It’s not a tax on anyone who doesn’t want to pay it, no. Nobody has to smoke. You could say the same thing about cable TV, I suppose, but that’s a quality of life issue that affects just about everybody. Tobacco is not a quality of life issue. Not smoking doesn’t make anyone’s life worse.
I am an ex-smoker, by the way.
I smoke. Why are people worried about this issue? If poor people continue to deprive themselves and their children of necessities due to maintaining an unhealthy, stinky, bullshit addiction then that’s their problem.
I need to quit. I can’t afford it anymore. And I am not poor, but I am not rich either.
I don’t think this is a poor versus rich issue. It’s a public health issue, and I for one would like to see smoking of cigarettes stamped out in my lifetime.
There simply isn’t a viable argument for it. The evidence is in. It kills you and harms people around you, and it isn’t generally socially acceptable anymore.
I have more sympathy for the cigar and pipe smokers than tend to not inhale much and appreciate fine blends of tobacco for flavor alone. But that isn’t why most people smoke. It’s a fucking filthy fix.
Not to mention the enormous burden on the health system by sick, poor, uninsured smokers when they get to be about 60 or older.
There really isn’t a single argument FOR smoking. Yeah it’s a choice, but it’s a BAD one, and anyone with a brain that smokes knows it.
Geez I hope I can quit soon. Cigarettes are not only robbing me of my breath and life but now they are crazy expensive too.
I generally fall on the side of those that decry sin taxes as the government being “Mommy” and through taxation telling me what I can and cannot do, what’s good and bad, etc…
But this is the right thing to do. I truly cannot see how anyone could disagree, and who really cares if this is a violation of the “spirit” of a fucking campaign promise anyway?
Since no one “wants” to pay the tax in the usual sense of the word, a more accurate way of saying the same thing would be: “It is a tax anyone who wants to smoke.” If you want to argue that such a tax is a good idea, then, in my opinion, you should simply do that instead of trying to avoid having to rescind the claim that “[Obama] didn’t raise anybody’s taxes.”
Obama didn’t raise anybody’s taxes. A sales tax is not a tax on an individual, it’s a tax on a product.
If that is true, then it must also be true that an income tax is not a tax on an individual, but rather a tax on a salary.
I’m sorry, but you’re playing word games. Tens of millions of middle and lower class Americans will be paying more in taxes due to this measure. I happen to think it’s a bad idea, but arguing to the contrary is far from ridiculous. What **is **ridiculous is arguing that a measure which increases the tax burden for 40 million citizens is not a tax increase.
And the disproportionate number of poor people who are paying them should see you for a refund because it’s not really a tax?
Sorry, didn’t mean to whoosh you. The whole post was sarcastic. Hence the ‘voluntary treasury contributions’ (not a tax) by smokers bit.
Where do you get these ridiculous definitions from?
First, if anyone wants to say I’m spouting talking points, then I guess that’s fine, and all I can say is that I’m not. I didn’t go to Drudge, or any other place before I posted the OP.
Next, I voted for Obama precisely because he was supposed to be above business as usual in Washington. In the debates, McCain said that he would have to raise taxes to pay for all of his proposals. Every time, he stated that only those making above $250k per year would see their taxes go up. Everyone else would see their taxes decrease.
Now it is said that Obama was strictly talking about income taxes. Well, I thought so as well, but other posters pointed out (during the threads about tax refunds larger than the payment) that since poor people paid FICA taxes, sales taxes, and so forth, that Obama was being accurate by saying that their taxes would go down because he wasn’t simply talking about income taxes. But now when the flip side comes to light (tobacco taxes) he, in fact, was only talking about income taxes. Which is it?
And whether he was parsing words, the implication was that NO TAXES would be raised on those making under $250k/yr. Let’s say that Obama kept the personal income tax the same but added a 400% tax on baby formula (note: not a necessity, use Mom’s own milk and use proceeds from this tax to pay for children’s health care). Would any of you say that he was keeping his promise to lower income people?
Sure, cigarettes are technically a luxury, but what isn’t a luxury in modern society? Are you saying that unless we are living on the ground under a tree in the middle of the woods eating cockroaches then we should not bitch about confiscatory tax increases?
well, I did actually interpret it correctly but then the"it’s not a tax if you don’t have to buy it" crowd swayed my thinking.
As a teacher, I make way less than $250,000 a year. The impact of this cigarette tax on me will be… let me see… carry the seven… exactly $0.00. Yep, exactly what he promised.
bama did not make teachers exempt from the tax so that is incorrect.
People who make less than $250,000 smoke. More people below the poverty level smoke than above it (32.3 versus 23.5). Obama taxed cigarrets so therefore he has placed a tax that is directed at people making less than $250,000.
Oddly, he has found a way to tax the poor to pay for their SCHIPS insurance.
So no other teacher in your tax bracket smokes? None at all?
Slee
Are they forced to smoke?
No, the smokers are forced to pay the tax.
Why would I possibly care about their taxes? 
As a teacher you need to be taught how to care?
Well that’s true, but the point I was making is no one is forcing them to be smokers.
Here’s a question for the “Obama broke a campaign promise” people.
Do you think that the bill that says that carried interest from private equity funds must be treated as ordiinary income instead of capital gain is a violation of Obama’s campaign promise? Surely there is at least one partner in a private equity fund sponsor that makes less than $250k per year who will have their pay taxed at ordinary income rates instead of capital gain rates.
Of that we are all in agreement but that’s like saying nobody has to buy property in response to a rise in property taxes. Obama made the political sin of saying “no new taxes on the little guy” when in fact he HAS to raise taxes (on a rather large scale) to cover the programs he has proposed. the reality of it is that many programs will never see the light of day and everybody will pay more taxes.