Unfair Taxation? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CheapBastid · 07-19-2007, 01:20 PM

You can argue with me regarding the wisdom of smoking cigars. Argue with me about the wisdom of many things, but can you argue that a 20,000% increase in taxes is fair? Here is the text of a letter that I sent to my representatives:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

There has been buzz in the media regarding the Senate's S-CHIP legislation that would be funded by a 220% increase in cigarette taxes, from 31 cents to $1.00 per pack. And while children’s healthcare is a worthy and noble endeavor what has sadly been overlooked is the fact that this legislation would increase federal taxes on premium cigars up to 20,000%.

The Senate's current plan increases the tax on premium cigars from 5 cents a cigar to a maximum of $10.00 per cigar. The effect of such an enormous, disproportionate tax increase will be devastating to an industry populated by many small business owners.

For example, a typical handmade cigar that is imported for $9.00 currently pays a federal tax of $0.04875. If this tax increase is imposed, the new federal tax on this same premium cigar will be increased to $4.6017. This represents a real tax increase of well over nine thousand percent.

Unlike the cigarette industry that is controlled by mega-conglomerates, the cigar industry is heavily populated with small family-owned companies that have been working through generations. Virtually all of the major tobacco growers, suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are small, family businesses.

In addition to this astounding increase in taxes on new sales the Senate proposal includes a hefty Floor Tax. Specialty cigar retailers would be forced to pay the increased tax on all existing inventory next spring. Requiring specialty cigar retailers to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes will force many of them to close nationwide.

A 20,000% tax increase is not only grossly unfair but ultimately unsupportable, as it will cripple and destroy much of the premium cigar industry along with many of the old family, small businesses that have worked hard to survive the changing and difficult marketplace.

I actually know a few folks who run small cigar related businesses and this is going to shut some of them down.

Willravel · 07-19-2007, 01:35 PM

Tax cigarettes that way, not cigars. When smoked like an adult (not in the lungs like someone who doesn't know how to smoke a cigar), they only cause mouth cancer, and the occurrences are SUBSTANTIALLY less frequent.

This is almost as stupid as requiring children to pay sales taxes. No taxation without representation.

ratbastid · 07-19-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Tax cigarettes that way, not cigars. When smoked like an adult (not in the lungs like someone who doesn't know how to smoke a cigar), they only cause mouth cancer, and the occurrences are SUBSTANTIALLY less frequent.

To say nothing of how vastly many more cigarettes are smoked than cigars...

Compared to the public health scourge cigarette smoking is, cigars are nothing. I agree with the OP: they should either be exempted from this tax, or taxed at a more reasonable rate.

Kadath · 07-19-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

When smoked like an adult (not in the lungs like someone who doesn't know how to smoke a cigar), they only cause mouth cancer, and the occurrences are SUBSTANTIALLY less frequent.

Haha, that's some stellar reasoning there. This product only causes a DIFFERENT kind of cancer, and not as much as the other thing! will, let me guess: you smoke cigars and not cigarettes?

Willravel · 07-19-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

Haha, that's some stellar reasoning there. This product only causes a DIFFERENT kind of cancer, and not as much as the other thing! will, let me guess: you smoke cigars and not cigarettes?

I didn't say it was reasonable. It's not reasonable for an addictive vehicle for poison to be legal. I do think that the worse of the two, cigars and cigarettes, should get more attention. All things being equal, alcohol should be taxed more than cigarettes and cigars.

I don't smoke.

flstf · 07-21-2007, 10:00 AM

I agree with the OP. Why should a select group like smokers, drinkers, etc... be targeted to provide some universally desirable and specific program as child healthcare that benefits all society. Shouldn't we all pay for this equally?

CheapBastid · 07-21-2007, 10:22 AM

I'm not necessarily against the concept of a 'sin tax'. The idea behind which is that the impact of activities that are not necessarily good for an individual is not going to only impact that individual.

