http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298663,00.html

 

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats have chosen an unlikely source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in children's health coverage: people with relatively little money and education. :eek: :eek:

 

The program expansion passed by the House and Senate last week would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue.

 

Democrats, who wrote the legislation and provided most of its votes, generally portray themselves as champions of the poor. :rolleyes: They do not dispute that the tax plan would hit poor communities disproportionately, but they say it is worth it to provide health insurance to millions of modest-income children.

I have zero problems with putting more tax on cigarettes, who cares who smokes them. It is ironic because I would say that cigarettes cause a sizable area of the widespread need for healthcare (not necessarily children, though, just saying).

 

This seems like a far-fetched attempt to put down the Democrats.

I have zero problems with putting more tax on cigarettes, who cares who smokes them. It is ironic because I would say that cigarettes cause a sizable area of the widespread need for healthcare (not necessarily children, though, just saying).

 

This seems like a far-fetched attempt to put down the Democrats.

 

Agreed - on all points.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298663,00.html

 

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats have chosen an unlikely source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in children's health coverage: people with relatively little money and education. :eek: :eek:

 

The program expansion passed by the House and Senate last week would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue.

 

Democrats, who wrote the legislation and provided most of its votes, generally portray themselves as champions of the poor. :rolleyes: They do not dispute that the tax plan would hit poor communities disproportionately, but they say it is worth it to provide health insurance to millions of modest-income children.

Well said!

 

Cigarette taxes. alcohol taxes, and the stupidity tax (a/k/a state lotteries) are the most regressive taxes on the poor. Many children go to sleep hungry in this country because mom or dad blow too much of their paychecks on beer, smokes, and lottery tickets. Democrats tend to be bigger supporters of these regressive taxes, but many Republicans fall right into line and go along with these money grabs "for the sake of the children."

Well said!

 

Cigarette taxes. alcohol taxes, and the stupidity tax (a/k/a state lotteries) are the most regressive taxes on the poor. Many children go to sleep hungry in this country because mom or dad blow too much of their paychecks on beer, smokes, and lottery tickets. Democrats tend to be bigger supporters of these regressive taxes, but many Republicans fall right into line and go along with these money grabs "for the sake of the children."

 

Mom and Dad don't have to buy cigarettes, and since they are poor anyways, at least this way the kids will have healthcare, unlike no tax.

Mom and Dad don't have to buy cigarettes, and since they are poor anyways, at least this way the kids will have healthcare, unlike no tax.

True, mom and dad don't have to buy cigarettes, but mom and dad will buy cigarettes and the higher the cost of those cigarettes the more money will be diverted from other parts of the family budget.

 

Taxing people who are addicted to tobacco, alcoholics, and compulsive gamblers does not mprove the health of kids. All that is accomplished is that the government takes a bigger cut of the parents' paychecks because smokers will smoke, drunks will drink, and gamblers will gamble and their children will suffer collateral damage as a result. No tax will change that fact.

 

Politicians like raising cigarette taxes because poor people don't vote as often as wealthier people and when they do vote, they tend to vote for Democrats regardless of the consequences.

 

IMO, it is extremely cynical to raise taxes on a deadly product like cigarettes in the name of improving health care instead of having the political guts to propose making tobacco use illegal. Tobacco is a cash cow for state and federal governments and they are milking it for all its worth.

Tobacco is a cash cow for state and federal governments and they are milking it for all its worth.

Typical of any novice who doesn't know the first thing about sustaining the growth of a business, these legislators are going to kill their cash cow with no regard to growing any calves that need to take her place.

 

The problem with this is that government grows to depend on the revenue stream generated by tobacco, but they are making it so cost prohibitive that more people decide it's not worth it and quit... leaving a gaping maw of government need that must be filled, but instead of simply cutting the programs they are funding with tobacco taxes, they will end up taking it from us elsewhere.

 

I'm tired of letting morons who couldn't successfully run a mom and pop business, negatively influence the greatest economy in the world.

 

I do not smoke. In fact, I can't stand cigarettes... but this is the same "genius" thinking that demands that we raise taxes on those evil oil companies... like they're not going to pass that increase in doing business directly to their customers... us.

 

Why can't people see that virtually every tax is either directly or indirectly a tax on all of us? We went to war with Great Britain over what today would be considered an infinitessimal increase in the tax on tea. Why are we so soft?

