Obama's Socialism taking effect, Redistrabution of the wealth

[Freiwillige]

On February 4th President Obama signed legislation designed to provide health insurance to uninsured children in low-income families, which will be funded by a 62 cent increase in the federal cigarette tax per pack . This will increase the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to just over a dollar per pack. The federal tax per packet of “little cigars” is also increasing to the same level ($1.01 per pack).This is the first time there has been a national increase in cigarette taxes for over a decade. Although the tobacco companies typically try to reduce the initial impact of such increases by offering temporary discounts, it will inevitably lead to an overall increase in the cost to the smoker per pack of cigarettes. This increase in federal cigarette taxes is in addition to increases in state and city cigarette taxes that are also sweeping the country. Although the cost per pack across the country will be around $5, in places such as New York City a packet of cigarettes will soon be well over $7. If you needed another reason to quit smoking, having to spend over $2000 a year on cigarettes, in tough financial times, might be the one.

From-http://www.healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/2009/02/cigarette-taxes-to-increase-across-usa.html

Im sure that there will be those of you saying just quit smoking. That is not the point of this. The point is that a small minority is paying for an ever growing majority of low income family's. General sales taxes arent being touched nor are liquer taxes.

[nikimcbee]

It was funny at work to listen to our work group bitch about obama's spending, as they are all hard-core democrats.

Of course, it was all W's fault.

You get what you vote for.:dead:

[A Very Super Market]

I see this as a beneficial incentive to quit smoking, with a side-effect of paying for low-incomers.

[GoldenRivet]

The point is that a small minority is paying for an ever growing majority of low income family's.

get used to that under this administration and the many administrations to come.

the class division is ever widening... thats a dangerous thing.

and when your government continuse to allow the outsourcing of more and more American jobs... it gets to the point that there is nothing that can be done any longer.

:nope:

keep taking it america, the beatings will continue until morale improves :yeah:

[Aramike]

On February 4th President Obama signed legislation designed to provide health insurance to uninsured children in low-income families, which will be funded by a 62 cent increase in the federal cigarette tax per pack . This will increase the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to just over a dollar per pack. The federal tax per packet of “little cigars” is also increasing to the same level ($1.01 per pack).This is the first time there has been a national increase in cigarette taxes for over a decade. Although the tobacco companies typically try to reduce the initial impact of such increases by offering temporary discounts, it will inevitably lead to an overall increase in the cost to the smoker per pack of cigarettes. This increase in federal cigarette taxes is in addition to increases in state and city cigarette taxes that are also sweeping the country. Although the cost per pack across the country will be around $5, in places such as New York City a packet of cigarettes will soon be well over $7. If you needed another reason to quit smoking, having to spend over $2000 a year on cigarettes, in tough financial times, might be the one.

From-http://www.healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/2009/02/cigarette-taxes-to-increase-across-usa.html

Im sure that there will be those of you saying just quit smoking. That is not the point of this. The point is that a small minority is paying for an ever growing majority of low income family's. General sales taxes arent being touched nor are liquer taxes.Believe it or not, this is something I agree with Obama on - in a sense, at least. As it is, there is an extraordinary cost levied on the average taxpayer with regards to smoking-related health care. Higher taxes on cigarettes will help offset that cost and allow money to be freed up for other things.

Personally, I'd prefer that the strategy would be very limited taxation on smokers while the government not paying a single dime for smoking-related illness, but that just won't happen.

This is something that I regularly disagree with conservatives on. Nicotene addiction has been a program for redistributing wealth for years, but certain political elements don't quite understand that.

[Freiwillige]

"Believe it or not, this is something I agree with Obama on - in a sense, at least. As it is, there is an extraordinary cost levied on the average taxpayer with regards to smoking-related health care. Higher taxes on cigarettes will help offset that cost and allow money to be freed up for other things."

If the money was taxed for that and only that purpose I would be okay with it. The fact is that little of the money is going to offset the taxpayers burden for smoking related illness. Instead its going for Socialisms little pet projects.

[Enigma]

Socialism! Socialism! :yawn:

My god, Aramike and I see eye to eye.....:o:haha:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I see this as a beneficial incentive to quit smoking, with a side-effect of paying for low-incomers.

I strongly disagree with this and similar sentiments. Although the state has been "picking winners" in industry for years, it has not become more acceptable.

Firstly, policies of this type, whether they be taxes or subsidies, encourage harmful entanglement of state and private interests. People complain all the time about lobbyists getting this or that stupid thing pushed through Congress, and yet rarely stop to think why Congress has the power to do such things for them. In truth, they do not and were never intended to. The Constitution is very, very clear on the issues of uniform taxation and limitation of taxation in general in Article 1 Sections 8 and 9. It also enumerates the purposes for which said levees may be used, and promotion of the public health is not listed amongst them. Combined with the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states and to the people, all powers not declared to be the domain of the Congress, this legislation can only be viewed as violating the Constitution in spirit, and indeed, in letter as well.


As I said before, this is nothing new. The state often adjusts taxes or provides subsidies to encourage what they believe to be beneficial growth. These programs are not only unfair, they also fail to produce acceptable results.
To this day, every taxpayer continues to pay for failed subsidy initiatives of the past. Agricultural subsidies/incentives run into billions of dollars per year. They were designed to aid struggling individual farms, but despite these efforts corporate farms control the overwhelming majority of U.S. agricultural production, and they still get subsidized.
Another good example is the cornucopia of subsidies for establishing overseas franchises and capital interests. People bitch about outsourcing all the time, and yet their government helps to fund it. There are literally hundreds of tax penalties on industries and industrial processes that used to be prominent in the U.S.; Coal, steel, various types of raw materials refining, etc. etc. Which is to say nothing of the taxes more contemporary industries are beset by, some moreso than others.