To help a government deal with those effects by adding a simple tax makes conceptual sense. But, on the other hand the effect of a 20,000% increase will serve to further destroy an ailing industry. Doing this under the banner of 'saving the children' is dishonest and ultimately will not help as the revenue source will be reduced due to the destruction of the very business that is being saddled with the tax.

aceventura3 · 07-22-2007, 06:11 AM

It is pretty ironic that they connect children's health care to smoking. I would think if children's health care is an important enough issue - funding would be tied to stable and secure funding. If everyone stopped smoking or if smoking where to be made illegal, the way some want it to be, what is going to happen to the child health care funding? It is odd that on one hand the government wants to discourage smoking, but on the other hand would have programs tied to the need for people to smoke.

I guess the reality for this tax proposal has more to do with the proponents being able to say anyone against this tax is against helping children. A pretty sad commentary on the proponents of the tax.

It also illustrates a certain level of incompetence in Washington given matching a declining revenue source to a program that will have increasing costs.

Another way to look at it - imagine a Reverend preaching against prostitution, but then saying if you are going to be a prostitute, don't forget to donate a special 10% of your earnings to the church Sunday school program. Connecting the financial success of the prostitutes in his congregation to the success of his Sunday school. Interesting moral issue for the righteous.

From Heritage Foundation:

Quote:

While a tobacco tax is a politically popular funding source, it has several significant shortcomings:

* A tobacco tax disproportionately burdens low-income Americans, lacks long-term stability, and ultimately results in significant shifting of health care costs onto others.
* With the number of smokers already declining, a tobacco tax would further reduce the number of smokers, thereby eroding the funding source.
* To produce the revenues that Congress needs to fund SCHIP expansion through such a tax would require 22.4 million new smokers by 2017.

Rather than making SCHIP dependent on increasing the number of smokers, Congress should refrain from narrow government program expansions and work on a broader strategy for improving access to affordable, private health insurance for all Americans--including children.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1548.cfm

willynilly · 07-22-2007, 10:03 PM

To me it sounds that the tax on cigars will finally be on a parity with the tax on cigarettes. Let's keep things balanced, here.

I love it, the Heritage foundation states that the tax on tobacco disproportionately effects the poor. If tobacco is priced out of their reach, then it will cease to effect them. We are not talking about food or medicine hear. Much like the gas guzzler tax on a Dodge Viper does not effect them.

highthief · 07-23-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Tax cigarettes that way, not cigars. When smoked like an adult (not in the lungs like someone who doesn't know how to smoke a cigar), they only cause mouth cancer, and the occurrences are SUBSTANTIALLY less frequent.

That's simply bizarre reasoning.

If you're going to tax cigarettes substantially, then tax cigars the same way. Ditto chewing tobacco. All are addictive, unnneccesary substances that do nothing but hurt the people who use them and people around them.

aceventura3 · 07-23-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willynilly

To me it sounds that the tax on cigars will finally be on a parity with the tax on cigarettes. Let's keep things balanced, here.

I love it, the Heritage foundation states that the tax on tobacco disproportionately effects the poor. If tobacco is priced out of their reach, then it will cease to effect them. We are not talking about food or medicine hear. Much like the gas guzzler tax on a Dodge Viper does not effect them.

The Heritage Foundation also made a few other points and the points all have merit.

I am not sure but I think your point is basically saying - screw poor people - if the government excessively taxes what some poor people want to the point they can not afford it, then that's what they get for being poor, even when the excessive portion of the tax has nothing to do with the actual costs to society and the excessive tax benefits others. That does not seem fair to me nor should that be the role of government.

dc_dux · 07-23-2007, 07:27 AM

I think it is a reasonable bi-partisan bill to continue to provide (and expand) basic heath care to children of working poor and uninsured but not eligible for medicaid. It would potentially expand the number of covered children from 6+million to 9+ million.

The original CHIPs program enacted in 1996 was funded through the federal cigarette tax and by all accounts worked well and gave states the flexibility to run the program.

Increasing the cigarette tax (the first federal increase in 10 years) and a higher cigar tax seems like a reasonable trade-off to me to provide basic health care to millions of poor children (which ultimately saves money in the health care system).

I dont like regressive taxes that adversely affect the lowest income groups' ability to meet their basic needs. Cigarettes are not a basic need and in this case, a regressive taxes is not all bad. At the very least, it would likely help prevent more young people (from most income levels) from starting to smoke but would not significantly result in lower revenue (based on the experiences of many states that have raised state cigarette taxes).