 

It's time to start cutting all the failed and failing state and federal programs that simply aren't working... along with all the government employees we're paying to keep the programs that aren't working, not working.

 

It's insanity.

 

We punish success and reward failure like no other successful country in the history of the world. We are going to tax ourselves into the dustbin of history.

I have zero problems with putting more tax on cigarettes, who cares who smokes them. It is ironic because I would say that cigarettes cause a sizable area of the widespread need for healthcare (not necessarily children, though, just saying).

 

This seems like a far-fetched attempt to put down the Democrats.

If it's cutting peoples lives short, wouldn't if be costing less in the long run?

I assume we're talking about SCHIP, so while I don't really care about cigarette taxes, the excise tax on cigars could be raised by over 52% with a $3 limit, in addition to a floor tax for all retailers and distributers. The first version of this bill called for a 20,413% (thats not a typo) increase in excise tax. Every time I hear about SCHIP in the news, I hear that they plan on funding it by changing the taxes that Bush cut, but minimum effort you can see that it is clearly not the case. Don't get me wrong I do think kids should be able to receive health care, however I wish they'd either be upfront about where they're getting the funds or (my preference) get funds some other way. And kudos to the insightfulness of Fastbreak.

If it's cutting peoples lives short, wouldn't if be costing less in the long run?

I don't have any data but I would disagree with that. I would think that most of those deaths are caused by long-term health issues, that probably cost a lot of money. What I am saying is that it's not like they die right away and don't use the healthcare, instead they use it for long periods of time, costing more money that would not have been spent had they not smoked. But I see your point as well.

True, mom and dad don't have to buy cigarettes, but mom and dad will buy cigarettes and the higher the cost of those cigarettes the more money will be diverted from other parts of the family budget.

With added Tax

Mom and Dad buy cigarettes AND kids have healthcare

 

Without added tax

Mom and Dad buy cigarettes AND kids still don't have healthcare, but a little extra cash.

 

 

I guess one thing that we could agree on is maybe paying for universal children's healthcare by putting a HUGE tax on luxury cars, yachts, mansions, etc. but I don't think the leaders of either party would go for that

 

I guess one thing that we could agree on is maybe paying for universal children's healthcare by putting a HUGE tax on luxury cars, yachts, mansions, etc. but I don't think the leaders of either party would go for that

 

They tried this already and it had a negative impact economically.

We should be working towards catastrophic health insurance for those who can't afford health insurance. That would pay for major outlays that require hospital care, but wouldn't pay out for every nickel and dime visit.

I have zero problems with putting more tax on cigarettes, who cares who smokes them. It is ironic because I would say that cigarettes cause a sizable area of the widespread need for healthcare (not necessarily children, though, just saying).

 

This seems like a far-fetched attempt to put down the Democrats.

 

Junk food,, fast food and food heavy in sugar, I would say cause more health problems than cigarettes. You ready to heavily tax them?

I guess one thing that we could agree on is maybe paying for universal children's healthcare by putting a HUGE tax on luxury cars, yachts, mansions, etc. but I don't think the leaders of either party would go for that

This is a horrible idea.

 

We tried that in the 1970s and 1980s, and the result was that the people with the money to buy such luxuries quit buying them in the same quantities. The effects were not on the filthy dirty rich guys everyone seems so eager to stick it to. They were on the blue collar folks that construct yachts, build cars and mansions that found themselves without jobs.

 

Tell me the last time a poor person on welfare gave you a job worth having and I'll try to understand why we should soak the rich.

 

I've worked dozens of jobs in my short life, and every one worth doing was made possible by someone with more money than me.

 

Instead of trying to find ways to punish the successful, we need to find and enable more ways to help more people become successful.

This is a horrible idea.

 

We tried that in the 1970s and 1980s, and the result was that the people with the money to buy such luxuries quit buying them in the same quantities. The effects were not on the filthy dirty rich guys everyone seems so eager to stick it to. They were on the blue collar folks that construct yachts, build cars and mansions that found themselves without jobs.

 

Tell me the last time a poor person on welfare gave you a job worth having and I'll try to understand why we should soak the rich.

 

I've worked dozens of jobs in my short life, and every one worth doing was made possible by someone with more money than me.

 

Instead of trying to find ways to punish the successful, we need to find and enable more ways to help more people become successful.

I wasn't really serious. I wasn't even talking about it from an economic perspective.

 

What I was trying to get at is that even if the Democrat party is the party of the poor, they wouldn't consider taxing themselves.