So how muh longer until we can say Obama sucks?

[Flame Of Liberty]

IFF, Rouge I don't really see how can you say that Azure is reaching.

Did Obama promise not to increase any form of tax? Yes
Is he going to tax tobacco more? Yes

Where's the reach?

Yeah you could say that if you quit smoking this tax increase doesn't affect you, but that's like saying you could quit your job and the income tax increase won't affect you...

[Ronald Pagan]

Azure: Sticking up for poor white smokers everywhere.

[Ronald Pagan]

I do have to agree in a sense.

A tobacco tax is regressive. No question about it.

However, it is necessary from a social cost perspective. Taxing tobacco will make people smoke less. That's good.

[Ronald Pagan]

If you want to reduce smoking, educate the people.....don't tax the hell out of their hard-earned money, and expect them to make good decisions. There is a reason they smoke, and as much as they should just 'quit smoking'....like IFF, someone who obviously isn't a smoker, and has probably never dealt with an addiction to nicotine, or a lower class lifestyle....thinks they should.....it takes a lot more than just 'quitting.'

This statement is categorically false. There is a positive price elasticity of demand for tobacco products as evidenced in countless academic studies.

Protip: Anecdotal evidence and personal presumptions are not convincing and can work against the arguments you make by biasing the reader against you.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

This statement is categorically false. There is a positive price elasticity of demand for tobacco products as evidenced in countless academic studies.

Link? Not that I doubt you, I just like the read studies myself.

I would assume that like anything else, price goes up, people buy less. But this isn't like gasoline, where the price went up to $1.40/L, and people obviously drove less. We're talking about addicts here. People who knowingly kill themselves.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

I do have to agree in a sense.

A tobacco tax is regressive. No question about it.

However, it is necessary from a social cost perspective. Taxing tobacco will make people smoke less. That's good.

I disagree. A 'sin tax'....is just another government manipulation to get more money. Social cost perspective or not, people should be making choices themselves. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to quit smoking.

Although it is pretty funny that the majority of this money is going towards child health care services. While I disagree with the increase, I laugh in the face of smokers everywhere. Suddenly the drain they are being on society might actually help provide health care for people that need it.....i.e. children.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I disagree. A 'sin tax'....is just another government manipulation to get more money. Social cost perspective or not, people should be making choices themselves. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to quit smoking.

Although it is pretty funny that the majority of this money is going towards child health care services. While I disagree with the increase, I laugh in the face of smokers everywhere. Suddenly the drain they are being on society might actually help provide health care for people that need it.....i.e. children.

I just don't see how this is a bad idea. What are the outcomes here? 1. Fewer smokers. 2. Better health care outcomes for children.

Basically, the only thing that makes it bad is that to you it's a broken promise, because you feel that when Obama promised not to raise "taxes" he should have specified that he meant "income taxes." I don't see it as a big deal--and I certainly don't find this to be the smoking gun that you're making it out to be. I fully support an increased cigarette tax; it's a fantastic idea--and not at all inconsistent with Obama's campaign rhetoric, which at least implicitly was about income and payroll taxes... which he has not increased for people earning less than 250,000 dollars--and I'd bet money that he won't.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Azure

I disagree. A 'sin tax'....is just another government manipulation to get more money. Social cost perspective or not, people should be making choices themselves. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to quit smoking.

.

People who are a future, disproportionate, burden on the health care system are making a choice as to whether or not they will continue in that direction or if they are going to pay a greater proportion share of what their true, future cost to society will be.

User pay. I have no problem with higher cigarette taxes.

Still, it's always been a mystery to me why governments wouldn't be using a regulatory system to reduce or eliminate entirely the addictive qualities of cigarettes, so people could make an easier choice.

I'll let others confirm this but I think lung cancer levels we see today are actually a fairly recent development in the last 50 to 60 years, even though smoking has been around a lot longer. I think the additives to cigarettes that make them taste better but also contribute to their addictive nature are the issue, not necessarily tobacco itself. Feel free to prove me wrong on that perception.

If so, that might be the better way to go that higher taxes. There are some addictive personalities - a certain percentage of the population - who will never be able to quit, even though that might be their choice.

Cowperson

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

This statement is categorically false. There is a positive price elasticity of demand for tobacco products as evidenced in countless academic studies.

Protip: Anecdotal evidence and personal presumptions are not convincing and can work against the arguments you make by biasing the reader against you.

That's quite interesting. I've read studies that say addicts will spend themselves into oblivion to maintain their habit, be it, drugs, alcohol, gambling or smoking. Of course, this could all happen at a price point that the market will bear.

Of course, there's also the danger of a cigarette black market emerging to counter the price gouge of the government(via the natives most likely as they are tax exempt and have special border privileges, or organized crime).

Personally, I am in favor of cigarette sin taxes. Unlike alcohol, which is beneficial if consumed responsibly, cigarettes are proven killers, even in small dosages, which are in turn, strains on the healthcare sector (even in the US).