This cigarrette tax will be no different. For one thing, the majority of smokers are lower-income citizens anyway. Call me crazy, but taking everyone's tax dollars, passing them through a huge and vastly inefficient state machine, and then giving some of that to lower-income citizens, thus helping them to afford the price hikes in cigarrettes, seems pretty stupid to me. Another interesting thought is what will happen to the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry and the employees thereof if middle-class consumption drops. My guess is that should the state pursue its' persecution of the tobacco industry, it will simply move elsewhere or find new markets, as so many have done before.


Finally, there is the question of whether or not anyone in this country has the right to use legal force to discourage an individual's right to use tobacco any other controlled substance. Users are informed of the potentially harmful effects of such habits and I do agree with the legislation that requires that. Anything beyond that is unacceptable. It is not the place of the state, or the citizenry, or anyone else to force their will upon others' decision-making freedom whether it is in their best interests or not.

If the power to choose for oneself wrongly is taken from the individual, the power to choose for oneself correctly is in extreme jepoardy, as so many states have demonstrated so frequently throughout history.

[Freiwillige]

Well spoken!:up:

[AVGWarhawk]

They always tax our vices...tobacco, alcohol, gasoline. Seems to be wide spread use of these three, no? :hmmm: I find none of this unusual that Obama would raise taxes on tobacco and fund a healthcare program. Looks like status quo to me.

[Digital_Trucker]

Purely pragmatic question, but when people finally can't afford a pack of cigarettes, where is the money for these programs going to come from?:hmmm: It will have to come from somewhere, since the programs will be in place and, lord knows, once the government puts a program in place, it can't be removed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for children, no matter their economic status, having health care, but is this the way to do it? Perhaps Obama could solve two problems at once (revenue and population growth) by proposing a world wide tax on sex:yeah:

[AVGWarhawk]

We can always go back to the window tax:88)

http://www.longparish.org.uk/history/windowtax.htm

[mookiemookie]

I smoke and I'm all for this. The income tax system itself is a "redistribution of wealth." This socialism meme is one of the dumbest things to come out of the right wing in quite a while.

[AVGWarhawk]

Like I said a few posts back. This is nothing new or unusual.

[Max2147]

Obama understands cigarette taxes from the consumer's point of view. He was a smoker until recently.

I see it as a win-win. If the increased price gets people to stop smoking, then we reduce a huge drain on our economy. If the tax has no effect on people's habits (more likely), then a badly-needed service will be funded. I don't see why children ought to pay for their parents' inability to pay for basic services.

[August]

Obama understands cigarette taxes from the consumer's point of view. He was a smoker until recently.

I see it as a win-win. If the increased price gets people to stop smoking, then we reduce a huge drain on our economy. If the tax has no effect on people's habits (more likely), then a badly-needed service will be funded. I don't see why children ought to pay for their parents' inability to pay for basic services.

Except if the tax does have it's (supposedly) intended effect and actually gets people to stop smoking then how will your new service get funded?

Also, at what point does increased taxes create a tobacco black market run by gangsters? Isn't this social engineering just creating the next Al Capone? Of course if (when) that happens we'll need to increase funding to law enforcement to fight (but never actually win) against this new scourge and who is going to pay for that?

[AVGWarhawk]

Nicotine is one of if not the most addictive substance out there that is readily and legally available. Raising the price does not make anyone quite.

[Zachstar]

At that point people would go to the pot dealers instead.

Its nearly universal that Cigs are bad for your health. The money spent on the results of this addiction by taxpayers is extreme. Elderly Health Issues, Newborns with issues, etc...

There will not be a black market for them. Because unlike Beer and Pot, They arent really desired, just craved. Sales of patches and gums and quitting programs are going to explode.

As for this dumbass notion that we have to stop the campaigns to end smoking because those are American jobs at stake. How much money is lost per year on those damned things that could have gone into better uses. Because of calculating the cost of smoking likely influenced the decision to buy a house or a car.

Cigs are bad for us and the economy. The faster they are taxed into obilivion the faster people will quit them.

[SteamWake]

I see this as a beneficial incentive to quit smoking, with a side-effect of paying for low-incomers.

How selfish of you. Dont you understand your country relies on that revinue?

[AVGWarhawk]

At that point people would go to the pot dealers instead.

Its nearly universal that Cigs are bad for your health. The money spent on the results of this addiction by taxpayers is extreme. Elderly Health Issues, Newborns with issues, etc...

There will not be a black market for them. Because unlike Beer and Pot, They arent really desired, just craved. Sales of patches and gums and quitting programs are going to explode.

As for this dumbass notion that we have to stop the campaigns to end smoking because those are American jobs at stake. How much money is lost per year on those damned things that could have gone into better uses. Because of calculating the cost of smoking likely influenced the decision to buy a house or a car.

Cigs are bad for us and the economy. The faster they are taxed into obilivion the faster people will quit them.


Apparently you did not read the part of my post that say nicotine is the most addictive and legal substance out there. Get with the program. Cigarettes get carried untaxed over state lines all the time. Cigarettes are desired. Sales of patches and gum will not explode. I tried the patch, gum and quitting programs. All BS. Only ones desire to really quit will it be done. What a laugh, Phillip Morris stock is up since the recession. Welcome to the world of vices. People will not quit because the price went up. What if they did? Tax the healthy who eat apples all day to pay for the health care of children. :06: Vices are taxed because the vices are addictive, legal and readily available. Can we say the same for alcohol?

[Deamon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v253ry2SiNc&feature=related

Good luck over there. Our doom here is seald anyway.

In his speeches, I see frightening parallels with Hitlers speeches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVnRzn4rjbY&feature=related

Just came across this clip here, coincidentally I started suspecting him just to be the same. Couldn't said it better myself.

[Max2147]

I see this as a beneficial incentive to quit smoking, with a side-effect of paying for low-incomers.
How selfish of you. Dont you understand your country relies on that revinue?
And don't you understand how our country is drained by the cost of keeping smokers and those they affect healthy? How much do we spend on Medicare for smoking-related diseases? How many hours of productivity does our country lose from diseases or deaths caused by smoking?

I don't know the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the economic drain caused by smoking is bigger than its contribution to the economy.

That said, I agree with those who say that this won't reduce the number of smokers. It will simply make them pay more, which will enable children of low-income families to get health care. I don't see what's wrong with healthy kids.

