<![CDATA[Smoking Tax]]>Well the federal governments smoking tax is now in effect and I was wondering what everyone thought about it? This isn't really partisan b/c both sides at the State and Federal level have levied them. I am sure that most non-smokers (and even some smokers) could give two rats azz about "sin" taxes such as this BUT:

1) How can the government talk out both sides on this one; "we want you to quit do to the health consequences" but "we really need some additional funding while you are smoking so we're going to charge you 1.01 each pack of smokes you buy"?

2) This is setting up to be a straw man argument on a bunch of goods in the long run. B/C eventually the price of smokes is going to 'thin' the smoking heard- then revenue goes down b/c of lack of smokers- then we have to tax something else to keep paying for program X.

-Point being, unless the amount of smokers starts to grow or at least stay steady they ("THEM") are going to have to supplement revenue with some new tax.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/3937/smoking-taxRSS for NodeThu, 01 Oct 2026 04:25:52 GMTThu, 02 Apr 2009 20:23:09 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Smoking Tax on Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:56:27 GMT]]>Maybe the Government should sue or tax the indians, they are the ones who introduced tobacco to the white man. 😆

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/57951https://brownsboard.com/post/57951Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:56:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Smoking Tax on Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:07:43 GMT]]>Nah, doesn't really concern me. If there is something I deem some future, fictious tax makes it too expensive to buy/warrant me buying, I'll make a decision then.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/57871https://brownsboard.com/post/57871Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:07:43 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Smoking Tax on Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:09:26 GMT]]>

mz. said:

They're not being disingenuous at all. They are saying something's bad for you, they are not calling it illegal. Then they are taxing the product. Fine by me.

Fair enough, the federal tax (at least here in OH) now represents a little under 20% of the total cost(1.01/5.55). You're not worried at all which product is going to be taxed next is if a decent amount of smoker's quit? If it were Coffee or Soda Pop that got taxed to make up for revenue would that bother you?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/57837https://brownsboard.com/post/57837Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:09:26 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Smoking Tax on Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:02:46 GMT]]>They're not being disingenuous at all. They are saying something's bad for you, they are not calling it illegal. Then they are taxing the product. Fine by me.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/57835https://brownsboard.com/post/57835Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:02:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Smoking Tax on Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:00:09 GMT]]>

mz. said:

What does one thing really have to do with the other?

Maybe they don't; at the very least they are being disingenuous. By their own studies and warnings they acknowledge that nicotine is one of the most addictive 'drugs'. And they are taking advantage of that knowing that people will keep buying them no matter the tax. At the same time they rail about the health care drain that smoker's put on the system. I could be wrong but wasn't that one of the rationals behind the Big Tobacco lawsuits?

So they've put children's health care on the back of smoker's, while maintaining they would 'prefer' everyone to quit. That doesn't seem a bit odd to you?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/57834https://brownsboard.com/post/57834Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:00:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Smoking Tax on Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:40:01 GMT]]>

@smalls1129 said:

How can the government talk out both sides on this one; "we want you to quit do to the health consequences" but "we really need some additional funding while you are smoking so we're going to charge you 1.01 each pack of smokes you buy"?

What does one thing really have to do with the other?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/57827https://brownsboard.com/post/57827Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:40:01 GMT