|
Maybe we could also tax "R" rated movies. There's plenty of sin there. The disgusting politicians are betting that since a minority of people use tobacco products, they're safe with the majority of the people. It's also why they so easily pass smoking bans on private property. Unfortunately, the people who go along with the "sin" legislation are stupid. Anything that sounds good must be good to them. It won't be long before they go after soda, candy, alcohol and other items. Also unfortunatley, the same idiots who think sin taxes are good are also the same people who vote for Democrats. |
|
"Also unfortunatley, the same idiots who think sin taxes are good are also the same people who vote for Democrats."
Whereas republicans think that children inhaling second-hand smoke and going without health care is a better idea.
I'm a smoker, and I don't mind this at all. I also think there should be a "Sin Tax" on giant gas guzzling cars, you know, the ones that use all that oil that pays for Terrorism?
Though I know that Republicans will refuse to admit to themselves that their Hummers are supporting Al Qaeda. |
|
.....who feel the need to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, and medicate everyone regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, OR CITIZENSHIP, let's pay for it by making Liberalism itself taxable.
If you espouse these views, you can pay an extra $25k per year in Income Taxes.
If, however, you prefer to make your own decisions about how you distribute your own hard earned money, you will continue to receive deductions for any charitable giving you choose to do.
That should make everyone happy, right....? |
|
These are two different issues.
Taxing smoking is taxing an activity that directly causes a great deal of medical expenses from the government, and so it makes sense to an extent. It is also taxing something that the voters want less of, just as we give tax breaks for things voters want more of (home ownership and kids). We do plenty of that.
On the other hand, the link between SCHIP and taxing smoking is pure politics, taxing something "bad" to get something "good" without most folks having to foot the bill.
The expansion of coverage from poor to middle class kids - which is what this would have done - would do little to increase the number of insured children. Overwhelming, the effect would have been to have children removed from employer coverage as dependents and enrolled in government coverage instead. Coverage of kids is widely acknowledged as a first step strategy for getting folks used to government insurance for all. |
|
The idea of taxing one group for the benefit of another is just wrong and not healthy for the growth of the country`s economy. Well once the tobacco business runs out of money, let see, we have the rich. By now most of them like our present rich Democrats have moved their precious wealth offshore. The burden of taxing is always on hard working average Joe. You and me!
SCHIP is the first step to nationlizing health care. Sadly, since, some of our Republican Representatives like to be loved and cherished more by their Democratic brethern and Washington Media, there seems no hope for social conservatives. |
|
Why is the government doing this? Because they think they can get away with it. Why don't they legislate all the illegals out of this country and increase the taxes they raise through increased wages in jobs that are going to Americans instead of illegals? Big business and Mexico don't want that. And Mexicans are who will help get the Dems elected.
It's just another example of a government intent on lining its pockets instead of taking care of this country and its citizens. And if they get away with this again. They will keep doing it. Cigars and cigar smokers are an easy target for a government out of control - another tax on the "rich". Bastards! |
|
|
Why can't the numbers simply explain to the lame-brained liberals that reducing the tax burden expands the economy (bigger pie for all) and thus increases government revenue. Raising taxes reduces the economic pie and the government gets less revenue. The biggest problem with the last congress is that they saw all the new revenue and instead of using it to pay down the debt, acted as if was "manna from heaven" to be wasted with worse ideas than is usual from the party of idiots. Except the party of idiots only criticized the new spending for not spending enough!! AAArrrrrggggh! |
|
You want a sin tax on big cars? What about small cars? Hell why drive at all if you feel so strongly about this? Oh I get it...its ok if you only support terrorism a little,
If you had the courage of your convictions you would quit smoking and get rid of your car. Funny how all that idealism of yours hits the wall when YOU are asked to make a sacrifice.
So to make yourself feel better, you buy a smaller car and purchase fanciful, "carbon credits"; kind of like bribing the environment so you can continue to pollute.
Frankly I have long since lost patience with folks like yourself, where the answer to everything is "more taxes." |
|
The problem with taxing more "dangerous" activities, is that it becomes endless. Taxation of fast cars, trans-fat, dangerous career choices, dangerous hobbies...you get the idea.
When you give the government...any government, a new excuse to tax you, that taxation never goes away. It grows and expands like a disease. Frankly, I fear runnaway taxation far more than I do tobacco. At least Americans can CHOOSE to quit smoking. Every try choosing not to pay your taxes? I wouldnt reccomend it. |
|
Impose the high smoking taxes. But then allow a smoker to get a tax deduction, maybe even a tax credit, for the cost of anti-smoking measures he undertakes to quit smoking.
IOW, if the smoker enrolls in a clinic to help him quit smoking, or even just buys a self-help book to help him quit smoking, then he can get a tax credit for that--even if he fails to quit. That way the tax only punishes smokers who refuse to even try to quit.
|
|
bob writes: "The problem with taxing more "dangerous" activities, is that it becomes endless. Taxation of fast cars, trans-fat, dangerous career choices, dangerous hobbies...you get the idea."
The best solution is to let your health insurance company charge you a surcharge on your premium for risky behaviors like those. And as part of health care reform, the Government should get a percentage of that additional premium for themselves as tax revenue.
That becomes a win-win-win deal all the way around: The health insurance companies no longer subsidize risky behavior with low premiums; the Government gets its taxes; and you and I have a powerful incentive to change our behavior to lower our health insurance premiums.
|
|
bob writes: "Frankly I have long since lost patience with folks like yourself, where the answer to everything is "more taxes.""
But you're already paying a hidden tax like this:
You pay taxes for national defense. Part of the money the Pentagon gets is used by the Navy to escort supertankers safely through the Persian Gulf (a policy that has been in effect since the Reagan Administration). If the Pentagon wasn't doing that with OUR tax money, ExxonMobil couldn't risk getting oil from that volatile part of the world--right now it's very risky there with the rising tension with Iran. And then the price of gasoline in America would be much higher as ExxonMobil would have to find oil elsewhere that might be more expensive to drill.
So we pay taxes to support the U.S. Navy to keep our gasoline prices artificially low. And thus those who drive gas-guzzlers are getting a hidden subsidy from the rest of us.
Care to guess how much gasoline would cost if al-Qaeda blew up some supertankers?
|
|