As for the black market, if Obama was banning cigarettes, I'd agree with you. It would be Prohibition all over again. But I don't think increasing the price will create an Al Capone of cigarettes. There might be a small increase in black market activity, but I don't think most consumers will go through the effort of getting something on the black market every day that they can get legally. The black market is fine for one-time purchases (like a fake Gucci bag), but using it for something you buy every few days is too much of a hassle for most consumers.

[Enigma]

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v253ry2SiNc&feature=related)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v253r...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v253ry2SiNc&feature=related)

Good luck over there. Our doom here is seald anyway.

In his speeches, I see frightening parallels with Hitlers speeches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVnRz...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVnRzn4rjbY&feature=related)

Just came across this clip here, coincidentally I started suspecting him just to be the same. Couldn't said it better myself.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

[Aramike]

They always tax our vices...tobacco, alcohol, gasoline. Seems to be wide spread use of these three, no? :hmmm: I find none of this unusual that Obama would raise taxes on tobacco and fund a healthcare program. Looks like status quo to me.Yeah, so-called "sin taxes" have been around for years and years, and I agree with them.

This is NOT socialism nor is it redistributionism. This is a tax on an item that one can choose to either partake or not partake in. I know this first hand - I smoked for 25 years.

But more importantly, as someone pointed out it is typically the lower-income folks that indulge in this habit. It is also typically lower-income folks who are uninsured. So now we run into ACTUAL socialism and redistribution of wealth as someone must pay for the inevitable medical care these people will require.

Also, doesn't anyone see the irony that certain lower-income individuals who'd have the most to gain by keeping in good health also be the riskiest with their health? Or, that they would spend sizable portions of their already limited income simply on cigarettes?

Think about that.

[AVGWarhawk]

I see this as a beneficial incentive to quit smoking, with a side-effect of paying for low-incomers.
How selfish of you. Dont you understand your country relies on that revinue?
And don't you understand how our country is drained by the cost of keeping smokers and those they affect healthy? How much do we spend on Medicare for smoking-related diseases? How many hours of productivity does our country lose from diseases or deaths caused by smoking?

I don't know the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the economic drain caused by smoking is bigger than its contribution to the economy.

That said, I agree with those who say that this won't reduce the number of smokers. It will simply make them pay more, which will enable children of low-income families to get health care. I don't see what's wrong with healthy kids.

As for the black market, if Obama was banning cigarettes, I'd agree with you. It would be Prohibition all over again. But I don't think increasing the price will create an Al Capone of cigarettes. There might be a small increase in black market activity, but I don't think most consumers will go through the effort of getting something on the black market every day that they can get legally. The black market is fine for one-time purchases (like a fake Gucci bag), but using it for something you buy every few days is too much of a hassle for most consumers.


The problem with all of this is reduced smoking is possible and that reduces cost for smoking related illness goes hand and had but, it also reduces the tax revenue for the child healthcare. It would seem people want it both ways. For health issues for things people do, how about a tax on fatty foods and other unhealthy eating habits many partake? A lot focus on smoking and the healthcare costs but not much is addressed in the poor eating habits of people and the healthcare associated with bad eating habits.

But again, this is not socialism or anything new. Tobacco has been taxed for years. Nothing new here.

[AVGWarhawk]

They always tax our vices...tobacco, alcohol, gasoline. Seems to be wide spread use of these three, no? :hmmm: I find none of this unusual that Obama would raise taxes on tobacco and fund a healthcare program. Looks like status quo to me.Yeah, so-called "sin taxes" have been around for years and years, and I agree with them.

This is NOT socialism nor is it redistributionism. This is a tax on an item that one can choose to either partake or not partake in. I know this first hand - I smoked for 25 years.

But more importantly, as someone pointed out it is typically the lower-income folks that indulge in this habit. It is also typically lower-income folks who are uninsured. So now we run into ACTUAL socialism and redistribution of wealth as someone must pay for the inevitable medical care these people will require.

Also, doesn't anyone see the irony that certain lower-income individuals who'd have the most to gain by keeping in good health also be the riskiest with their health? Or, that they would spend sizable portions of their already limited income simply on cigarettes?

Think about that.

I agree with what you say here 100%. The sin tax covers a wide variety of people. Some do all and some do a few. All use gas for their cars. Everyone is getting taxed in one form or another concerning the sin taxes.

[August]

Now it's cigarettes and alcohol but in actuality just about any human activity short of those things absolutely necessary to maintain life could be considered "sins" to be taxed.

You like to ski?, well skiers tend to have more broken legs than non skiers. Pay a sin tax. Like to ride a motorcycle? Ohh that's dangerous! Pay a sin tax. Swim in lakes or the ocean? You recklessly expose yourself anything from a shark bite to swimmers ear. Pay a sin tax. Like to go out nightclubbing, where you might get into a fight? Pay a sin tax.

If you don't think it can happen think again. Already they are talking about fatty foods, what's next?

[AVGWarhawk]

Now it's cigarettes and alcohol but in actuality just about any human activity short of those things absolutely necessary to maintain life could be considered "sins" to be taxed.

You like to ski?, well skiers tend to have more broken legs than non skiers. Pay a sin tax. Like to ride a motorcycle? Ohh that's dangerous! Pay a sin tax. Swim in lakes or the ocean? You recklessly expose yourself anything from a shark bite to swimmers ear. Pay a sin tax. Like to go out nightclubbing, where you might get into a fight? Pay a sin tax.

If you don't think it can happen think again. Already they are talking about fatty foods, what's next?

Well, skiing or riding a motorcycle is not something everyone does. It is not addictive in the same sense like a drug is (alcohol, nicotine). You cover a majority of the people by taxing alcohol, tobacco and gasoline. Everyone uses at least one of these. As far as fatty foods, lets take a look at it. Smokers get beat to death for smoking. Taxed and frowned at. Told to go smoke outside basically feeling like a leper yet we want your taxed cigarette money because of healthcare costs. Ok, fine. Let's take a looks at fat burger city with a gallon of coke to wash it down along with his french fries. You can feel your arteries clogging right now...no? Well, this causes health problems with continuing to eat like this. Tit for tat....why not tax fatty with ribeye smothered in onions, mushrooms and a few pints of gravy on top. After all, should you or I pay for the bypass surgery? COME ON AUGUST..THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU!

