciding to walk into a store and buy smokes?
That's. All. You.
Now I'm done talking to you since you can't be bothered to pay attention to anything I say anyway, as it apparently gets in the way of your victim narrative.
primavera
(5,191 posts)I don't share your starting assumption that "there is a profound, massive difference between something that is personally difficult but is constrained ONLY by a person's own damn personal willpower like quitting smoking or losing weight and something that is constrained by external factors." I tend to see that as more of a continuum including many shades of grey as opposed to a pure black and white contrast. Think about someone suffering from depression (as many smokers are). Yeah, they make their own choices, but their choices are in varying degrees influenced by their mental condition. How did they come to be depressed? Were they just born that way, or did external factors play some role? Consider a woman who grows up in a misogynistic religious environment being punished for her "dirty pillows" and she winds up in an abusive relationship. Sure, she made the choice, but, because of external factors, she doesn't know that she should be able to expect anything better. In my opinion, most choices fall into the shades of grey category; we don't grow up in a vacuum - countless external factors influence all of our decisions one way or the other. External factors make us strong willed or weak willed. External factors govern the quality of information at our disposal with which to make our choices. I don't really believe that there is such a thing as a 100% "internal" choice or a 100% "external" choice - all choices reflect some combination of the two. So who am I to judge whether someone "chooses" to start smoking because s/he made the considered, mature, informed decision to run the risk, or perhaps they started because they felt peer pressure to smoke, or because they made an error in judgment as to precisely how dangerously addictive smoking can be, or they took up smoking or drinking or whatever because they were depressed and beyond caring at that point in their lives. Ultimately, though, why does it matter? Every person on the planet occasionally does stupid things and makes bad decisions. Yet, because they made a bad decision once, you seem to be arguing that they not only deserve no sympathy for the negative consequences of that bad decision and are undeserving of any assistance in overcoming their problem, but they deserve to be punished by being required to foot the bill for any and all pork projects that you want but don't want to pay for yourself.
As you say, though, this discussion doesn't seem to be making much headway as you're unreceptive to anything that interferes with your persecution narrative. Like I said at the start, typical libertarianism.
frylock
(34,825 posts)raise taxes on the 1% for fucks sake. fucking tired of his cowardice.
Bryn
(3,621 posts)Tax the Rich already!! I am sick and tired of them hurting the poor, seniors, etc. I don't care about smoking, but this is an attack on regular people. Tax the rich first!
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Well, you know the old adage: "If I can quit..."
Join me!
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Post removed
obama2terms
(563 posts)Can get a good education, I'll pay extra for my smokes
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)And have a HUGE market.
Not to mention a lot of ammunition to deal with the competition.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)now can we haz something that helps stop, say, the predatory practices of private insurance companies or Wall Street folk???
primavera
(5,191 posts)... does your support for helping people quit smoking extend so far as to dig deep into you pockets and pay additional taxes yourself to fund research and programs for smoking cessation? Alternatively, would you dig deep into your pockets to pay additional taxes to support the various general public programs that you presently enjoy but do not have to pay for yourself because they are already being paid for by cigarette taxes and thus free up monies collected from cigarette taxes to be used for research and programs devoted to smoking cessation?
As I write, I'm thinking of the case study of Japan, or, at least, how Japan used to handle cigarettes (my information on this is admittedly many years old and it may have changed by now, I don't know). But many years ago, at least, the Japanese government was the exclusive purveyor of cigarettes in Japan and they taxed the hell out of them. But, far from using those monies to reduce the smoking rate, they actually encouraged smoking, because it was an incredibly lucrative business for them. Drug dealing is always very profitable, so they made a fortune selling cigarettes to the public and were consequently loath to get rid of what had become a major source of revenue for them. Would you describe such a practice as responsible governance? Morally laudable?
