No, the differences would be quite different. There is a gigantic gaping chasm between cigarettes and food. If I had a child, I would ask her “Do people need to buy cigarettes?” and then ask her “Do people need to buy food?” I don’t like to make assumptions, but I’m pretty confident she’d give me different answers. If you’d give the same answer to both of those, I’d love to see the logistical gymnastics you’d use to reach that conclusion.
I believe that’s one of the points of cigarette taxes.
Damn it. Pass the corn cob pipe.
Income tax: “Just don’t have a job.”
Property tax: “Just sell your house.”
It seems there needs to be a common sense filter as to what kind of behaviour change is necessary to avoid a tax, and if it can reasonably be expected.
I noticed the same thing. This topic showed up on another board I visit as well. I often do wonder how these ‘talking points’ make the rounds.
I think this is where it started. It was published as an opinion piece by the AP , then Drudge linked it with a misleading headline implying that the AP was claiming as objective fact that Obama was breaking a tax promise. I guess the rest of the echo chamber spread it around from there. Like 99% of the time, you can trace these talking points back to Drudge.
Not a problem. Home grown tobacco just gets cheaper. Now people will pay ZERO tax. Dear Congress, put that in your pipe and smoke.
But its not Congress that has to pay the piper. It’s all those SCHIP kids! Thank god for all those voluntary treasury contributions from smokers!
Ah, the ole “but what about the children” argument. :dubious: Sorry, not buying it (literally). I refuse to be singled out to pay more taxes by people like Kerry and Geitner. If the kids get fucked in the ass because of this the blame goes to Congress. Smokers are not willingly going to cough up more taxes.
Sure they will. They’re addicted. If you think anything but a tiny, insignificant minority will go through the trouble of growing their own tobacco, well let’s just say it doesn’t say much for your judgment.
They’ll buy it from the same people who sell them their pot.
I find fault with this logic. Can you honestly say that you would be of the same opinion if the issue were a federal sales tax on beef, pork, and chicken at $1/pound? Not a single person would have to pay if they didn’t want to, and nutritionally there’s no need to eat those products when there are healthier, cheaper alternatives – they’re luxuries, like cigarettes.
Such a measure would cost the overwhelming majority of families several hundred dollars per year in new taxes, and an administration that had promised no new taxes and then insisted that this “isn’t a tax on *anyone *because not a single person has to pay it if they don’t want to” would be savaged from all sides for deceit and sophistry.
Now, this isn’t *quite *the same thing in that, as I said earlier, it would have been reasonable to infer at the time that a cigarette tax was not part of Obama’s ‘no new middle class taxes’ pledge. However, the claim that a tobacco tax is a tax on nobody is just as much sophistic twaddle as the claim that a meat tax is a tax on nobody. It’s a tax on smokers.
What do you think it proves to say something is a “talking point”? That doesn’t absolve you from addressing its substance. Also, plenty of liberal sites and individual liberals will spread around the latest lefty “talking points,” so it’s not like this is unique to anti-liberal topics or posters.
I like the word cough there 
I am no fan of smoking, but nor am I an antismoking nazi, but I still think this a crock, if not an actual broken promise.
Lots of people smoke. If you wanna tax the crap outa it to pay for SMOKING related illness that gubment or society has to foot the bill for, fine. Now, when the taxes start to get MORE than that, then I have a problem. When the money is being used for something that isnt related to where it came from I have even more a problem with it.
Smoking - bad for health - tax - health care for kids - retarded logic
Sugar - bad for health - tax - hey, kids like sugar- health care for kids - similar retarded logic
Why don’t we all of a sudden tax the crap out of fast food burgers? Nobody NEEDS to eat em, they are bad for you, won’t someone think of the kids?
I HATE this thinking of politicians. That if we increase a tax on some small thing or something thats never been taxed before, its somehow better than some big visible tax. You take a XYZ amount of money outa the real economy and redistribute it, it pretty much has the same effect irregardless of where you got it from.
Heck, let tax the crap outa crapping! Think all the money that will bring in.
It doesn’t have any substance. That’s the point. It’s just a fatuous, demogogic talking point. Sure liberal sites do the same thing. So what? That doesn’t make this any more legitimate.
Food is a necessity. Recreational drugs are not. This is not a valid comparison.
Food is a necessity, but meat is not. Are you able to address the substance of my objection? If it helps, you can substitute, say, a $30/month tax on cable and satellite TV.
Your objection has no substance to address. Even if taxes were raised on cable televison (which is still a lousy comparison. Tobacco isn’t a luxury, it’s a drug), it still wouldn’t be a broken promise. A tobacco tax is basically a moron tax. We have to raise tax revenues somewhere. We might as well tax drug addicts. I’d be fine with jacking up taxes on alcohol too.
But fatty foods, questionable entertainment, and the internet exist on a higher moral plane?
I sense a bit of snobbery here.
Haven’t read the whole thread yet, sorry if this has already been addressed. I’ve been rolling my own for awhile now, and just stocked up. The tax increase is the worst on roll your own. Instead of $15 a pound, it’s now **$45 a pound. ** That’s freakin’ triple!
But no, Obama didn’t break any promises. He said he’d sign SCHIP, he did. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on lower income folks, he didn’t. I don’t have to smoke.
I explicitly (and then again implicitly) said that it was not a broken promise. My objection, quite plainly, was to your claim that: “It’s not a tax on *anybody *because not a single person has to pay it if they don’t want.”
This is not even close to the argument you made before. It is, in fact, an implicit disavowal of your previous argument. Do you still wish to claim that a tobacco tax is not a tax on anyone?