[Aramike]

Now it's cigarettes and alcohol but in actuality just about any human activity short of those things absolutely necessary to maintain life could be considered "sins" to be taxed.

You like to ski?, well skiers tend to have more broken legs than non skiers. Pay a sin tax. Like to ride a motorcycle? Ohh that's dangerous! Pay a sin tax. Swim in lakes or the ocean? You recklessly expose yourself anything from a shark bite to swimmers ear. Pay a sin tax. Like to go out nightclubbing, where you might get into a fight? Pay a sin tax.

If you don't think it can happen think again. Already they are talking about fatty foods, what's next?That's a good point, but there is a huge distinction. The PUBLIC cost for treating sports-related injuries is significantly lower than smoking. Furthermore, most athletes tend to be covered by insurance. But finally, one could argue that the benefits of an athletic, active lifestyle far outweighs the risk.

What I don't get is how certain ideologies are in favor of one kind of socialism (supporting the healthcare of smokers) but are opposed to others.

As far as fatty foods goes, its STILL different than smoking as the foods do possess some nutritional value. Smoking does not.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I disagree with the seemingly prevalent assertion that this is not a socialist measure. It is indirect nationalization of private industry through unconstitutional tax sanctions.

As for what it costs the U.S. healthcare system, perhaps the main problem is that we have socialized forms of healthcare. First liberals want nationalized healthcare and then they want to regulate/influence people's activities because they provide their healthcare? That's a slippery slope to socialism and significant violations of individual rights.

Everything about this and similar legislation reeks of socialism. It's just a sneaky way of doing it.

One more thing;

The black market is fine for one-time purchases (like a fake Gucci bag), but using it for something you buy every few days is too much of a hassle for most consumers.

There is some truth in this. However, the black market is still a market and functions as one. As soon as the desired goods become too scarce or expensive, the black market begins to function like a normal market.
It would be incorrect to assume that purchases of frequently-used products are not common on the black market. The pervasive influence of the illegal drug industry should be evidence enough, but many other examples exsist.

[Freiwillige]

You know alot of you make sense. In fact lets expand this whonderfull idea!! Fat people are unhealthy and run higher risks of heart disease as well as a whole host of other medical issues. They are a burden on our healthcare system! We need a Fat tax! First we will tax the people per pound then we will add tax's to their cheesburgers and chicken nuggets from McDonalds. Think of the benifits! People will lose weight! And the government can pay for all of the poor families to have homes, and transportation and medical care. Forgett the fact that we just removed all motivation to better onself, Let the government take care off you! Eh Comerade?:nope:

[Aramike]

I disagree with the seemingly prevalent assertion that this is not a socialist measure. It is indirect nationalization of private industry through unconstitutional tax sanctions.

As for what it costs the U.S. healthcare system, perhaps the main problem is that we have socialized forms of healthcare. First liberals want nationalized healthcare and then they want to regulate/influence people's activities because they provide their healthcare? That's a slippery slope to socialism and significant violations of individual rights.

Everything about this and similar legislation reeks of socialism. It's just a sneaky way of doing it. I somewhat see your point, but I don't believe that such a tax is unconstitutional.

For the sake of argument, though, let's say that it is socialist. Also, there is no doubt that the public having to pay for related healthcare is socialist. So, unless we're willing to cease all public money for tobacco-related healthcare (my first choice), SOMEONE should have to pay for it.

I believe that such a responsibility should fall upon the smokers themselves. Hence, the tax. Although, in my opinion, using a Pigovian tax such as a tax on cigarettes is perfectly in tune with the principles of capitalism. Sure, it penalizes an industry. However, capitalism is NOT intended to permit an industry to penalize the public in order to support it's profit margins. If an industry is a burden on, say, the public healthcare system, than that industry is accountable to that system.

Just like the shipping industry is a burden on our transportation system, and they pay a large amount of transportation-related taxes.

[Aramike]

You know alot of you make sense. In fact lets expand this whonderfull idea!! Fat people are unhealthy and run higher risks of heart disease as well as a whole host of other medical issues. They are a burden on our healthcare system! We need a Fat tax! First we will tax the people per pound then we will add tax's to their cheesburgers and chicken nuggets from McDonalds. Think of the benifits! People will lose weight! And the government can pay for all of the poor families to have homes, and transportation and medical care. Forgett the fact that we just removed all motivation to better onself, Let the government take care off you! Eh Comerade?:nope:Not every argument can be simplified into the "it's bad because of the slippery slope" idea.

If there were a "fat tax" or a tax on fatty foods, I'd argue against it. Why? Because the priciple is different. People NEED to eat. People do NOT need to smoke. Taxing the personal choices of something that people NEED to do is quite different than doing so on something people do NOT need to do.

[August]

The public cost of smoking is way less than that of drinking but that didn't stop them from going after smoking now did it? Now fatty foods are next on the hit list but guaranteed there will be something after that, maybe video games, maybe skydiving or skiing, what it will be I can't say, but it will be something.

Any activity that incurs some cost to the government will eventually be taxed and regulated. It is the nature of the beast.

All they need is for their target to be a small enough minority that it won't have enough political power to stop it so don't think that just because there is too much opposition to an taxing an activity today that will always be the case.

For example, there was a time when overtaxing smoking, say post WW2, would have resulted in protests large enough to make pols worry about their chances for reelection if they signed off on it. No more. I remember the arguments when they first started considering banning smoking in the workplace. Few people thought it would ever be enacted, given the percentage of smokers to non smokers but things change and they will continue to do so.