And the added tax on most cigars would not be any more signficant than the tax on cigarettes...but anyone willing to pay $9 for a cigar can afford another couple bucks.

Fact sheet on CHIPS (pdf)

Paq · 07-25-2007, 01:34 AM

as much as i'm against smoking and tobacco in general...

this is just ...weird and i think it has no chance in hell of passing.

just my .05..they increased taxes on pennies, apparently.

CheapBastid · 07-25-2007, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think it is a reasonable bi-partisan bill to continue to provide (and expand) basic heath care to children of working poor and uninsured but not eligible for medicaid. It would potentially expand the number of covered children from 6+million to 9+ million.

I'm not arguing against CHIPS, as I don't have enough information regarding the program. On the surface it seems like a nice idea. What I'm having difficulty with is the rate of tax increase (20,000%) on a small struggling industry. Yes, I understand that tobacco is not a health product. Yes, I know that anyone who uses it in any way, shape, or form is a blind idiot. But the values of this country have been (in my mind) to allow the pursuit of happiness without undue taxation. This country was founded on a fight against unfair taxation and for freedom.

This move by the government under the new age call of "it's for the CHILDREN" rubs me the wrong way. The position that it puts anyone who questions is to be a baby slaughterer. This is the umbrella that prevents me (here in Southern California) from smoking a cigar after dinner when I'm out, and now this same umbrella of "it's for the CHILDREN" is going to further damage the industry populated by the same individualist spirit that founded this country.

OK, I'm off my soapbox.

pan6467 · 07-25-2007, 07:56 AM

All I know is if you want to tax cigarettes fine, but you better start gi9ving us smokers more respect and stop with the no-smoking laws. Or I, for one, will be more than happy to buy black market ciggies.

Fuck you hypocrits who complain about the smoke and want to control when and where I can but want to enjoy my tax dollars.

dc_dux · 07-25-2007, 08:01 AM

Cheap.....if the tax increase was 20,000% on all cigars, I agree it would have a serious adverse affect on the industry. But that is not the case.

Here are the old and new proposed tax rates:

Old (current) rates:
* cigarettes not weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 ("small cigarettes") are taxed at a rate of $19.50/1000 ($.39/pack)
* cigarettes weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 (large cigarettes)are taxed at a rate of $49.50/1000
* cigars not weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 (small cigars) are taxed at a rate of $1.828/thousand
* cigars weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 (large cigars) at the rate equal to 20.719 percent of manufacturers or importers sale prices, but not more than $48.75/1000

Proposed new rates:
* small cigarettes are taxed at the rate of $50/1000 ($1/pack)
* large cigarettes are taxed at the rate of $104.99/1000
* small cigars are taxed at the rate of $50/1000 (same as small cigarettes) or 5 cents/cigar
* large cigars are taxed at the rate of 53.3 percent of manufacturers or importers sales price, but not more than $10 per cigar.

http://www.senate.gov/~finance/sitep...1307%20JCT.pdf

I dont know much about the cigar industry either. How many are small cigars (to be taxed at 5 cents/per cigar) vs large cigars; but I assume most sales are not of $20 cigars (or the maximum $10 tax per cigar).

pan.....If i was a smoker, I would buy my cigarettes off of tribal indian websites and pay no tax.

pan6467 · 07-25-2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheapBastid

I'm not arguing against CHIPS, as I don't have enough information regarding the program. On the surface it seems like a nice idea. What I'm having difficulty with is the rate of tax increase (20,000%) on a small struggling industry. Yes, I understand that tobacco is not a health product. Yes, I know that anyone who uses it in any way, shape, or form is a blind idiot. But the values of this country have been (in my mind) to allow the pursuit of happiness without undue taxation. This country was founded on a fight against unfair taxation and for freedom.

This move by the government under the new age call of "it's for the CHILDREN" rubs me the wrong way. The position that it puts anyone who questions is to be a baby slaughterer. This is the umbrella that prevents me (here in Southern California) from smoking a cigar after dinner when I'm out, and now this same umbrella of "it's for the CHILDREN" is going to further damage the industry populated by the same individualist spirit that founded this country.