I'm also thinking about the experience of Scotland, which, several yeas ago, had a serious problem with heroin addiction and the concomitant crime associated with the illegal drug trade and HIV transmission from dirty needles. Their response was to set up a bunch of clinics where heroin users could legally obtain free heroin, 100% pure pharmaceutical grade, and free sterile needles. They couldn't get more than a day's dose at a time, so addicts had to keep coming back every day for their fix, but it was vastly safer to get pure stuff for free from a state source than to get street drugs, mixed with god only knows what, from criminal suppliers who might kill you. Every time they went in to a clinic, they were offered the option - which they were free to decline - of methadone treatment and other forms of substance abuse recovery assistance. Within a year, crime associated with the heroin trade had been almost completely eliminated, HIV transmission rates had plummeted to negligible levels, medical costs resulting from street users ODing or taking drugs cut/laced with something incredibly nasty had fallen dramatically, and large numbers of users had taken advantage of the substance abuse treatment options and gone clean, resulting in a substantial reduction in the overall number of heroin users, who were then able to resume normal lives, work, and contribute to the tax base again rather than being a constant drain on it. Not just a win-win scenario, but a win-win-win-win-win scenario that benefited everyone and made a huge positive impact upon a major public health problem. But, of course, it wasn't a profit making venture for the government that undertook it and, I would argue, that's a big part of the reason of why it worked.
Tying these threads together, my point is that it's easy to brand smokers as some untouchable outcast class, blame them for everything bad that happens in the world, saddle them with the burden of paying for everyone else's pet projects and still feel self-righteous about penalizing them for their disgusting habit by telling yourself that it's all for their own good because making their lives as unpleasant as possible will surely inspire them to stop. But does that really help address the problem?
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)I smoked for three decades - no need to lecture me
primavera
(5,191 posts)... saying that you're "for anything that helps people to quit smoking." Since you made the point in the context of an article about raising cigarette taxes, I perhaps mistakenly inferred that you meant to express support for increasing taxes on cigarette prices, a move which, I would argue, does not help people to quit smoking and is possibly even disingenuous. If I mistook your meaning, my apologies.
cbrer
(1,831 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Obama is handing the Republicans the 2014 election on a silver platter.
Alan M
(22 posts)I don’t smoke, but I don’t care for the tax. Demographically it is poor folks that smoke and Cigarettes are already priced so high that we have already discouraged everyone that would have stopped because of prices. I also agree just politically speaking it will likely enrage a lot of voters Democrats need.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Munificence
(493 posts)Don't we all die of something?
Not saying it's good to smoke, but if subject A and subject B both retire at 65 and subject A dies of cancer at 67 but subject B (non smoker) dies of cancer at age 80 isn't the cost more in medical for subject B?
I'm just posing a question, I hear the "the medical cost are astronomical" but I always look to my mother-in-law:
Never smoked a cig a day in her life, never really held a job and paid much in the form of taxes or social security. Went on disability (mental) around age 58. Got the tax payers to pay for her bariatrc surgery at age 60, put back on all the weight in less than 2 years) Has had 2 heat attacks (stints/catheters) since (she's 67 now) had cancer on 2 different occasions (one was an 11 lb tumor removed from her stomach), goes to the doctor/for testing at least 6-8 times a month, goes to rehab services for her heart attacks. Is obviously gonna die a horrible death within the next 3-5 years from something.....now will she as the non-smoker cost less in medical bills vs. the smoker? I know she has already cost more in medical bills and procedures than any smoker of the same age that I personally know... and she's only just begun.
Just using her as an example that non-smokers cost the system a hell of a lot also! We'll indeed die of something, smokers just off themselves a little bit earlier.
JVS
(61,935 posts)primavera
(5,191 posts)You'll have no shortage of takers and will save all of those hundreds of thousands per smoker that would otherwise have been lost to you.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)want a "smoke" of anything now and then be taxed like this?