[AVGWarhawk]

You know alot of you make sense. In fact lets expand this whonderfull idea!! Fat people are unhealthy and run higher risks of heart disease as well as a whole host of other medical issues. They are a burden on our healthcare system! We need a Fat tax! First we will tax the people per pound then we will add tax's to their cheesburgers and chicken nuggets from McDonalds. Think of the benifits! People will lose weight! And the government can pay for all of the poor families to have homes, and transportation and medical care. Forgett the fact that we just removed all motivation to better onself, Let the government take care off you! Eh Comerade?:nope:Not every argument can be simplified into the "it's bad because of the slippery slope" idea.

If there were a "fat tax" or a tax on fatty foods, I'd argue against it. Why? Because the priciple is different. People NEED to eat. People do NOT need to smoke. Taxing the personal choices of something that people NEED to do is quite different than doing so on something people do NOT need to do.

Yes, but people do not need a 3 pound steak and a pound of mashed potatoes smothered in butter for nutrition either. Eating is a need, yes. Eating food more nutritious than others is a choice as is smoking. You will find that the government has already attacked the transfats in restaurants. They are looking at a snack tax here in MD because people buy more snack foods(cookies, tastykakes) than fruits. NY is working on a soft drink tax. These are the items consumed in tons daily. This is adding to the sin tax. They are getting clever and cover it under the guise of being concerned for your health.

[August]

Not every argument can be simplified into the "it's bad because of the slippery slope" idea.

If there were a "fat tax" or a tax on fatty foods, I'd argue against it. Why? Because the priciple is different. People NEED to eat. People do NOT need to smoke. Taxing the personal choices of something that people NEED to do is quite different than doing so on something people do NOT need to do.

Just remember Mike, people don't NEED to eat fatty foods either. There are plenty of non fatty foods to take care of the sustenance requirement.

[SteamWake]

If you don't think it can happen think again. Already they are talking about fatty foods, what's next?

The 'pole' tax

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112009/news/regionalnews/stripper_tax_is_hard_to_bare_158991.htm

[AVGWarhawk]

Not every argument can be simplified into the "it's bad because of the slippery slope" idea.

If there were a "fat tax" or a tax on fatty foods, I'd argue against it. Why? Because the priciple is different. People NEED to eat. People do NOT need to smoke. Taxing the personal choices of something that people NEED to do is quite different than doing so on something people do NOT need to do.

Just remember Mike, people don't NEED to eat fatty foods either. There are plenty of non fatty foods to take care of the sustenance requirement.

There is August but my wife will tell you, eating nutritiously is costly. If she were to get the foods that were on the top of the list for the best healthiest eating, she would spend an additional $100.00 to $150.00 a week. You see, the rush to being healthy comes at a price much like anything else that becomes popular or the rage. But you now, you can still get that happy meal at Mac D's for $3.15. :up:

[August]

The 'pole' tax

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112009/news/regionalnews/stripper_tax_is_hard_to_bare_158991.htm

Exactly.

[AVGWarhawk]

The 'pole' tax

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112009/news/regionalnews/stripper_tax_is_hard_to_bare_158991.htm

Exactly.


Damn it...a $1.00 lap dance is now $1.20 including the tax:damn: :down:

[August]

There is August but my wife will tell you, eating nutritiously is costly. If she were to get the foods that were on the top of the list for the best healthiest eating, she would spend an additional $100.00 to $150.00 a week. You see, the rush to being healthy comes at a price much like anything else that becomes popular or the rage. But you now, you can still get that happy meal at Mac D's for $3.15. :up:

But one of the reasons that healthy eating is more expensive is because so much food production is devoted to unhealthy foods. Ban beef and the much healthier bison will take it's place thereby lowering the price of bison. Cause and effect.

[August]

Damn it...a $1.00 lap dance is now $1.20 including the tax:damn: :down:

A single dollar for a lap dance? I shudder to think how ugly the stripper would have to be to get that bargain basement price! :D

[AVGWarhawk]

There is August but my wife will tell you, eating nutritiously is costly. If she were to get the foods that were on the top of the list for the best healthiest eating, she would spend an additional $100.00 to $150.00 a week. You see, the rush to being healthy comes at a price much like anything else that becomes popular or the rage. But you now, you can still get that happy meal at Mac D's for $3.15. :up:

But one of the reasons that healthy eating is more expensive is because so much food production is devoted to unhealthy foods. Ban beef and the much healthier bison will take it's place thereby lowering the price of bison. Cause and effect.

Cool, a healthy Bison Burger Happy Meal:down: I do not see my wife eating Bison. I know this because there was some at the market this past weekend. She made a face at it and got the usual 99% fat free ground beef. Ground turkey is not bad. I like turkey sausage also.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Bizarre triple post keyboard mishap

[UnderseaLcpl]

very sorry

[UnderseaLcpl]

oops

[AVGWarhawk]

Damn it...a $1.00 lap dance is now $1.20 including the tax:damn: :down:

A single dollar for a lap dance? I shudder to think how ugly the stripper would have to be to get that bargain basement price! :D


Shut out the lights bro...all cats be the same in the dark...they just smell different:D

[UnderseaLcpl]

oI somewhat see your point, but I don't believe that such a tax is unconstitutional. That point could be made through the article 1 section 8 loophole, but I still see it as being against the spirit and letter of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Why do you think it is constitutional?



For the sake of argument, though, let's say that it is socialist. Also, there is no doubt that the public having to pay for related healthcare is socialist. So, unless we're willing to cease all public money for tobacco-related healthcare (my first choice), SOMEONE should have to pay for it.

I believe that such a responsibility should fall upon the smokers themselves. Hence, the tax. Although, in my opinion, using a Pigovian tax such as a tax on cigarettes is perfectly in tune with the principles of capitalism. Sure, it penalizes an industry. However, capitalism is NOT intended to permit an industry to penalize the public in order to support it's profit margins. If an industry is a burden on, say, the public healthcare system, than that industry is accountable to that system.

Just like the shipping industry is a burden on our transportation system, and they pay a large amount of transportation-related taxes.