[badnarik]

Smokers and obese people die younger and cost less in the long run.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Personally, I am in favor of cigarette sin taxes. Unlike alcohol, which is beneficial if consumed responsibly, cigarettes are proven killers, even in small dosages, which are in turn, strains on the healthcare sector (even in the US).

So is fast food.

822 people die per day from obesity related problems, while 13,500 die from smoking problems.

Kicker is....the latter is falling, while the former is rising.

How soon until the trend changes, and how soon until a sin tax is put on fast food?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by badnarik

Smokers and obese people die younger and cost less in the long run.

I've always questioned the veracity of that claim.

Sure, they tend to live less, and less life expectancy tends to mean less time in a hospital... but one would think what they are being treated for would be quite expensive. Can't imagine Quadruple Bypass Surgeries are cheap.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I've always questioned the veracity of that claim.

Sure, they tend to live less, and less life expectancy tends to mean less time in a hospital... but one would think what they are being treated for would be quite expensive. Can't imagine Quadruple Bypass Surgeries are cheap.

I would imagine that they place a greater burden on society, despite their shortened life span.

Assuming no genetic conditions(which only 2-5% of the population has anyways).....a relatively healthy person only goes to the doctor once every 4-6 months, and probably never has to have any sort of serious surgery, barring an accident, until they are 60+ years old.

[Azure]

Also, if one agrees that people who are a bigger burden on society than the rest of us should 'pay' more, would you also agree with hospitals in the US forcing patients with cigarette related illnesses pay upfront in order to receive treatment?

Or maybe insurance companies shouldn't be paying for the treatment that arises from cigarette related illnesses?

Maybe the Canadian government should refuse to provide care for those people who deliberately do unhealthy things to their body, forcing them to seek treatment.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

So is fast food.

822 people die per day from obesity related problems, while 13,500 die from smoking problems.

Kicker is....the latter is falling, while the former is rising.

How soon until the trend changes, and how soon until a sin tax is put on fast food?

Well, the latter would have to fall a lot before it's "only as bad" as obesity. Those numbers, to me, make the opposite point--that as bad a killer as obesity is (And you'll get no argument from me that it's a major problem), smoking is almost 17 times as harmful.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Also, if one agrees that people who are a bigger burden on society than the rest of us should 'pay' more, would you also agree with hospitals in the US forcing patients with cigarette related illnesses pay upfront in order to receive treatment?

Or maybe insurance companies shouldn't be paying for the treatment that arises from cigarette related illnesses?

Maybe the Canadian government should refuse to provide care for those people who deliberately do unhealthy things to their body, forcing them to seek treatment.

Not in the slightest. Denying a sick person care, even if you're only doing so by making that care unaffordable, is directly contrary to the purpose of medicine. The only way to offset those costs is to tax the activity that caused the increased risk in the first place.

Are you saying you'd like to see a "Big Mac Tax" instead? I actually think taxes on unhealthy foods are a decent idea in principle, but probably unworkable in the real world--because most foods are okay in moderation. Cigarettes aren't okay in moderation; even a light smoker has an increased risk of getting sick, dying and costing the system money.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Are you saying you'd like to see a "Big Mac Tax" instead? I actually think taxes on unhealthy foods are a decent idea in principle, but probably unworkable in the real world--because most foods are okay in moderation. Cigarettes aren't okay in moderation; even a light smoker has an increased risk of getting sick, dying and costing the system money.

This is precisely it. Even a Baconator has some nutritional benefit in moderation. As well, compromises can be made with fast food to help mitigate obesity, such as trans fat free oils. Cigarettes would require a totally undesired makeover, and even then, tobacco itself is a proven carcinogen.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Not in the slightest. Denying a sick person care, even if you're only doing so by making that care unaffordable, is directly contrary to the purpose of medicine. The only way to offset those costs is to tax the activity that caused the increased risk in the first place.

Are you saying you'd like to see a "Big Mac Tax" instead? I actually think taxes on unhealthy foods are a decent idea in principle, but probably unworkable in the real world--because most foods are okay in moderation. Cigarettes aren't okay in moderation; even a light smoker has an increased risk of getting sick, dying and costing the system money.

But Obama promised he wouldn't! He promised!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

But Obama promised he wouldn't! He promised!

No, you just heard him wrong. What he said was: "I will not increase your tacks."

Your own fault for not reading the fine print. Enjoy your Big Mac-Tax!!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, the latter would have to fall a lot before it's "only as bad" as obesity. Those numbers, to me, make the opposite point--that as bad a killer as obesity is (And you'll get no argument from me that it's a major problem), smoking is almost 17 times as harmful.

Obesity rates doubled from 1990-2000. They are expected to double again from 2000-2010.

Which means that we have yet to see the effect the generation now will have on the health care system.

Is it at the same level as smoking? Obviously not. Doesn't mean that its not a drain on society. And if you want to tax things that are a 'drain' on society, tax junk food.