unfair taxation

well my state government is screwing me over again. november 1st a new tax of $6/carton of cigarettes goes into effect. right on the heals of a similar tax a few years back. 10 years ago i could get a carton of bargain brand for $8 now it will be $26. my income certainly hasnt more than tripled in that time, in fact it hasnt increased at all. is minimum wage over 3 times what it was 10 years ago? NO! the lousy bastards know that the majority is non-smokers so will say "sure, make the smokers pay more than us"

Come over to the dark side with us! ;-)

Since I pay more for my medical insurance in part because of the drain that smokers put on the health care system, and since I am frequently subjected to other people's smoke, I'm sorry to say I have no sympathy.

They have to get as much as they can out of the smoker because you will all die sooner and won't be able to pay your taxes anymore. So they are making up for those years you are cheating the government out of money by your death.

SOMEBODY has to pay for all those "No Smoking" signs.

The problem I have with it isn't that they are raising the tax. If they were doing it in order to force people to quit, it would be one thing. They raise them to raise revenue and count on that stream. The stream goes away the spending doesn't.

I am a non-smoker.

I think $50 a carton would be better.

I used to smoke too.
The thing that got me was that they put a 'sin' tax on the new baseball stadium here (tobacco and alchohol sales paid for it) now you can't smoke in the place.

I quite (for the second or third time) this past March and have only had one or two since then (none since June), of course now I chew tobacco a lot more than I used to but it is cheaper and lasts longer

At least YOU can choose whether to pay that tax or not (by not smoking). I get to pay income tax whether I like it or not. And even if I don't work! (Unemployment compensation counts as regular income for tax purposes).
"He who is free of sin please throw me a beer!"
-- The Gospel According to Tony --

Smokers may increase the cost of health insurance slightly while working, but they greatly decrease the cost of medicare, because they tend not to linger in a long ailing old age. Also, smoking reduces the social security crisis for the same reason.
The government wants more money (who doesn't), and it's too high to raise general taxes so they need a scapegoat to loot. When the tobacco stream runs dry they'll loot McDonalds on account of obesity. What money doesn't come out of the pockets of the victims comes out of our retirement 401Ks as the targeted industries grow unprofitable.
If you don't like it, vote against the Party that's enabling the trial lawyers to hold society hostage with legal extortion.

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Smokers may increase the cost of health insurance slightly while working, but they greatly decrease the cost of medicare, because they tend not to linger in a long ailing old age. Also, smoking reduces the social security crisis for the same reason.

Actually smokers tend to be sicker (emphysema, lung cancer) in their old age and consume much greater medicare resources than non-smokers. However, you are correct about social security. Smokers do tend to be less educated however and have overall lower life time earnings so they tend to put less into the system.
I will leave it to you to determine if the statements:
"Smokers do tend to be less educated"
is equivalent to:
"Smoking makes you stupid".

Originally posted by Randall Twede:
well my state government is screwing me over again.

Screw them back... quit smoking.

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
is equivalent to:
"Smoking makes you stupid".

Noooooo . . .
It is equivalent to "Being stupid makes you smoke".

thomas,
obviously you have no idea what cigarette addiction is like. nicotine is THE most addictive substance known to man and ive been smoking for 33 years. i drink alcohol and coffee too but i can easily give them up when short on cash. i will beg or go without food for cigarettes.
anyway that wasnt my point. my point is that it is unfair to tax a minority just because you can outvote them and make them pay your share of the burden.

Originally posted by Randall Twede:
thomas,obviously you have no idea what cigarette addiction is like.

Anyone can quit if they want to. I quit smoking so I know how addictive it is. Try the patch.
If nicotine was really that addictive there wouldn't be so many ex-smokers.
[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

Originally posted by Randall Twede:
obviously you have no idea what cigarette addiction is like. nicotine is THE most addictive substance known to man and ive been smoking for 33 years.

So what do you recommend Randall?
Choice A) Cheap cigarettes: all citizens pay the cost
Choice B) Expensive cigarettes: only smokers pay the cost (health and financial)
Choice C) No cigarettes: governments should make cigrattes illegal, therefore no costs
Pick one. And you can't pick A. Governments have tried that already, and that has only led to more smokers and more costs
[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Scott Duffy ]

I smoked for 13 years. Pack and a half a day. It took 17 MAJOR efforts (more that a day each time - some up to a week). But you CAN quit. I did.

all citizens pay what cost? the cost of some stadium like Dave mentioned? hell yes! why should only smokers and drinkers pay for that? If you are talking about health care cost, that is bogus too im sure obesity causes more health care costs than smoking. maybe they should have a calorie tax. :roll:

Originally posted by Randall Twede:
all citizens pay what cost? the cost of some stadium like Dave mentioned? hell yes! why should only smokers and drinkers pay for that? If you are talking about health care cost, that is bogus too im sure obesity causes more health care costs than smoking. maybe they should have a calorie tax. :roll:

I think if people are stupid enough to smoke then they deserve to pay higher taxes. But they should call it what it is, a tax on stupidity.

the people who pay less because they arent being singled out will always think it is fair. if it was a tax on something i didnt use i would say it was fair too. how about a tax on bleach. it is bad for environment. lots of children have to go to the hospital for drinking it. i dont use it. a 300% tax(like im paying on my cigarettes) would be fair.

