smokers tax

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

My problem with over taxing cigs is from the principled view point. Every time someone in the state legislators wants to raise funds taxing cigs is in the forefront instead improving the overall tax code. I'd like to see how people would really react if the tax rate of alcohol was synchronized with that of cigs.


I remember a while ago we had a lot of people complaining about the increase auto offenses in VA. It's not tax but you can bet your ass the intent of the increase is to fleece people.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by saden1

My problem with over taxing cigs is from the principled view point. Every time someone in the state legislators wants to raise funds taxing cigs is in the forefront instead improving the overall tax code. I'd like to see how people would really react if the tax rate of alcohol was synchronized with that of cigs.


I remember a while ago we had a lot of people complaining about the increase auto offenses in VA. It's not tax but you can bet your ass the intent of the increase is to fleece people.

Being a drinker, but non-smoker, I would welcome it. Sometimes I need saving from myself.

Honestly, I can't see there being as big of an uproar from drinkers as smokers. Sure, you CAN be addicted to alcohol, but much less people are addicted to where they NEED it much like smokers and cigarettes.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

While I totally agree with you, just to play devil's advocate, would you accept higher taxes on gas to fund research for alternative fuel sources?

No, only because the auto industry has the necessary funds and the ability to already have much more fuel efficient cars on the road and they've been dragging their feet for years.

[MTK]

I'm in favor of any sort of "sin tax". Crank up the taxes on everything from booze to cigarettes to gambling. Hell, legalize pot and tax the shit outta that too.

[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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

Of course global warming is an issue but you can't be serious in thinking cranking up gas prices to discourage people from driving is a realistic solution.

Regardless, let's stick to the original topic. Comparing gas to cigarettes is too much of a stretch to even take seriously.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

I don't agree with that. I'm all in favor of paying higher taxes for something if I know where that money is going and if it's for the better good of society in general.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I don't agree with that. I'm all in favor of paying higher taxes for something if I know where that money is going and if it's for the better good of society in general.

Ok, so the money goes to help cut down on usage, to provide study for alternative sources, and if we cut down usage then we cut down polution which is a hugh benifit to society and we cut down our dependence from other nations.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Of course global warming is an issue but you can't be serious in thinking cranking up gas prices to discourage people from driving is a realistic solution.

Regardless, let's stick to the original topic. Comparing gas to cigarettes is too much of a stretch to even take seriously.

It is about as realistic as taxing cigs to curb use which you say it will. So then it would curb driving habits and a start to reducing green house gases.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

It is about as realistic as taxing cigs to curb use which you say it will. So then it would curb driving habits and a start to reducing green house gases.

I'm not the one saying it, there have been plenty of studies done that support that.

At what cost will jacking up gas prices have on the economy?? That would far outweigh the benefits to the environment.

Cranking up prices isn't a blanket solution to help curb all behaviors, not sure why you're trying to make it seem that way.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok, so the money goes to help cut down on usage, to provide study for alternative sources, and if we cut down usage then we cut down polution which is a hugh benifit to society and we cut down our dependence from other nations.

All of this research is already in existence and isn't in need of more funding through extra gas taxes. If you can prove to me that this type of R&D is in desperate need of extra funding, you might have a point.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

All of this research is already in existence and isn't in need of more funding through extra gas taxes. If you can prove to me that this type of R&D is in desperate need of extra funding, you might have a point.

Rebuilding the nations instructors seem to be all over the news these days, what about using the money for that and getting me to and from work quicker?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm not the one saying it, there have been plenty of studies done that support that.

At what cost will jacking up gas prices have on the economy?? That would far outweigh the benefits to the environment.

Cranking up prices isn't a blanket solution to help curb all behaviors, not sure why you're trying to make it seem that way.

I was just making a point using your argument for a cig tax. If you think about our conversation on this it has done a 180. I'm using your argument for a cig tax to make a argument for a gas tax and your using my argument against a cig tax to make your argument against a gas tax. LOL

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

Well, when gas prices went from around $2 a gallon to around $3.29 a gallon, did that reduce our gas cunsumption?
No it didn't...why? Cause we NEED gas to get around and go to work. Not all of us can car pool or take the public transportation system.
Taxing gas would only hurt us as a country, not help anything.

Some of you are approaching Matty with ideas of taxing gas to fund alternative fuels. 1- that's not feasible since no one has that intention. 2- How about use the "sin taxes" to fund alternative fuels research?

Not to turn this into an alternative fuels thread, but we already have e-85, it's all about letting the oil companies go, and getting the government to agree to make that switch. People are hesitant.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by firstdown

It is about as realistic as taxing cigs to curb use which you say it will. So then it would curb driving habits and a start to reducing green house gases.

While I applaud the effort for thinking outside the box, this is just not realistic.
Taxing cigs / raising prices has already shown to reduce smoking (as a previous link proved) yet taxing gas / raising prices has shown to not even phase america because we have to use something to fuel our transportation. Right now, we have no other option. But you fail to recognize that we NEED gas (or some other option to fuel our transportation) but we do not in any form or fashion need Cigarettes. They are completely useless to society and in fact are actually a huge negative on society in terms of cancer and other expensive health issues they cause.
No one has been successful in saying "well if you tax cigs, then what about..." (except maybe alcohol which are similar vices). I'd like to see cigs at $10 a pack. Obviously people are too dumb to stop smoking on their own (or too addicted), but if you raise the price to amazing levels, more and more would quit, and those that are suffering smoking related illnesses would be much less of a burden on society.