Firstly, I agree with your first choice; that the state shouldn't pay for healthcare. And I am only in disagreement with the rest of your arguments if such taxes are implemented/encouraged by the Federal Government. The power to impose such taxes is reserved to the states. If any particular state or states should wish to pursue such legislation, I don't have a problem with it but the Federal Government does not have the power to impose such a thing on the nation as a whole.

If nothing else, that encourages competition amongst states to form the most effective policy. Imo, that is preferable to having one monolithic State impose its' will upon the individual choices of the citizenry for whatever purpose.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think you got you point across underseacpl:har:

[Aramike]

Not every argument can be simplified into the "it's bad because of the slippery slope" idea.

If there were a "fat tax" or a tax on fatty foods, I'd argue against it. Why? Because the priciple is different. People NEED to eat. People do NOT need to smoke. Taxing the personal choices of something that people NEED to do is quite different than doing so on something people do NOT need to do.

Just remember Mike, people don't NEED to eat fatty foods either. There are plenty of non fatty foods to take care of the sustenance requirement.I agree and understand.

But it comes back to - even fatty foods have a nutritional value, and are just fine if eaten in moderation.

Smoking has no value.

Look, I see where you guys are coming from, and in a sense I agree. However, I don't believe that a Pigovian tax is socialism. But, I do know that asking the general public to pay for those suffering from poor general health brought on by personal choices, IS socialism.

So, how do we choose?

[Aramike]

Bizarre triple post keyboard mishapYeah, that's been happening to me a lot lately... :damn:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think you got you point across underseacpl:har:

I edited in the reason for that. I hit enter or something in the wrong field and ithe key stuck:oops:

On the bright side; post count +5:DL

[AVGWarhawk]

Smoking has no value.

Depends on what you are smoking:D

[Aramike]

That point could be made through the article 1 section 8 loophole, but I still see it as being against the spirit and letter of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Why do you think it is constitutional?For one, I don't see it as against the spirit nor the letter of the Ninth and Tenth. The Tenth Amendment specifically states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..."

Indirect taxation IS specifically allowed. And, even moreso, it is SPECIFICALLY supposed to be federally uniform as is stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. The same clause states that the government can collect "excises" which is specifically what we're debating. The Supreme Court defines an excise as "The obligation to pay an excise is based upon the voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege or engaging in the privilege which is the subject of the excise, and the element of absolute unavoidable demand is lacking" People ex rel, Atty Gen v. Naglee, 1 Cal 232; Bank of Commerce & T. Co. v. Senter, 149 Tenn. 441SW 144.

In other words, it is an indirect tax. Part of what constitutes an indirect tax is that the activity being taxed must be avoidable, such as smoking.

Common excise taxes are gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, etc, and are specifically permitted by the Constitution.Firstly, I agree with your first choice; that the state shouldn't pay for healthcare. And I am only in disagreement with the rest of your arguments if such taxes are implemented/encouraged by the Federal Government. The power to impose such taxes is reserved to the states. If any particular state or states should wish to pursue such legislation, I don't have a problem with it but the Federal Government does not have the power to impose such a thing on the nation as a whole.

If nothing else, that encourages competition amongst states to form the most effective policy. Imo, that is preferable to having one monolithic State impose its' will upon the individual choices of the citizenry for whatever purpose.The problem is that your argument that "the power to impose such taxes is reserved to the states" is Constitutionally inaccurate. The states SHARE in this right, yes, but they are the exclusive practicioners of it. And, the part that says the Fed doesn't have the power to impose the tax nationally, well, the opposite is true. They ONLY have the power to levy the tax on the entire nation.

Great reading on Constitutional tax limits: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/consttax.php

[Aramike]

Smoking has no value.

Depends on what you are smoking:D:haha:

[UnderseaLcpl]

@Aramike

I apologize for not being clearer. I agree with what you say, and yet I disagree overall.

I'm not talking about the power to leverage the tax. I'm talking about the intent behind it. The Constitution does not specifically ennumerate the power of Congress to levee taxes for the purpose of Public Health (although as I said, this could be construed as being implied under the "general welfare" loophole, but I'll get to that)
As such, any tax designed for the purpose of paying for public healthcare, which is in and of itself unconstitutional, imo, is also unconstitutional.

Taxation for the purpose of public healthcare can only be Constitutionally legislated on the state level. Even if the Federal government takes indirect measures to encourage the states to pass such legislation, they are in violation of the Ninth Amendment because they are denying/diparaging the rights granted under the Tenth.

Where I feel this legislation violates the spirit of the Constitution is in abuse of the aforementioned general welfare loophole. The entire document based on the idea of specifically enumerating the powers of the government and reserving the rights of the people. It seems odd that the framers would intentionally throw in a phrase that could be used to circumvent all ennumerated powers and limitation on non-enumerated powers.

[Aramike]

@Aramike

I apologize for not being clearer. I agree with what you say, and yet I disagree overall.

I'm not talking about the power to leverage the tax. I'm talking about the intent behind it. The Constitution does not specifically ennumerate the power of Congress to levee taxes for the purpose of Public Health (although as I said, this could be construed as being implied under the "general welfare" loophole, but I'll get to that)
As such, any tax designed for the purpose of paying for public healthcare, which is in and of itself unconstitutional, imo, is also unconstitutional.

Taxation for the purpose of public healthcare can only be Constitutionally legislated on the state level. Even if the Federal government takes indirect measures to encourage the states to pass such legislation, they are in violation of the Ninth Amendment because they are denying/diparaging the rights granted under the Tenth.

Where I feel this legislation violates the spirit of the Constitution is in abuse of the aforementioned general welfare loophole. The entire document based on the idea of specifically enumerating the powers of the government and reserving the rights of the people. It seems odd that the framers would intentionally throw in a phrase that could be used to circumvent all ennumerated powers and limitation on non-enumerated powers.I understand where you're coming from, and typically agree with it. It's just that this specific case is where we find ourselves at an impasse in which we have to ask ourselves which brand of socialism we'll find acceptable.

