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

 

:thumb:Go for it. Wouldn't mind it. Less practical though because there are more anti-tobacco people than anti-fast food people.

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.

I guess I missed that nuance in your last post. If you were making a funny, it is funny... :thumb:

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

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 [strikethru]cash[/strikethru] food.

 

 

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

Substitute food for cash and your argument would be more realistic and less compelling. We are talking about poor people, so let's assume that there will not be much disposable income in either case. I guess I am just not comfortable telling other American citizens how they should spend their own hard earned money.

Substitute food for cash and your argument would be more realistic and less compelling. We are talking about poor people, so let's assume that there will not be much disposable income in either case. I guess I am just not comfortable telling other American citizens how they should spend their own hard earned money.

 

I can see your argument. Although I bet half these people aren't using their own hard earned money :sssh:

Substitute food for cash and your argument would be more realistic and less compelling. We are talking about poor people, so let's assume that there will not be much disposable income in either case. I guess I am just not comfortable telling other American citizens how they should spend their own hard earned money.

 

They can spend it how they wish. There are just more consequences for certain choices. Same with insurance. You choose a certain lifestyle and your insurance premiums go up. Whether it is drunk driving, overweight, speeding tickets, driving a red sports car

 

Take products that we know are not good for you and put taxes on them. Tell them that you choose that lifestyle, fine, but there are consequences to pay.

As I see it, we as a nation are moving inexorably toward more government subsidization of health care. The Medicare drug coverage plan passed by the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress is one indication of this. Smoking is fraught with many downstream health consequences that often prove very expensive to treat. This is not an explicit tax on the poor and uneducated. That is hogwash. It is a tax on an unhealthy behavior that will undoubtedly financially penalize all of society for the poor choices of but a few. One of the principles of sound economic theory is that the cost of making a choice should be borne by the one who makes the choice, not everyone in society indiscriminantly. When someone is partly insulated from risk, and is thereby less concerned about the negative consequences of that risk than they would otherwise be, that is called a moral hazard. I don't know why I should have to fund the exaggerated cost of health care for someone who made the poor choice of smoking. Let them contribute more to the public coffers in the form of additional taxes levied directly on their unhealthy behavior.

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 agree. This is a slippery slope... Besides taxes already in place what about the cost of all the years worth of class action lawsuits that are already factored in? Sooner or later, fast food, soda companies, and beer companies will all become targets for the lawyers and legislators...

Let them contribute more to the public coffers in the form of additional taxes levied directly on their unhealthy behavior.

I would agree entirely IF our government would actually set aside the taxes collected for dealing with the costs of providing healthcare to smokers. As it is, this is just one more cookie jar for politicians who can't balance a budget to stick their hand in and pilfer.

 

Then, when all the smokers quit smoking, the politicians have already fed new pets with the smoking taxes, and they will turn to the rest of us to prop them up.

 

We are over taxed... period. It's time to start trimming the fat.

As I see it, we as a nation are moving inexorably toward more government subsidization of health care. The Medicare drug coverage plan passed by the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress is one indication of this. Smoking is fraught with many downstream health consequences that often prove very expensive to treat. This is not an explicit tax on the poor and uneducated. That is hogwash. It is a tax on an unhealthy behavior that will undoubtedly financially penalize all of society for the poor choices of but a few. One of the principles of sound economic theory is that the cost of making a choice should be borne by the one who makes the choice, not everyone in society indiscriminantly. When someone is partly insulated from risk, and is thereby less concerned about the negative consequences of that risk than they would otherwise be, that is called a moral hazard. I don't know why I should have to fund the exaggerated cost of health care for someone who made the poor choice of smoking. Let them contribute more to the public coffers in the form of additional taxes levied directly on their unhealthy behavior.

I agree to some extent. Would you also support placing the burden of treatment for alcoholism and drug addiction where it belongs - on the user? Why should I pay for the treatment of an addict who made a conscious decision to begin using substances with high addiction rates?