Wait until Marijuana is legalized. Imagine the tax money they can bring in over that legalization. Cigarettes are still LEGAL...but, they want to tax it to death to save lives....yet I'm not so much in favor of legalizing Marijuana but, I don't think that people should be imprisoned for being caught with a bag of it. I'd target the Legal System since Nancy Reagan that goes after Marijuana users...to incarcerate them for minor offenses...while Wall Street Crooks and Bankers go free as long as they can "Pay Off" the fines the prosecutors set.
Something is very wrong with our system of government....
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Bob Marley smoked pot all the time and because of it, developed cancer and died.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)Deficit reduction is the WORST thing he could do to an economy in this condition.
Obama's lack of leadership on restoring jobs is amazing.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)Other than his speeches this term for gun control, I really can't get behind the President on much. He seems to be flailing. But I can't get behind the social security cuts for the elderly. That's just wrong.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)It was that same shit last time they raised the federal cigarette tax. Health care for poor kids. Nobody but smokers should be paying for that? WTF?
Do your part for childhood health and education, non-smokers! Buy a pack of smokes (and give 'em to a smoker).
JVS
(61,935 posts)to precipitate a budgetary shortfall.
brewens
(13,582 posts)If something worthwhile should be supported with taxes, everyone should pony up.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Imo, any further taxes on tobacco, and some of the current taxes, should go to educating smokers to their options.
A bit off topic: I can recommend The Allen Carr system. It worked for me and it worked for people I know. It's like getting escorted to a better world. (I have no stake in them) Tax dollars should go to coupons for programs like that. Or just buy rights to the book and get it to smokers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Carr
http://www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com/
I also found a free series of smoking cessation videos that I think highly of. They exist well alongside the Allan Carr system imo. I repeat, they are free. Free e-books, as well.
http://www.whyquit.com/joel/
http://whyquit.com/whyquit/LinksAAddiction.html
Joel's Library is home to:
Joel's Reinforcement Articles - More than 100 short quit smoking articles in HTML format
"Never Take Another Puff" - Joel's above collection of reinforcement articles are available as a free PDF ebook or in Kindle / MobiPocket reader format.
Joel's Daily Quitting Lesson Guide - This guide suggests daily video and reading lessons for specific days during the first two weeks of quitting smoking.
YouTube Featured Video Playlists - Doorway to all Joel Spitzer YouTube stop smoking videos.
Joel's Video Quit Smoking Lessons - 160+ short stop smoking movie clips in which Joel shares important nicotine dependency recovery insights.
Joel's MP3 Audio Counseling Download - An extremely large zipped file (264MB) containing Joel's original 64 audio lessons, that can be loaded into an MP3 player and listened to anywhere.
Joel's Jukebox - A fast and easy to use MP3 audio player for listening to Joel's original 64 stop smoking lessons.
Ask Joel - If not already asked and answered, submit your quit smoking question to Joel.
Index to Joel's Freedom Articles - Since January 2000, Joel has remained active in educating and supporting new quitters at Freedom, WhyQuit's support group. This index provides links to Joel's primary message board threads and posts.
olddots
(10,237 posts)how do you think the fast food chains became so big ? Call me paranoid or call me Tuesday ---we are outgunned and outspent if we want justice we better stop the pissing contest with each other and do what ever we can from a fate none of us can imagine and its not a bad sci fi movie .
we are the least taxed nation in the so called free world . Its unbelievable how we made into the 21st. century .Who is to blame ,the retched smoker who makes your lovely clothes smell bad ? the obese person who drinks big gulps ? the Hollywood has been that is in her 12th rehab ? the dumb tea bagger or racist whatever ?
we have a choice taxes or the anarchy the 1% percent want .yeah anarchy has a new look and its designer chic.
why do most GOP lawmakers (lawbreakers ) disapprove of taxes ???? they are the new anarchists not the anarchists of the 19th century.
Paul E Ester
(952 posts)Socal31
(2,484 posts)nt
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)Will feel like a punching bag
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts) FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)It's about nudging people to act responsibly.
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)The only drawback is that they die early, so we lose lots of revenue.
burrowowl
(17,639 posts)and going after the BIG BANKS?
NADA!
