Rob: You make some great points about the virtual immortality of taxes. Although my ox isnt being gored in this case(I’m a militant non-smoker), the fundamental error of taxation is present here. Economically speaking, all taxes do is transfer money from the citizens to the political class, then we have to trust them to not do too much harm with our money. It is always better to contribute directly to your favorite cause than it is to have your money conficated in taxes for some ostensibly noble cause. I favor a very lean tax policy. Earmarking by the political class is just about always for vote-buying of a special interest group.
robert108 - 11:12pm on 12/14/2005
[...] Sin Tax Sillyness By Rob on December 15, 2005 at 12:08 am SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A coalition of health organizations wants to quadruple the tax on a pack of cigarettes in California to boost funding for a variety of health programs. [...]
Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P - 12:12am on 12/15/2005
And what happens after people actually quit smoking? These same health organizations will complain about the decline in tax dollars for their necessary and important health programs…
If these tax dollars are going to save the health and lives of others, don’t we have a moral obligation to smoke as much as we can?
caseydk - 06:12am on 12/15/2005
Let me get this straight---
Y’all actually want addictive, cancer-causing drugs to be cheaper and easier to get, and you want to take away funds for cancer research and prevention (which benefits society as a whole, not just smokers).
I realize y’all have a knee-jerk all-taxes-are-the-work-of-the-Antichrist thing goin’, but you might want to slow down, take a deep breath, and think about this for a minute.
Don Myers - 06:12am on 12/15/2005
Brandon:
This is yet another example of how I think for myself, rather than slavishly following a party line...unlike others I could mention (and y’all know who you are).
Cigarette smokers aren’t just harming themselves---they harm others and society at large as well. Second-hand smoke, space in cancer wards, higher Medicaid and Medicare costs, higher insurance costs, etc etc etc.
Should society at large shoulder the financial burden for that? Or should the smokers themselves, in the form of a “sin tax?"*
At the same time, the higher price might convince some of the tobacco junkies---and don’t forget, junkies are exactly who we’re dealing with here---to give ‘em up, which is also a societal good. People not getting sick is definately in the common good.
Dig?
* I hate the term “sin tax.” It’s almost as stupid as the GOP name for the estate tax. How about “usage tax?”
Don Myers - 07:12am on 12/15/2005
Don,
I think of all people, you’d be the person on this blog most likely to be against ‘sin’ taxes.
You know, let people live their lives and do whatever the hell they want without government intrusion.
Brandon - 07:12am on 12/15/2005
The temperature in Hell is dropping, because I actually agree with Don about something. Cigarette smoking does harm others, in a way that overeating, for example, does not. If our tax money was used efficiently by the political class, and if it actually made a difference, I might tend to think it was OK, but govt programs, by and large, just don’t work. That is the main reason they need to keep growing every year way beyond the rate of inflation and population growth.
“Sin tax” is another term for excise tax, which is what the tobacco tax is, in reality, so it is an appropriate way to refer to it.
Higher medical costs are mostly due to the gross inefficiencies of a centrally-controlled market, not to smokers, and is no justification for taxation, IMO. So-called government money just makes it worse.
robert108 - 08:12am on 12/15/2005
Don Myers tries to get personal, Why do you hate sex so much, lik? Is it ‘cuz you’ve never had any?
Why are you so interested in my sex life? Mind your business you dirty pervert. It is sad that you’re always trumpeting your perverted lifestyle and questioning others’ sex life. Nobody else is bringing up their sex life and you presume to question it while simultaneously acting like you’re the best thing since sliced bread? Grow up man. How sad. You’ve done this time and time again to nurmerous people on this blog. Reminds me of some immature people I knew in high school.
That would certainly explain why you’re so crabby all the goddamn time.
Don’t presume to know me because you don’t.
Any more big-headed comments? I know there will be, you can’t help yourself.
likwidshoe - 08:12am on 12/15/2005
Why do you hate sex so much, lik? Is it ‘cuz you’ve never had any?
That would certainly explain why you’re so crabby all the goddamn time.
Rob: You make some great points about the virtual immortality of taxes. Although my ox isnt being gored in this case(I’m a militant non-smoker), the fundamental error of taxation is present here. Economically speaking, all taxes do is transfer money from the citizens to the political class, then we have to trust them to not do too much harm with our money. It is always better to contribute directly to your favorite cause than it is to have your money conficated in taxes for some ostensibly noble cause. I favor a very lean tax policy. Earmarking by the political class is just about always for vote-buying of a special interest group.
[...] Sin Tax Sillyness By Rob on December 15, 2005 at 12:08 am SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A coalition of health organizations wants to quadruple the tax on a pack of cigarettes in California to boost funding for a variety of health programs. [...]
You get Rob Reiner complaining that the tax going to my pet cause is going down because you want tax to go to YOUR pet cause!
If these tax dollars are going to save the health and lives of others, don’t we have a moral obligation to smoke as much as we can?
Let me get this straight---
Y’all actually want addictive, cancer-causing drugs to be cheaper and easier to get, and you want to take away funds for cancer research and prevention (which benefits society as a whole, not just smokers).
I realize y’all have a knee-jerk all-taxes-are-the-work-of-the-Antichrist thing goin’, but you might want to slow down, take a deep breath, and think about this for a minute.
Brandon:
This is yet another example of how I think for myself, rather than slavishly following a party line...unlike others I could mention (and y’all know who you are).
Cigarette smokers aren’t just harming themselves---they harm others and society at large as well. Second-hand smoke, space in cancer wards, higher Medicaid and Medicare costs, higher insurance costs, etc etc etc.
Should society at large shoulder the financial burden for that? Or should the smokers themselves, in the form of a “sin tax?"*
At the same time, the higher price might convince some of the tobacco junkies---and don’t forget, junkies are exactly who we’re dealing with here---to give ‘em up, which is also a societal good. People not getting sick is definately in the common good.
Dig?
* I hate the term “sin tax.” It’s almost as stupid as the GOP name for the estate tax. How about “usage tax?”
Don,
I think of all people, you’d be the person on this blog most likely to be against ‘sin’ taxes.
You know, let people live their lives and do whatever the hell they want without government intrusion.
The temperature in Hell is dropping, because I actually agree with Don about something. Cigarette smoking does harm others, in a way that overeating, for example, does not. If our tax money was used efficiently by the political class, and if it actually made a difference, I might tend to think it was OK, but govt programs, by and large, just don’t work. That is the main reason they need to keep growing every year way beyond the rate of inflation and population growth.
“Sin tax” is another term for excise tax, which is what the tobacco tax is, in reality, so it is an appropriate way to refer to it.
Higher medical costs are mostly due to the gross inefficiencies of a centrally-controlled market, not to smokers, and is no justification for taxation, IMO. So-called government money just makes it worse.
Don Myers tries to get personal, Why do you hate sex so much, lik? Is it ‘cuz you’ve never had any?
Why are you so interested in my sex life? Mind your business you dirty pervert. It is sad that you’re always trumpeting your perverted lifestyle and questioning others’ sex life. Nobody else is bringing up their sex life and you presume to question it while simultaneously acting like you’re the best thing since sliced bread? Grow up man. How sad. You’ve done this time and time again to nurmerous people on this blog. Reminds me of some immature people I knew in high school.
That would certainly explain why you’re so crabby all the goddamn time.
Don’t presume to know me because you don’t.
Any more big-headed comments? I know there will be, you can’t help yourself.
Why do you hate sex so much, lik? Is it ‘cuz you’ve never had any?
That would certainly explain why you’re so crabby all the goddamn time.