If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Contra Costa Times)   "I make a choice that I smoke, and I fully expect to pay the health-care cost, so why should I pay a higher tax?"   (contracostatimes.com) divider line 161
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7266 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Oct 2006 at 5:42 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-10-21 04:50:29 PM  
Bullshiat. Emphysema costs around ~50K a year once it kicks in. He'll eat up whatever he's paid into the system after the first year and after that he's leaching off of the taxpayer.
 
2006-10-21 04:54:43 PM  
can't play the health card--drinking and eating fatty foods and driving like an idiot also cost the taxpayers money. if we play that for smoking, then we open up the door for regulating tons of other behavior on those grounds.

high cigarette taxes are (1) social engineering by tax policies and (2) an easy, no-repercussion, safe tax vote for lawmakers who want to fund something.
 
2006-10-21 04:56:34 PM  
"I make a choice that I smoke, and I fully expect to pay the health-care cost," said Fields, 45, who has puffed cigarettes for at least half his life. "So why should I pay a higher tax?"

Remember - it's not 'prohibition', it's a 'tax increase'.

He'll eat up whatever he's paid into the system after the first year and after that he's leaching off of the taxpayer

So if the accounting department concludes that corporate slavery is more efficent than democratic government, it's ok to turn everyone into wage slaves? Hey, operational overhead is much lower when corporations make all our decisions. Think about it - no messy elections, we get rid of that pesky bill of rights, shoot all the lawyers (no more lawsuits!), and everyone punches a timecard (or else).
 
2006-10-21 04:58:47 PM  
high cigarette taxes are (1) social engineering by tax policies and (2) an easy, no-repercussion, safe tax vote for lawmakers who want to fund something.

Yeah, but the double standard here is that if YOUR side is doing it, than it's noble. If the OTHER side does it, then they're dirty scum sucking asshats.

I used to be upset at the anti-smoking crowd and their clearly anti-democratic, draconian tactics. But now I'm starting to seriously consider a tobacco smuggling operation.
 
2006-10-21 05:01:46 PM  
As an ex-smoker, I understand both sides. I understand that the habit is damaging and offensive to those around you who do not partake, but I also understand that smoking is something that's been demonized to the point where we could start throwing smokers under the train, and say "They were trying to kill our children!", and then tax to high Heaven or Hell or Whatever. The situation, like most American issues, has no rational, middle ground.

As stated above, being fat or driving like an ass are equally dangerous, and at least fatties aren't having to pay for it. Bad drivers are getting rightfully screwed by insurance companies. I guess my point is, if you're going to discrimminate, apply it evenly.

/Waits for donut tax
 
2006-10-21 05:02:52 PM  
Crap, I meant to write "...then tax the bloody corpse to high Heaven..." etc etc etc. I think I need a cigarette.
 
2006-10-21 05:03:43 PM  
As long as pot and other harmless drugs are illegal I don't want to hear any shiat from you whiny-ass smokers. Just be glad your drug is still legal.


I would gladly pay a hefty tax on pot to be able to smoke it legally...
 
2006-10-21 05:07:55 PM  
"Harmless," eh.
 
2006-10-21 05:10:25 PM  
Smoking is bad for your health.
 
2006-10-21 05:18:21 PM  
Because smokers have higher health care costs during the years that employers have to pay for it. (they have far lower costs after retirement, and as a side benefit draw less from pension and social security plans!)

Employers pay for health care. As long as this is true, they want to hold those costs down.

Oh, and it's just an unpleasant thing to be around. Since when did we ever need anything more than that to make a law about it?
 
2006-10-21 05:23:07 PM  
Don't question your government, Hacky!
 
2006-10-21 05:23:58 PM  
Employers pay for health care. As long as this is true, they want to hold those costs down.

Actually, they just want to hold down costs for the rank and file. Senior executive compensation/health care plans cover just about everything you'd imagine.

Logically, if we're going to start taking this route, we have to ban liquor, tobacco, sugar, caffine and all fatty foods. A mandatory maximum calore intake and portion sizes in all public venues has to be legislated. Additionally, doctors will have to be required to report any/all individuals who are currently overweight or who look like they're not practicing health lifestyle habits. Anyone living illegal/unhealthy lifestyles will be imprisoned and re-educated. once they've completed remedial health care prison, they report to a social worker/dietitican for periodic review of their situation.

Remember - this is ALL for your protection!
 
2006-10-21 05:27:06 PM  
MisterTweak: Employers pay for health care. As long as this is true, they want to hold those costs down.

The article is dealing with increased state taxes. The smoker in TFA already assumes higher health care costs without qualms. And for some strange reason, Weaver95 is making sense to me. I think I need to start smoking again.
 
2006-10-21 05:30:29 PM  
Weaver95 : Or we could just stop putting a gun to the taxpayer's head and making them pay for other people's stupidity.

If you run out of money and you can't sweet talk family or a private charity into providing medical care then you're out of luck.

Tough love.

