Lil Red Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 so Democrats are saying that the way to pay for the increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is to increase the amount of federal taxes that you pay on cigarettes. [url="http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/democrats-expan.html"]News Source here.[/url] [url="http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=47871"]Other Source here.[/url] do you think this is a bad or good idea? [quote]Tobacco Tax In related news, Democrats chose an "unlikely source" to fund the expansion of SCHIP by choosing to use a 156% increase in the tobacco tax, or 61 cents per pack, the AP/Contra Costa Times reports. During House and Senate debates about the SCHIP bill, the "demographics of smoking and taxation received scant attention," perhaps "because many Democrats and Republicans agree that cigarettes are the best target for tax increase if the insurance program were to grow," according to the AP/Times. However, "a few lawmakers ... took a swing," the AP/Times reports. About 33% of U.S. adults living below the poverty level are smokers, as compared to 23.5% of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics (Babington, AP/Contra Costa Times, 10/1).[/quote] i think it is a bad idea. for one, a disproportionate amount of smokers are poor. so health insurance for poor kids will be paid for by poor adults. for two, i think it is not good fiscal responsibility. if this tax increase discourages people from smoking, then where are the funds for the program going to come from? your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 any tax that's regressive is a poor one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 All taxes are regressive; some more so than others. Smoking is a luxury. If you are too poor to afford cigs, then simply stop smoking. It's not comparable to any necessity in life. Beer as well, much as I hate to say it, is a luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 who care is if it's luxury or needed. it should be your right to smoke, and you shouldn't be tarteted just cause it's a luxury, to pay for the problems of other people. what would be tons more fair would be taxing the rich more. not that that's the right solution either. luxory or not doesn't have any bearing on your right to smoke legally i don't htink. i might wonder if such a law would be unconstitutional. congres does have much ability to tax, but they also have to give equal protection under the law. so i guess if they taxed booze etc then it might be legal, but they still shouldn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 since i have no problem peer-pressuring smoking cigarettes out of existence, i don't really care. although, the potential to decrease smokers and thus eventually run out of funds that way is legit. honestly, i don't have problems with "luxury" taxes, like on alcohol and tobacco. the government does need revenue (have you seen roads in CA or PA? ) for legitimate things that i like like driving and public libraries (lol, can anyone think of anymore good examples? oh, animal shelters. ), and paying a "priviledge" fee for non-necessity items isn't unreasonable. its taxes on my INCOME that i need to EAT and pay for SHELTER that get my goat. oh and one day, i'm sure i'll be peeved about property taxes too, since i'm sorry, a house isn't a luxury. but after food, clothes, heat, and home, booze and cigs are definitely not necessities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 [quote]for one, a disproportionate amount of smokers are poor.[/quote] all the more reason NOT to smoke. a) cigarettes are crazy expensive currently, so stop wasting your money and 2) if you're that poor, you pry can't afford good healthcare, so smoking is going to land you in a heap of trouble when it starts affecting your health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adt6247 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 [quote name='Lil Red' post='1396348' date='Oct 2 2007, 12:24 AM']i think it is a bad idea. for one, a disproportionate amount of smokers are poor. so health insurance for poor kids will be paid for by poor adults. for two, i think it is not good fiscal responsibility. if this tax increase discourages people from smoking, then where are the funds for the program going to come from? your thoughts?[/quote] I disagree strongly. It is a consumption-based excise tax. The poor do not need cigarettes. Also, if you follow your constitutional history, excise taxes and tarrifs were the two types of taxes allowed to be collected by the federal government, until the passage of the 16th amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 lol thank you, couldn't think of the proper term for a luxury tax. excise tax. yay Whiskey Rebellion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adt6247 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 (edited) [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1396509' date='Oct 2 2007, 11:11 AM']who care is if it's luxury or needed. it should be your right to smoke, and you shouldn't be tarteted just cause it's a luxury, to pay for the problems of other people. what would be tons more fair would be taxing the rich more. not that that's the right solution either. luxory or not doesn't have any bearing on your right to smoke legally i don't htink. i might wonder if such a law would be unconstitutional. congres does have much ability to tax, but they also have to give equal protection under the law. so i guess if they taxed booze etc then it might be legal, but they still shouldn't do it.[/quote] It's certainly constitutional. Read article 1, section 8, paragraph 1 of the US constitution -- it specifically allows exise taxes. Edited October 2, 2007 by adt6247 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 okay, i'm pretty much with everyone about who cares if you're poor and you smoke. but honestly, the thing that worries me is the fact that it will probably discourage some from smoking, leading to less revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adt6247 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 [quote name='Lil Red' post='1396635' date='Oct 2 2007, 04:03 PM']okay, i'm pretty much with everyone about who cares if you're poor and you smoke. but honestly, the thing that worries me is the fact that it will probably discourage some from smoking, leading to less revenue.[/quote] I quite frankly think things would be a lot better in this country if the federal government suddenly had 95% less revenue. They might actually cut wasteful spending... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 the problem is, once the government has a power, its nearly impossible to get it to give it up. so if they start this program, and the funds do run out (because people, pray God, stop smoking), then they're going to want $$ from somewhere else. uhoh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I think we should give cigarettes to the kids to get them hooked, so they can pay their own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1396509' date='Oct 2 2007, 10:11 AM']who care is if it's luxury or needed. it should be your right to smoke, and you shouldn't be tarteted just cause it's a luxury, to pay for the problems of other people. what would be tons more fair would be taxing the rich more. not that that's the right solution either. luxory or not doesn't have any bearing on your right to smoke legally i don't htink. i might wonder if such a law would be unconstitutional. congres does have much ability to tax, but they also have to give equal protection under the law. so i guess if they taxed booze etc then it might be legal, but they still shouldn't do it.[/quote] It doesn't matter. Right now it is not politically correct to smoke. Smokers are easy targets, so they are taken advantage of. That's what it comes down to, not right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional, but what is deemed OK for you by the mass media and the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now