 

Simply put, if the government wants to save citizens from the adverse effects of smoking, they should phase out the growing, processing, and sale of tobacco products. Doing so would result in a huge enforcement problem and a thriving underground market but the smoking rate would drop and lives would be saved. Face it, this issue is not about health it is about government greed for revenue and power.

I agree to some extent. Would you also support placing the burden of treatment for alcoholism and drug addiction where it belongs - on the user? Why should I pay for the treatment of an addict who made a conscious decision to begin using substances with high addiction rates?

 

Simply put, if the government wants to save citizens from the adverse effects of smoking, they should phase out the growing, processing, and sale of tobacco products. Doing so would result in a huge enforcement problem and a thriving underground market but the smoking rate would drop and lives would be saved. Face it, this issue is not about health it is about government greed for revenue and power.

 

 

I would have no problem linking taxes to alcohol to cover the Federal or state government's burden of treating alcohol-related health issues. Better to tax the person who makes the choice to consume than every taxpayer indiscriminantly. I think taxing drug use is a bit more problematic since the buying/selling transactions are, by definition, not within the visibility of the tax system.

 

To your second point, that opens up the whole sticky question of government interference in people's lives and personal choice, etc (if I want to kill myself smoking, I should be able to make that choice, blah blah blah). And I'm not so sure lives would be saved. During Prohibition, many people died from poisonous coctails concocted as a substitute for the real thing, which wasn't legally available. But I digress.

 

Bottom line is I think the people who smoke (or drink) should pay for the downstream financial consequences of their actions. The costs shouldn't just be spread around to everyone who pays taxes.

We are over taxed... period. It's time to start trimming the fat.

 

 

I agree. Nobody seems interested in cutting spending though.

I would have no problem linking taxes to alcohol to cover the Federal or state government's burden of treating alcohol-related health issues. Better to tax the person who makes the choice to consume than every taxpayer indiscriminantly. I think taxing drug use is a bit more problematic since the buying/selling transactions are, by definition, not within the visibility of the tax system.

 

To your second point, that opens up the whole sticky question of government interference in people's lives and personal choice, etc (if I want to kill myself smoking, I should be able to make that choice, blah blah blah). And I'm not so sure lives would be saved. During Prohibition, many people died from poisonous coctails concocted as a substitute for the real thing, which wasn't legally available. But I digress.

 

Bottom line is I think the people who smoke (or drink) should pay for the downstream financial consequences of their actions. The costs shouldn't just be spread around to everyone who pays taxes.

When I asked if you support placing the cost of treatment on the alcoholic or drug addict, I was not limiting the question to increasing taxes on everybody that consumes any alcohol or drugs. What I am asking is whether you oppose the government subsidizing the treatment of addicts, regardless of the source of funding.

 

Should your tax money be used to help others deal with the consequences of taking addiction risks that they eagerly accepted? If it is okay to tax smokers until they cry uncle, is it not also appropriate to make alcoholics and drug addicts pay for their treatment - even if their choice of intoxicant (e.g., Aqua Velva) is not taxed? If these folks are destitute, should they not be compelled to work to cover the cost of their own treatment?

 

I am opposed to all sin taxes, but it seems logical that those who advocate ever higher taxes on poor people hooked on cigarettes would also support making all treatment programs "pay as you go," regardless of whether the activity can be conveniently taxed.

^ I don't support explicit government coverage of people with health issues related to addictive behaviors. But we now have a Medicare drug plan that will pay for a huge group of people's medication costs. I don't think I should subsidize the inflated medication costs of someone who made the decision to smoke and ruined their health as a result. They should be forced to set aside extra money in the form of a tax on their cig's. People should be held accountable for their own actions.

^ I don't support explicit government coverage of people with health issues related to addictive behaviors. But we now have a Medicare drug plan that will pay for a huge group of people's medication costs. I don't think I should subsidize the inflated medication costs of someone who made the decision to smoke and ruined their health as a result. They should be forced to set aside extra money in the form of a tax on their cig's. People should be held accountable for their own actions.

Like I said, I don't support sin taxes, but I agree with your position that people who are on the government's dime should not be bailed out by the rest of us when they make risky lifestyle choices and lose their good health as a result.