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.

[A Very Super Market]

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

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

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!

[AVGWarhawk]

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

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

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?

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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]

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

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



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.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Max2147

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.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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.



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

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

My god, Aramike and I see eye to eye.....