Skip to content
The Browns Board
Theme
  • System
  • Light
  • Dark
  • Login
  • Register
  • Forums
  • Recent
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Donate
  1. Home
  2. Political Discussion
  3. Smoking Tax

Smoking Tax

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Political Discussion
7 Posts 3 Posters 771 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • smalls1129 S
    • 210 Posts
    • 0 Reputation
    S smalls1129 wrote on last edited by
    #1

    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.

    ? 1 Reply Last reply
    Quote Reply
    • S smalls1129

      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.

      mz. ?
      • Posts
      • 0 Reputation
      ? mz. wrote on last edited by
      #2

      @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?

      S 1 Reply Last reply
      Quote Reply
      • ? Guest

        @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?

        smalls1129 S
        • 210 Posts
        • 0 Reputation
        S smalls1129 wrote on last edited by
        #3

        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?

        1 Reply Last reply
        Quote Reply
        • mz. ?
          • Posts
          • 0 Reputation
          ? mz. wrote on last edited by
          #4

          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.

          S 1 Reply Last reply
          Quote Reply
          • ? Guest

            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.

            smalls1129 S
            • 210 Posts
            • 0 Reputation
            S smalls1129 wrote on last edited by
            #5

            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?

            1 Reply Last reply
            Quote Reply
            • mz. ?
              • Posts
              • 0 Reputation
              ? mz. wrote on last edited by
              #6

              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.

              1 Reply Last reply
              Quote Reply
              • Mr. T Mr. TM
                • 7k Posts
                • 184 Reputation
                Mr. TM Mr. T wrote on last edited by
                #7

                Maybe the Government should sue or tax the indians, they are the ones who introduced tobacco to the white man. 😆

                Head or Gut?
                1 Reply Last reply
                Quote Reply

                Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                With your input, this post could be even better 💗

                Register Login
                Reply
                • Reply as topic
                Log in to reply
                • Oldest to Newest
                • Newest to Oldest
                • Most Votes


                Theme
                • System
                • Light
                • Dark
                The Browns Board Terms Privacy

                The Browns Board is an independent fan community. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the Cleveland Browns, Cleveland Cavaliers, Cleveland Guardians, the NFL, NBA, MLB, or any of their affiliates. Team names, logos, and other marks are the property of their respective owners.

                • First post
                  Last post
                0
                • Forums
                • Recent
                • Popular
                • Users
                • Donate