Indeed, while the Constitution doesn't specifically mention taxation for healthcare, it also doesn't permit private citizens to burden the public with the consequences of their personal decisions. Whereas instances such as food and transportation is concerned, while certainly there are better decisions to be made the benefits for these items is practical. Smoking, on the other hand, has no practical benefits - it doesn't nourish you, doesn't exercize you, doesn't transport you, etc. All it does is satisfies an addiction at the expense of the taxpayers. And that I am completely opposed to.

[August]

Smoking, on the other hand, has no practical benefits - it doesn't nourish you, doesn't exercize you, doesn't transport you, etc. All it does is satisfies an addiction at the expense of the taxpayers. And that I am completely opposed to.

I have to admit that back in my smoking days a well timed cigarette break kept me from choking the crap out of a jerk who very much deserved it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I understand where you're coming from, and typically agree with it. It's just that this specific case is where we find ourselves at an impasse in which we have to ask ourselves which brand of socialism we'll find acceptable.

Never. To give power to the Federal Government beyond that strictly mandated in the Constitution is to lose it forever. This legislation should belong to the states or to the people, not Washington.

Indeed, while the Constitution doesn't specifically mention taxation for healthcare, it also doesn't permit private citizens to burden the public with the consequences of their personal decisions.
The Constitution doesn't permit citizens to do anything. The document only limits the power of the state by declaring what rights may not be infringed upon. Since the Federal Government's use of non-enumerated powers is unconstitutional because of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, this particular type of legislation belongs to the states.

Whereas instances such as food and transportation is concerned, while certainly there are better decisions to be made the benefits for these items is practical. Smoking, on the other hand, has no practical benefits - it doesn't nourish you, doesn't exercize you, doesn't transport you, etc. All it does is satisfies an addiction at the expense of the taxpayers. And that I am completely opposed to.


As you implied in your first statement above, I'm getting the impression that we are not on the same page here. What you present are all valid reasons for this kind of legislation in today's political environment. But I still oppose this legislation in principle because it further concentrates power in the Federal Government, and worse harms will ultimately come of it.
I realize that this is not a landmark issue or a turning point of any kind, but it is another little slip towards socialism and we have already suffered many.

Think about it, AM. Even if this legislation does help diffuse healthcare costs, and the tobacco industry suffers/plods on/moves/whatever what do you think the state will do? The passage of this bill will be another silent nod of consent to surrender freedoms and let the state influence or make our decisions for us.
Imo, the time to take a stand is now. It is always now. Any time they pass a piece of unconstitutional legislation, no matter how seemingly beneficient, I will oppose it.

[Freiwillige]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY

Had to go there but at 1:10 seconds we at Subsim are represented!

[August]

BTW what were we saying about a slippery slope?

Introducing a new tax candidate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/4968581/Tax-violent-video-games-to-beat-knife-crime-says-Damiola-Taylors-father.html

[Freiwillige]

Ah yes, the English love of taxing everything. Isnt that why we threw them out and founded this great nation? I wish somebody would dump Obama's Socialism in to the bay of Boston the way we did with English tea over 225 years ago.

[A Very Super Market]

You do realize that the colonials were only upset that they couldn't argue about the taxes, and not the taxes themselves. Britain itself had more taxes than the 13 colonies.

[August]

You do realize that the colonials were only upset that they couldn't argue about the taxes, and not the taxes themselves. Britain itself had more taxes than the 13 colonies.

"Taxation without representation" was the catch phrase, but truth be told the last thing we would have wanted was representation in Parliament because we'd be small and easily ignored voting block.

[Aramike]

Never. To give power to the Federal Government beyond that strictly mandated in the Constitution is to lose it forever. This legislation should belong to the states or to the people, not Washington. I wasn't speaking broadly. I was talking about the specific choice of taxing cigarettes or taxing the general populace to pay for the health care of smokers. I don't see any other choice being seriously considered. Do you?The Constitution doesn't permit citizens to do anything. The document only limits the power of the state by declaring what rights may not be infringed upon. Since the Federal Government's use of non-enumerated powers is unconstitutional because of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, this particular type of legislation belongs to the states.While this is good Constitutional theory (one could argue that "permit" and "not allow to be infringed upon" are the same thing), this doesn't really address my argument that smokers shouldn't be allowed to pass their enormous healthcare costs to the general taxpayer.As you implied in your first statement above, I'm getting the impression that we are not on the same page here. What you present are all valid reasons for this kind of legislation in today's political environment. But I still oppose this legislation in principle because it further concentrates power in the Federal Government, and worse harms will ultimately come of it. That's very broad. Specifically, what harm do you see?Think about it, AM. Even if this legislation does help diffuse healthcare costs, and the tobacco industry suffers/plods on/moves/whatever what do you think the state will do? The passage of this bill will be another silent nod of consent to surrender freedoms and let the state influence or make our decisions for us.
Imo, the time to take a stand is now. It is always now. Any time they pass a piece of unconstitutional legislation, no matter how seemingly beneficient, I will oppose it.The difference that we're having is that you see this as unconstitutional. I don't, because the Constitution specifically permits this. In fact, I submit that this type of tax is SPECIFICALLY what the Founding Fathers was referring to when they used the language of the excise tax. What I DO see as unconstitutional is allowing smokers to impose their very specific and very large healthcare burden on the rest of us.Think about it, AM. Even if this legislation does help diffuse healthcare costs, and the tobacco industry suffers/plods on/moves/whatever what do you think the state will do? The passage of this bill will be another silent nod of consent to surrender freedoms and let the state influence or make our decisions for us. No one is surrendering any freedoms. Especially since this is an indirect tax is one that each citizen can choose ... which is why it is Constitutional.

[Aramike]

BTW what were we saying about a slippery slope?

Introducing a new tax candidate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/4968581/Tax-violent-video-games-to-beat-knife-crime-says-Damiola-Taylors-father.htmlWell, thank God that's in the UK...

I still don't believe in the "slippery slope" argument, ever. The problem is that the argument could be used against damned near anything, and it allows the person making the argument to just skate by without actually having to discuss the issue at hand.