I am an ex-smoker, but I have to agree with Randall on this one. The tax system should not be used to reward behavior society finds acceptable and punish behavior society finds unacceptable. Smokers do put a burden on the healthcare system, but government shouldn't be paying for people's healthcare anyway.

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
Smokers do put a burden on the healthcare system, but government shouldn't be paying for people's healthcare anyway.

What about medicare? Who will pay for the healthcare for the elderly if the government doesn't? And what about people who simply can't get a private company to insure them because they have a serious illness? What bout people who work for the government? Shouldn't they get health benefits? Who, exactly, do you think shouldn't be getting their healthcare paid by the government who currently is getting their healthcare paid by the government? And for those who can't afford healthcare, who should pay? Or should those people just die and decrease the surplus population?

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What about medicare? Who will pay for the healthcare for the elderly if the government doesn't? And what about people who simply can't get a private company to insure them because they have a serious illness? What bout people who work for the government? Shouldn't they get health benefits? Who, exactly, do you think shouldn't be getting their healthcare paid by the government who currently is getting their healthcare paid by the government? And for those who can't afford healthcare, who should pay? Or should those people just die and decrease the surplus population?

The answer isn't government handouts, it's affordable insurance that is available to everyone. Now it is clear that the government would have to play some kind of role in this, whether it be regulations on the insurance industry or subsidies. Anybody who has any experience with the Veterans Administration would probably fear the results of large scale government administered healthcare.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The answer isn't government handouts, it's affordable insurance that is available to everyone.

Affordable to the disabled? Those on welfare? The elderly?

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
The tax system should not be used to reward behavior society finds acceptable and punish behavior society finds unacceptable.

So we should do away with tax breaks for home mortgages. After all, the government shouldn't be promoting home ownership. We should do away with tax breaks for dependents. The government shouldn't be promoting marriage and families.

perhaps it wouldnt bother me so much if the taxes werent 3 times the actual cost. a tax should be a percentage not a multiple.

I'll post my replies to Thomas in the role of government topic.

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So we should do away with tax breaks for home mortgages. After all, the government shouldn't be promoting home ownership. We should do away with tax breaks for dependents. The government shouldn't be promoting marriage and families.

You've got it.

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
You've got it.

So then following that logic, we shouldn't give tax breaks to companies to keep jobs in the US. We shouldn't allow companies to deduct wages since that is making the judgment that employing people is a good thing. The government must be completely neutral and make no judgements as to what is good or bad behavior when it comes to the tax laws. Elimanate all deductions for every company and let them pay just on revenue. Sounds fair to me.

Now you got a flat tax.

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So then following that logic, we shouldn't give tax breaks to companies to keep jobs in the US. We shouldn't allow companies to deduct wages since that is making the judgment that employing people is a good thing. The government must be completely neutral and make no judgements as to what is good or bad behavior when it comes to the tax laws. Elimanate all deductions for every company and let them pay just on revenue. Sounds fair to me.

Actually we should take it a step farther and get rid of income tax. I personally prefer the "everyone writes a check for their even share of the cost of government" approach. I'm a little iffy about the Fair Tax proposal, but it is certainly better than what we have.
[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Matthew Phillips ]

just a side-note:
did you know that 60% of all tax laws of all countries are german tax laws? No joke. Someone have counted it.
Since 20 years or so every new government starts with the promise to make this crazy system easier.
Then they invite all groups of our society for round table talks. And they talk and talk and talk. After that we allways end up with having even more tax-laws.

The answer isn't government handouts, it's affordable insurance that is available to everyone. Now it is clear that the government would have to play some kind of role in this, whether it be regulations on the insurance industry or subsidies.

The LAST thing the government needs to do is make regulations on the insurance industry...
The reason why the rates are so outragous is because insurance companies need to spend roughly 40% of the premium on lawyers fees due to outragous lawsuits.
Like that stupid lady that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued McDonalds... Do you think McDonalds paid for that? No, the liability insurance picked up the tab on it with possible reinsurers.
The problem with insurance rates starts with the judical system. Enough of the stupid lawsuits.
Just wait, insurance rates are going UP now. Will be for probably the next 3 years.