smokers tax

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Schneed, check this study out. We went over this argument a few pages ago, but basically, some believe that cigarettes actually save the government money because smokers often die before they get their social security checks, before they use a lot of medicare payments, etc. While cancer treatments aren't cheap, nursing home care is ridiculously expensive.

OK I read through it, this study is pretty flimsy. First it offers no data, it's just a text. Any good study shows the results of statistical tests. But even getting past that, it does not account for the following:

- People who die at 60 of smoking-related problems obviously do not work past age 60. A percentage of those who live past 60 continue to work, contributing tax dollars and to the nation's GDP. The cost side is not the only concern here.

- The cost associated with healthcare to those who don't smoke, but are affected by second-hand smoke. The study only analyzed the health affects on smokers - second hand smoke is responsible for the development of asthma in young children that they often don't shake. Asthma medications are some of the most expensive medications on the market.

- The study was done in 1998. In the last 9 years, costs of healthcare have dramatically increased, especially for pulmonary functions. Lung volume reduction surgery is now a generally accepted methodology for treating emphysema - this surgery came to bear in the last 3 years. It is incredibly expensive and requires very long rehab stays in hospital rehab units. In addition, cardiac catheterizations, cardiac stents, and the usage of ventricular assist devices has become much more prevalent since 1998. These surgeries are also extremely expensive. The costs of nursing home care have not dramatically increased since 1998 - the standard of care in nursing homes has not changed. It is not a section of the healthcare system that sees great growth in expense - all you're paying for is nursing hours, and as any nurse can tell you, they haven't seen many pay increases over the years. I don't have any links, I'm just exposed to this stuff through working in the finance department at a network of hospitals.

[Hog1]

I am a non-smoker. I am a non-drinker. I am sure I have other nons that elude me at the moment.
I would never support any such measure, as it is escalating to another freedom gone. If you do, the next time it may be something important to you.
We will live to regret the loss of our "Freedom's" in this country due to the actions of misguided zealots.
America, land of the..................used to be free, home of the brave?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I am a non-smoker. I am a non-drinker. I am sure I have other nons that elude me at the moment.
I would never support any such measure, as it is escalating to another freedom gone. If you do, the next time it may be something important to you.
We will live to regret the loss of our "Freedom's" in this country due to the actions of misguided zealots.
America, land of the..................used to be free, home of the brave?

While I do agree...I only agree to an extent.
This has never been "the land of the free" cause it has always cost us to live here. (granted out of context, I know)

[724Skinsfan]

My defintion of freedom:

-Going wherever I choose in this country without a government officials approval or requiring me to show them papers.
-Having the choice to purchase anything I want using multiple forms of payment (credit, check, atm card, cash, pennies, barter, etc).
-Buying land or personal property.
-Choosing the profession that I want provided I show I have the acumen or neceassary skill set.
-Voting for a public servant that I feel represents my values and societal expectations.
-Bitching about the government on an internet discussion forum and not being arrested for it.

I do feel the cigarette smokers have been picked on in recent years as far as excessive taxation goes. I wish everyone would stop buying them but that's just me having a hard time understanding people with chemical dependency.

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I am a non-smoker. I am a non-drinker. I am sure I have other nons that elude me at the moment.
I would never support any such measure, as it is escalating to another freedom gone. If you do, the next time it may be something important to you.
We will live to regret the loss of our "Freedom's" in this country due to the actions of misguided zealots.
America, land of the..................used to be free, home of the brave?

I'm not sure this is taking away any freedoms... you'll still be able to smoke cigs, but you'll just have to pay a premium.

I'd like to fly to the moon, but it just costs more than any of us can afford.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I am a non-smoker. I am a non-drinker. I am sure I have other nons that elude me at the moment.
I would never support any such measure, as it is escalating to another freedom gone. If you do, the next time it may be something important to you.
We will live to regret the loss of our "Freedom's" in this country due to the actions of misguided zealots.
America, land of the..................used to be free, home of the brave?

We are still the GREAT AMERICA we were yesterday and yes HOME OF THE BRAVE & LAND OF THE FREE.

But that doesn't mean you lost any freedom, your just paying more for that freedom. If land were only free....hum....? Be nice!