For instance, let's use Undersea's belief in futhering the power of the individual states (something I *PARTLY* agree with). The slippery slope there is that I'd like to avoid having the liberal nutjob state of America, California, legislate for the rest of us. Think about it: if they decided to make, say, incredibly expensive high-fuel efficiency vehicles the law, do you really think car companies will make one type of car for California and another for the rest of us?

There's always a slippery slope. The problematic ones are typically avoided by focusing on the issues themselves.

[Enigma]

Nor would you want the conservative "nutjob" states to govern for the rest of us, right?:up:

[Aramike]

Nor would you want the conservative "nutjob" states to govern for the rest of us, right?:up:Of course. Except that there isn't a conservative nutjob state with the influence of California.

Besides, by definition conservatives don't propose tightened restrictions that would force businesses to adapt nationwide.

Heh, and have you noticed California's economy lately?

[Enigma]

Yup. Double digit unemployment out there...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Never. To give power to the Federal Government beyond that strictly mandated in the Constitution is to lose it forever. This legislation should belong to the states or to the people, not Washington. I wasn't speaking broadly. I was talking about the specific choice of taxing cigarettes or taxing the general populace to pay for the health care of smokers. I don't see any other choice being seriously considered. Do you?
No, I don't see any other choice being considered and in my mind that is a greater threat than addressing the healthcare costs of smokers. I've been trying to explain why, but evidently you do not agree with my assessments. However, please allow me one more chance to discuss it with you in this reply.

The Constitution doesn't permit citizens to do anything. The document only limits the power of the state by declaring what rights may not be infringed upon. Since the Federal Government's use of non-enumerated powers is unconstitutional because of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, this particular type of legislation belongs to the states.While this is good Constitutional theory (one could argue that "permit" and "not allow to be infringed upon" are the same thing), this doesn't really address my argument that smokers shouldn't be allowed to pass their enormous healthcare costs to the general taxpayer.
Au contraire, it does apply. I know you are not a fan of the slippery slope argument but the evidence for it is already all around us. The whole reason that people paying for smokers' healthcare costs is even an issue is because of unconstitutional federal programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security. Those programs were all legislated into exsistence with the idea that they would ease the burden on the taxpayer(via distribution of healthcare costs) and also on the nation. Since those programs have failed to be cost-effective or even sustainable, more legislation and taxes have been needed to prop them up. All the while the deficits created or worsened because of these programs has been eroding the strength of the dollar as well. In the end, the general populace ended up footing the bill anyway, only instead of it being millions or billions of dollars per year the cost now runs into the tens of trillions.
Now we're on another threshold, this time in the name of universal healthcare, something this legislation supports. You already know what rampant federal spending has done to the economy and the nation, and what it will do to it. Can you imagine the damage that could be done if we refuse to pull in the opposite direction? If we just shrug and say, "Well, it is socialist, but we're headed that way anyway so, oh well."? What do you think that is going to do to the general taxpayer? As it is now, social aid will bankrupt the country within half a century. Supporting this bill, and the intent behind it, will only bring that collapse down on us sooner.

As you implied in your first statement above, I'm getting the impression that we are not on the same page here. What you present are all valid reasons for this kind of legislation in today's political environment. But I still oppose this legislation in principle because it further concentrates power in the Federal Government, and worse harms will ultimately come of it. That's very broad. Specifically, what harm do you see? I'm a little surprised to see you ask this. I guess I was a very broad in my statement because the harms are so broad.
Let's start with increased federal spending and debt, despite the additional revenue from this legislation. Need I point to a federal initiative or thirty that have hade that effect? Or perhaps some that had that effect and yet still failed to do what they were supposed to do and are still around?
Of course, federal debt is undesireable because it inflates the currency, drives taxes up (discouraging spending and investment) and hampers the ability of the economy to recover and function normally when it outpaces average annual GDP growth. If this legislation were just a tax on tobacco it might not be so bad, but it is a tax on tobacco to support a universal healthcare initiative. We already know how much similar initiatives have cost and how thoroughly they have failed.
And the harms go on and on; stagflation, potential harm to a multi-billion dollar industry and the employeess thereof, contribution to a mounting debt that will collapse the dollar, etc..etc..


Think about it, AM. Even if this legislation does help diffuse healthcare costs, and the tobacco industry suffers/plods on/moves/whatever what do you think the state will do? The passage of this bill will be another silent nod of consent to surrender freedoms and let the state influence or make our decisions for us.
Imo, the time to take a stand is now. It is always now. Any time they pass a piece of unconstitutional legislation, no matter how seemingly beneficient, I will oppose it.The difference that we're having is that you see this as unconstitutional. I don't, because the Constitution specifically permits this. In fact, I submit that this type of tax is SPECIFICALLY what the Founding Fathers was referring to when they used the language of the excise tax. What I DO see as unconstitutional is allowing smokers to impose their very specific and very large healthcare burden on the rest of us. It can't be unconstitutional for smokers to impose costs on others because the Constitution does not regulate the citizenry, only the state. But I'm nitpicking, really.
The excise tax is constitutional, true enough, but an excise tax for the appropriation of funds for an unconstitutional expenditure is, well, unconstitutional.
If you'd like to see a tax on cigarrettes to support federal funding for post roads or defense or something, that's ok. (I'd still disagree with it, but it would be constitutional and I'd willingly abide in the event of passage) Even if you'd like to see it in a particular state to fund healthcare, it's ok. But it is not ok for the federal government to do this.


Think about it, AM. Even if this legislation does help diffuse healthcare costs, and the tobacco industry suffers/plods on/moves/whatever what do you think the state will do? The passage of this bill will be another silent nod of consent to surrender freedoms and let the state influence or make our decisions for us.
No one is surrendering any freedoms. Especially since this is an indirect tax is one that each citizen can choose ... which is why it is Constitutional.
This statement alone could be another debate entirely, so I'll refrain from challenging it for now. However, the tax remains unconstitutional because it supports an unconstitutional expenditure.

I've pretty much spoken my piece, but I will consider any reply you make, should you choose to do so.