Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Because there are some things the gov't can provide that the private sector can't. But, we are gonna go way into left field if we want to go into this one. I am not saying "no government", I am saying "less government".
|
Sounds like murky waters. Let me guess, you're the only one with the light?
Quote:
I agree.
And banning smoking fits into this equation how?
|
The point is that you denounce big government until it benefits you. Then you rationalize it. If you don't see inconsistency, what do you see?
Quote:
No, it is not.
We consistently spend more than we bring in....way more. We run massive deficits because of this.
How do you fix overspending? Easy, you spend less. How do you spend less? Well, you can start by not wasting gov't time and money on something like this. Is it going to fix the problem? Nope. We need to cut back and quit going overboard in our entire fiscal policy. We need to decrease the scope of the gov't, not increase it. Plus, we need to take a close look at the current programs and see if we can do things more efficiently.
|
How is it not going to fix the problem? People want smoking banned in public places, they act legally using their wondrous magical powers as citizens of the republic to ban smoking in public. Problem solved. They decide that banning smoking in public is a worthwhile use of public resources. Bada boom bada bing, done and done.
Quote:
|
No faith needed on this one.
|
Your opinion on the direction the government should go is your opinion. All predictions on economic matters are an act of faith.
Quote:
Anyone who supports this ban, or "sin taxes", doesn't give one shit about the "sinners" they are taxing.
"Sin taxes" are for creating revenue, nothing else.
If your argument were true, they wouldn't have long-term plans to spend this new found money, because the amount of money coming in would dwindle because everyone is now aware of their sin and people start to quit smoking.
Unfortunately, the opposite is true.
|
I agree that sin taxes would probably be more effective if they made the cost of consumption prohibitive. Unfortunately in the instance of cigarettes that seems like a bad idea, since that would just create illicit markets.
All taxes are for creating revenue. Sin taxes create revenue and also discourage people from doing certain things. It may seem unfair, but life rarely is fair.
Quote:
Here in Colorado, they just voted in a massive increase to the existing "sin tax" for cigarettes.
Guess how much is earmaked for "smoking cessation"? 16%.
84% of this new tax will be spent elsewhere. As I said, it isn't about cutting down on smokers. They don't want that, they want their money.
|
Yep, well, times are tough. The funny thing is the number of smokers who will complain about being exploited, yet still plop down that $5+ for a pack of smokes every day. They say the lottery is a tax on people who don't understand basic statistics. I would wager that cigarette taxes run along the same lines.
Quote:
|
I'm sorry, this ban and sin taxes are bullshit, pure and simple.
|
Maybe you have a case for sin taxes being bullshit. I still don't understand how the ban is bullshit though. Do you think liquor licenses are bullshit? Are health regulations bullshit?