I challenge you to demonstrate convincingly that it’s not.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Not to belabor the point too much, but you did not apologize. You ‘withdrew’ the comment because it was factually incorrect.
[quote]
Did you actually read what I wrote?
You have trouble with the construction “and apologize”?
If you quit making assumptions about me, I’ll quit making them about you. Agreed?
This is only true if you never smoke in public places. Fortunately, the number of places where people are allowed to smoke is public is dwindling.
http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html
I demand an increase in taxes by 40% for people with pools.
[QUOTE=ParentalAdvisoryI demand an increase in taxes by 40% for people with pools.[/QUOTE]
Reductio ad absurdam.
The amount of toxic gasses that spew out of cars during rush hour, is a hellofalot more then Joe Blow taking a smoke in the park.
No disagreement here.
The tax isn’t flat. A smoker with a higher income spends less of it on tobacco than poor smokers. The tax is completely regressive. Still, I see no social injustice in having regressive individual taxes so long as the tax structure as a whole remains progressive.
That was already taken into account (though, “polluting the environment” is barely a factor in this case, if all we mean is open air smoking and not second-hand smoke, which is already being cut back in most places) in figuring out smokers’ total cost. The savings to Social Security from them dying young by far outstrip any loses from them needing assistance with medical bills. Also, remember that medical bills are not inherently a cost insofar as the smokers themselves pay for them. It’s a hidden price of choosing to smoke, but the price is paid by the smoker and anyone else in their insurance bracket. So it’s not so simple as just counting the cost of their care.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
The actual tax rate is flat, just as Stone said. It’s the actual incidence of the tax that makes it regressive. You’re confusing the tax itself with who it most commonly falls upon. Almost all sales taxes are both flat at the register (they are the same regardless of income) and regressive overall (in that they impact lower income people more as a percent of their total income).
And the ‘Social Cost’ argument is the exact same argument used by social conservatives who want to enact laws to protect marriage and the family. And if anything, they have a much more solid case. Poverty and crime is directly linked to single parent families, and the economic cost of divorce and unwed motherhood is huge.
I oppose the social conservatives as well for the same reason. But you should be aware of who you are allying yourself with when you start asserting that the state has the right to impose laws and taxes to modify individual behaviour for the ‘greater good’. That’s been their theme for decades.
There is another issue here. People smoke because they LIKE it. Poor people smoke more than rich people. Passing laws preventing them from smoking is taking away a choice that disproportionally hurts poor people more than rich people, all issues of income aside.
It is simply not right. Educate them, sure. I don’t mind the government funding honest studies into the dangers of tobacco use, and publishing those studies and spending money to promote them. But once adults have been given the information, it’s their own damned decision to keep smoking or not. Get out of their faces and let them be, for God’s sake.
Health care is a societal expense only if you assume it to be so. There is nothing inherent in health care that **REQUIRES ** it be a societal expense.
This is true only of smokers who don’t have health care.
I just want to take a swipe at this before I get to my main point.
Pool = High property values = higher property taxes.
Just so you’re thinking about it.
On the other issue the whole ‘smoking’ thing is just a symptom, Sam. The true issue is the ‘addiction’ to taxation that governments have. Or, rather, the addiction to the money that taxes bring in.
And that’s the same story up north as it is down here in the states…
In your format…
Resolved: Citizen’s want to receive more in services than they are willing to pay in taxes.
So when you rail against cigarette taxes (or whatever taxes) remember that if it wasn’t that some other tax would be higher. Because, as western democracies are constructed, the people will not accept fewer, lesser-maintained roads, hospitals, schools, and whatnot. A elected official who preaches of ‘fiscal sanity’ and ‘cutbacks in services’ is quickly back in the private sector working for a living.
If that’s a vox populi for more money spent on services (or deficit spending) I don’t know what is.
So don’t bitch about the ‘addiction’ to taxes…it’s our collective addiction to services that leads to it.
There’s actually something especially unfair about taxing cigarettes: Smokers are a minority (at least in the US and Canada). Hey, let’s tax the other guy!
C’mon, John! Why not just state that acceleration is 9.8 meters per second squared while you’re at it?
Can you really expect someone to yell ‘tax me!’ when it’s human nature to say ‘tax that other guy…he deserves it’.
Washington , who has one of the nations highest taxes on cigarettes.
Salmon recovery?
From what I’ve found, a LOT of the money is going to general funds.
And the most telling of all…
The “test” in the title was leftover from some bizarre behavior of VBB that I was trying to work around, so safely ignore.
Now that I’ve done some research, I’m afraid I’m going to have to side with Sam, unless he continues that slight hijack into socialized health care. 
So, because you personally hate cigarettes, they should be taxed out of existence. Interesting. I could say the same thing (about really hating something) about any number of things, but I don’t think they should be taxed out of existence purely due to my personal dislike of them.
I can pretty much guarantee, that if the government for one reason or another, were to lose tobacco tax money, other taxes would be raised to cover the loss.
You don’t really see the government being ok with just absorbing the cost of the loss of that tax money, do you?