How do you propose funding the government (in general, not specific programs).

 

I didn't say taxes were not necessary.

Yes it's a tax hike, no one said differently. But you're spinning into a tax increase on the middle class. Sorry but your reaching.

 

So it's a tax and if your in the middle class and smoke then you will pay more taxes. I just don't see that as reaching or spinning.

So it's a tax and if your in the middle class and smoke then you will pay more taxes. I just don't see that as reaching or spinning.

You claim it to be a tax increase on the middle class when in fact it is a tax increase on a product that some middle class purchase. That isn't the same thing.

You claim it to be a tax increase on the middle class when in fact it is a tax increase on a product that some middle class purchase. That isn't the same thing.

 

Exactly.

 

Let's couple that with a calculation, shall we? If someone smokes one pack of cigarettes a day, they will pay $244.55 more for cigarettes per year. From what I remember of the INCOME TAX table based on Obama's proposal, almost all (in not all) tax payers making less than $250,000 year would see a tax cut of MORE than $250.

 

So, even if we suppose (and reach greatly) that this is a tax hike on the middle class, it may be made up with Obama's INCOME TAX proposals.

You claim it to be a tax increase on the middle class when in fact it is a tax increase on a product that some middle class purchase. That isn't the same thing.

 

Call it what you want if you are in the middle class and smoke your taxes just went up.

So if the put a 2% tax on yachts would that mean the upper class's taxes just went up?

So if the put a 2% tax on yachts would that mean the upper class's taxes just went up?

 

If if's and but's were candy and nuts everyday would be Christmas.

 

To answer your question it would be an increase for whomever buys a yacht.

Exactly.

 

Let's couple that with a calculation, shall we? If someone smokes one pack of cigarettes a day, they will pay $244.55 more for cigarettes per year. From what I remember of the INCOME TAX table based on Obama's proposal, almost all (in not all) tax payers making less than $250,000 year would see a tax cut of MORE than $250.

 

So, even if we suppose (and reach greatly) that this is a tax hike on the middle class, it may be made up with Obama's INCOME TAX proposals.

 

Not quite that simple but if it makes you feel better that Obama mislead you then ok.

Not quite that simple but if it makes you feel better that Obama mislead you then ok.

 

I don't smoke. My "taxes" won't go up.

What are we arguing about?

 

a) Did President Obama lie?

b) Is this the same as an income tax on the poor and middle class?

c) Who will this tax affect?

 

The answers to me are that President Obama did not lie, this is not an income tax on the poor and middle class, but this tax will affect people below the poverty line more than anyone else.

What are we arguing about?

 

a) Did President Obama lie?

b) Is this the same as an income tax on the poor and middle class?

c) Who will this tax affect?

 

The answers to me are that President Obama did not lie, this is not an income tax on the poor and middle class, but this tax will affect people below the poverty line more than anyone else.

 

 

Yes, however, there is a benefit...if these individuals can't afford to smoke, they will potentially decrease their need for costly healthcare at the cost of the taxpayers, and for some, prevent even costlier cancer treatments. The costs of providing healthcare to those below the poverty line could decrease. Of course, as Swamprat pointed out, the revenues from the tax would decrease as well, but I'd argue that the costs of providing comprehensive and catastrophic health care to smokers is much greater than the revenues raised by increased taxes anyway.

Yes, however, there is a benefit...if these individuals can't afford to smoke, they will potentially decrease their need for costly healthcare at the cost of the taxpayers, and for some, prevent even costlier cancer treatments. The costs of providing healthcare to those below the poverty line could decrease. Of course, as Swamprat pointed out, the revenues from the tax would decrease as well, but I'd argue that the costs of providing comprehensive and catastrophic health care to smokers is much greater than the revenues raised by increased taxes anyway.

I know it is not what you are saying here, but do you think that cigarettes should be illegal?

I know it is not what you are saying here, but do you think that cigarettes should be illegal?

 

 

No. I don't think they should be illegal, but I do feel that they are not a necessity, and therefore I have no problem with them being taxed, and taxes raised on them. Generally, I'm NOT against taxes on things that one chooses to buy, or not buy. To go into it deeper, I disagree that things like soda are not taxed. I feel that food, as in healthy food, should not be taxed. But, sodas, chips, cookies, I wouldn't have a problem if those things were taxed.

You had better get used to being taxed more. After 8 years of neglecting this country and spending all of our money in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can't see any alternative. If you believe what any politician says, then you are just kidding yourself.

 

 

You are complaining about the cost on the war on terror when that man in the white house is asking for 800 billion dollar stimulus that includes such great incentives as four wheeler trails and repairing the grass on washington mall?

You are complaining about the cost on the war on terror when that man in the white house is asking for 800 billion dollar stimulus that includes such great incentives as four wheeler trails and repairing the grass on washington mall?

 

Just out of curiosity what do you think we are spendin on the war? It is over 600 billion right now about 5000 per Iraqi citizen per year. The US equivalent would be 121,000 per person. Iraq is a country that has a budget surplus and we are spending money to rebuild it.