/we'll pay for a proper burial though otherwise it could get a little smelly
 
2006-10-21 05:30:53 PM  
Because demand for cigarettes is fairly price inelastic. If the government needs money, better to get it from a tax that will distort economic behaviour as little as possible.
 
2006-10-21 05:32:32 PM  
umm albo, taxes are on alchohol as well, as well as taxes on gas, and higher insurance premiums for moronic drivers.
 
2006-10-21 05:34:03 PM  
Smoking-related illness/death reduces the pool of people from which the government can collect all sorts of taxes, so it's in their best interest to provide disincentives to smokers and use taxes to fund anti-smoking programs to keep people alive and healthy longer.
 
2006-10-21 05:34:27 PM  
'Sin' taxes get public acceptance easier than other types.
 
2006-10-21 05:35:48 PM  
I see this debate going well.

Nothing really to add but I watched my grandma die of emphysema - it was horrible. She was an awesome person.
 
2006-10-21 05:38:16 PM  
umm albo, taxes are on alchohol as well, as well as taxes on gas, and higher insurance premiums for moronic drivers

don't give me an "ummm" response. i know that.

alcohol and gas are taxed because they are relatively inelastic of demand and therefore dependable sources of government revenue. higher insurance premiums are not imposed by government, but by the insurance company, so they have nothing to do with the argument.
 
2006-10-21 05:38:49 PM  
mialynneb: I watched my grandma die of emphysema - it was horrible. She was an awesome person.

Me too. And mine too. :(
 
2006-10-21 05:40:52 PM  
higher insurance premiums are not imposed by government, but by the insurance company, so they have nothing to do with the argument.

Which, when you think about it, is kind of interesting. By manipulating insurance policies and payouts, you can indirectly coerce people into changing their lifestyle. And it's much more subtle and pervasive than anything congress could accomplish. All without judical review or input from the voting public.
 
2006-10-21 05:43:09 PM  
By manipulating insurance policies and payouts, you can indirectly coerce people into changing their lifestyle

but insurance rates are determined by actuarial means, not whim. and insurance companies are regulated, so i think they'd couldn't get away with imposing rates without the actuarial backing to support it
 
2006-10-21 05:47:20 PM  
albo: insurance companies are regulated

bahahaha

/carry on
 
2006-10-21 05:47:30 PM  
It's the rest of us taking advantage of the fact that smokers are stupid farks who can't control their nasty little habit.

If you don't mind being in the pocket of Big Tobacco, then you shouldn't mind being in the pocket of the rest of us either.

There's a simple solution: stop lighting up. If you don't like that option, then we're going to take advantage of you, and there isn't anything you can do about it. So farking there.
 
2006-10-21 05:50:03 PM  
so i think they'd couldn't get away with imposing rates without the actuarial backing to support it

heh. I don't know about YOUR state, but in mine half the guys regulating the insurance industry have close ties to said industry. They've either been on the board of directors for an insurance company or worked on their behalf lobbying for them in congress. They are not the most impartial of folks. Totally legal too, least in most cases.

A bit of mathmatical tap dancing and you can manipulate the actuarial tables fairly easy. With a regulatory body that's more interested in keeping their jobs than rocking the boat, you can pretty much do whatever you'd like.
 
2006-10-21 05:50:32 PM  
Next they will start taxing soda, increase taxes on alcohol (oh the drunks will be angry then! ha ha), milk, bread....you just think it won't affect you. Give it time.
 
2006-10-21 05:53:01 PM  
Being fat doesn't affect just the fat person. There's other people's furniture to consider.

Oh yeah, and there's a tax on pop here in Ohio too.

/had to replace a toilet seat broken by a fat relative
 
2006-10-21 05:53:14 PM  
As a non USAian, i've always wondered, how do things like smoking cost your healthcare? Doesn't everyone in the USA have to pay for their own health treatment? If someone has to have treatment they pay for it themselves, or more usually through their insurance that they take out specifically in case of such arisings... Also smokers insurance premiums are already much higher to take this into account. Wheres the problem?

/I wanted to get in before the flamuwarality commences.
 
2006-10-21 05:53:44 PM  
There really is no good reason to smoke, and there's no good reason not to quit.
"I can't quit" "It controls me" "I'm a helpless weenie" "I won't get cancer" "wah wah wah"

/quit cold turkey in '99 after 14 years. Will vote for the tax.
 
2006-10-21 05:54:09 PM  
No sense in arguing back and forth on Fark to change the mind of someone who'll never budge. But I will say smokers shouldn't be taken advantage of like this; I am an ex-smoker (although who ever is? You can smoke again if you want) and I feel the gov't should just ban smoking outright. And I say that for one reason only: to watch all governments make up for the sudden tax drop, by raising taxes on everyone else like they used to do to the smokers.
 
2006-10-21 05:54:48 PM  
First they came for the druggies,
But I don't toke.
Next they came for the smokers,
But I never light up.
Then they came for the drinkers,

And I shot those asshats cause I need some drug to get me through the farking day.
 