There has always been a price for the freedoms we have like it or not, just look at your paycheck next time thats always a big reminder.

Wanna play gotta pay, can't pay can't play. NO MATTER WHAT THE GAME.

[saden1]

Equal treatment under the law and fairness is what this issue comes down to. The government can tax whatever the hell it wants under the constitution but that doesn't make it right to over tax cigarettes because the majority of society doesn't care for it.

As for being free and all that, I'd like a definition of what it means to be free.

[MTK]

Increasing taxes on cigarettes certainly can cause a decrease in the number of smokers.

ACS :: NYC Mayor Signs Law Upping Cost Of Cigarettes

Studies have shown that when the price of cigarettes increases, the number of youth who smoke decreases. One study the mayor cited said a 22% tax increase would reduce smoking among youth by 15%. That would mean roughly 70,000 less smokers, which will prevent more than 20,000 additional premature deaths, he said.

Economics of Tobacco - About this site

Myth 5: Tobacco addiction is so strong that simply raising taxes will not reduce demand; therefore, raising taxes is not justified

Reality: Scores of studies have shown that increased taxes reduce the number of smokers and the number of smoking-related deaths. Price increases induce some smokers to quit and prevent others from becoming regular or persistent smokers. They also reduce the number of ex-smokers returning to cigarettes and reduce consumption among continuing smokers. Children and adolescents are more responsive to changes in the price of consumer goods than adults-that is, if the price goes up, they are more likely to reduce their consumption. This intervention would therefore have a big impact on them. Similarly, people on low incomes are more price-responsive than those on high -incomes, so there is likely to be a bigger impact in developing countries where tobacco consumption is still increasing. Models developed for this report show that tax increases that would raise the real price of cigarettes by 10 percent worldwide would cause 40 million smokers alive in 1995 to quit and prevent a minimum of 10 million tobacco-related deaths.

I say tax the shit out of cigarettes.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Increasing taxes on cigarettes certainly can cause a decrease in the number of smokers.

ACS :: NYC Mayor Signs Law Upping Cost Of Cigarettes



Economics of Tobacco - About this site



I say tax the shit out of cigarettes.

So you could make the argument, that taxing cigarettes save lives! Sweet.
I agree...tax the shit out of them.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Increasing taxes on cigarettes certainly can cause a decrease in the number of smokers.

ACS :: NYC Mayor Signs Law Upping Cost Of Cigarettes



Economics of Tobacco - About this site



I say tax the shit out of cigarettes.

Whith that logic I guess you would not have a problem with a $3.00 gas tax making gas aroung $6.00 a gallon.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Whith that logic I guess you would not have a problem with a $3.00 gas tax making gas aroung $6.00 a gallon.

What does gas have to do with cigarettes?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

What does gas have to do with cigarettes?

I think he was trying to say that, if taxes can help kick a bad habit, we should tax the hell out of gas. After all, gas is the cause of wars, global warming, and the second-hand inhalation of toxic fumes.

I think gas is in a different category than cigarettes because our economy runs on it, but I see his point.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

What does gas have to do with cigarettes?

increasing taxes on gas will reduce the number of cars on the street. This will lead to less pollution and thus reduce respiratory problems?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

increasing taxes on gas will reduce the number of cars on the street. This will lead to less pollution and thus reduce respiratory problems?

The connection between the two is still a bit of a stretch. Nobody needs cigarettes, if you tax the shit out of them it's not going to negatively impact the economy, where if you double the price of gas it will definitely hurt the economy.

Sure, reducing the number of cars on the road will positively impact the environment, but it's not realistic. Alternative fuels and increasing fuel efficiency is the most realistic solution.

As for smokers, F 'em. If they're dumb enough to dig themselves an early grave then I have no pity for them no matter how high the prices of cigarettes go.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

What does gas have to do with cigarettes?

You have said in earlier threads that you believe global warm is real and we need to do something about it. If you think a high tax will curb people from smoking then we must assume that a high tax on gas will curb consumption. If global warming is that big of a consern then it would make sense to have the higher tax to save the planet v/s taxing cigs which would only save smokers.

The other reason I made that point is because people don't have problems with others paying high taxes but when it effects them then they have a problem with the tax and from your past post you made my point.