2006-10-21 05:56:05 PM  
The only reason people defend something that is killing them is because they are addicted to it.

I don't really care though, I don't feel I should pay for what you are doing to yourself by smoking, take some personal responsibility and pay for the consequences of your own actions.
 
2006-10-21 05:57:57 PM  
Haha. Because smokers are weak, and the weak get taken advantage of.
 
2006-10-21 05:58:49 PM  
Both my parents are life-long smokers (not while pregnant of course) and us kids are all non-smokers.

I hate second-hand smoke with a passion, and it was in error for such a thing to be possible in public areas and private businesses in the first place. I do not have any semblance of pity for people now under age 35 or so that smoke. However, people must remember that smoking wasn't always known as dangerous and debilitating.
I recall an old advertisement with a doctor smoking a cigarette with a sub-title along the lines of "More Doctors Smoke Camels".
(Un)fortunately, I could only find half-naked lesbian nurses with cigarettes on my GIS.
 
2006-10-21 05:59:47 PM  
I think sin taxes are despicable. If the government must take it upon itself to regulate its citizens' private lives, it should tax the unhealthy food that fills every supermarket in America and has made us the fattest nation in the world.
 
2006-10-21 06:00:56 PM  
pwhp_67

As long as pot and other harmless drugs are illegal I don't want to hear any shiat from you whiny-ass smokers. Just be glad your drug is still legal.


I would gladly pay a hefty tax on pot to be able to smoke it legally...


Sorry did I miss something? Since when was pot harmless? Tell that to the paranoid schizophrenics who've developed those conditions from years of smoking pot.
What other drugs are harmless to you?
 
2006-10-21 06:01:24 PM  
It's all these damn sick and addicted people getting in the way of profit! Damn them!
 
2006-10-21 06:04:36 PM  
As a non-smoker in Missouri, I fully plan on voting for this amendment. It'll hopefully postpone raising taxes on the rest of us.

/Suck it, smokers
 
2006-10-21 06:06:39 PM  
Because you don't pay the total cost of health care, and even if you do smokers as a whole don't. So there.

Now please go suck on your cancer stick down wind, because you smell like ass.
 
2006-10-21 06:07:25 PM  
BECAUSE YOU EXHALE.
 
2006-10-21 06:07:58 PM  
I've never met a smoker that didn't have some sort of self-confidence problems. You do it cuz you think it's cool.
 
2006-10-21 06:08:26 PM  
Answer: Cos you're farking retarded
 
2006-10-21 06:09:46 PM  
Slaxl: Tell that to the paranoid schizophrenics who've developed those conditions from years of smoking pot.

Ha ha ha. Riiiiight.
 
2006-10-21 06:11:44 PM  
We are all weak, divided, and polarized. Just because you don't smoke doesn't isolate you on a pedestal. People need a visable target and a cause, and the government needs a steady revenue stream.

Two things:

Do you honestly think governments want people to quit smoking? What idiot would destroy the revenue stream? If you think it is about anything more than money, your blind.

Second, what will the anti-smoking people do when smoking is banned altogether? Some are so in need for a cause to fight for that we will have to tax something else to pay for the rehab for those who are in withdrawl from not having a battle to wage.

I am not saying that smoking is healthy. What I am saying is that people who biatch about smoking in bars while they are pounding their seventh drink in the last hour seems a tad full of it to me.
 
2006-10-21 06:13:32 PM  
I oppose these sort of taxes for one simple reason: if California's tobacco tax passes in November I'll be paying more in tobacco taxes than it would cost to buy health insurance. I have to wonder where the rest is going. Essentially what they're asking the smoker to do is finance health insurance for the poor.

I don't really believe the state wants anyone to quit because they nearly went broke last time a tax like this went into effect, having spent their projected income well in advance. They were caught short of their anticipated windfall when a few people quit and quite a few noticed that indian reservations have the internets, too.
 
2006-10-21 06:15:55 PM  
elchip: As a non-smoker in Missouri, I fully plan on voting for this amendment. It'll hopefully postpone raising taxes on the rest of us.

/Suck it, smokers



Wow, all that crying about W "stealing your rights" and the "Rethugicans" turns out to be utter b.s. because when it comes down to it, you will use the goverment to regulate the lives of people who's choices you disagree with.
 
2006-10-21 06:19:16 PM  
The government always needs money, and who best to get it from than people who now have no choice to pay it because they were stupid enough to get addicted?
 
2006-10-21 06:21:49 PM  
It's all about framing isn't it?

Republicans aren't so much concerned with privacy rights, but don't dare touch their smoking.
 
2006-10-21 06:21:51 PM  
The Billdozer: Wow, all that crying about W "stealing your rights" and the "Rethugicans" turns out to be utter b.s. because when it comes down to it, you will use the goverment to regulate the lives of people who's choices you disagree with.

First, I've never used the word "Rethugican" that I can recall.

Second, I don't seem to remember there being a constitutional amendment against sales taxes.
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report