OK, I'm off my soapbox.

I agree whole heartedly with this and would think the Conservatives and Libertarians would be screaming also.

THE BRITISH AND TEA.................... that's all I have to say.

I lied.

We'll just tax tobacco into a black market and lose those dollars. Then we'll do it to alcohol, then sugar, caffeine, etc, etc.

If we build a need on a tax base from certain products and the use then dissipates.... how do we maintain the program that tax was used for?????

There are ways to ban substances without so much as officially banning them.

dc_dux · 07-25-2007, 08:13 AM

Pan....there is no evidence to support your conclusion.

The evidence from the last federal cigarette tax increase (10 years ago) and the many state cigarette tax increases in the intervening 10 years, may have resulted in a small decrease in the number of user (or those who went to the black market), it resulted in more revenue in every case.

CheapBastid · 07-25-2007, 08:16 AM

dc_dux - The top priced cigars will be going from approximately a $0.05 per cigar rate to the $10.00 per cigar rate cap, that is an increase of 20,000%. It is true that that 20,000% does not apply to all cigars, but the average cigar is considered a 'large cigar' by the new rules and is taxes exorbitantly.

For a real world example, a typical handmade cigar that is imported for $9.00 currently pays a federal tax of $0.04875. If this tax increase is imposed, the new federal tax on this same premium cigar will be $4.6017 -- this is an increase of 9,337%.

Furthermore, the Senate proposal includes a Floor Tax, in which specialty cigar retailers would be required to pay the increased tax on their existing inventory next spring. Requiring specialty cigar retailers to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes could force thousands of specialty cigar retailer stores to close nationwide.

dc_dux · 07-25-2007, 08:23 AM

Cheap...I agree that it should not be grandfathered to include existing inventory and I would also agree that a lower tax for large cigars would make sense....something between the old 20% and the new 53%. IMO, large cigars were grossly under taxed (max of $48.50/1000 or less than 5 cents/cigar)

But I still support the general concept of the proposed bill to expand a successful health care program with revenue from a source (ie smokers) that disproportionately contributes to the higher cost of heath care for all of us.

And it is still far more equitable than requiring me to pay federal income tax when I have no voting representation in Congress (now that is taxation without representation)

......getting off my soapbox now.

CheapBastid · 07-25-2007, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Cheap...I agree that it should not be grandfathered to include existing inventory and I would also agree that a lower tax for large cigars would make sense....something between the old 20% and the new 53%.

But I still support the general concept of the proposed bill to expand a successful health care program with revenue from a source (ie smokers) that disproportionately contributes to the higher cost of heath care for all of us.]

You're going to make me Godwin you, aren't you by forcing me to ask if the ends justify the means?

Again, I think the CHIPS program sounds great, but saddling a totally unrelated struggling industry with a tax of over 50% for it is ludicrous.

I know, I know - it's for the CHILDREN you see...

aceventura3 · 07-25-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Pan....there is no evidence to support your conclusion.

The evidence from the last federal cigarette tax increase (10 years ago) and the many state cigarette tax increases in the intervening 10 years, may have resulted in a small decrease in the number of user (or those who went to the black market), it resulted in more revenue in every case.

There is some evidence.

Quote:

As smoking rates in the country have gone down, cigarette excise taxes have gone up.

In 1970, the highest tax levied by a state was 18 cents a pack (88 cents after adjusting for inflation) versus today's high of $2.46 a pack. Since then, the number of smokers in the United States has declined from 37.4 percent to 22.5 percent.

When it comes to raising a state's cigarette tax, "you have to think there's some ceiling as to how high you can go," said Harley Duncan, executive director of the Federation of Tax Administrators.

The assumption has been that when cigarette prices go up 10 percent, sales decline by 4 percent. And that held true as late as 2003, after several states raised their cigarette tax in response to declining state tax revenue, Duncan said.

But given the rise in Internet sales and cigarette smuggling, he thinks the equation needs to be revisited.

In addition, Duncan said, "Our job as tax enforcers is to see if there are actions that could be taken to reduce evasion, to prevent bootlegging."

Quote:

Economist Richard E. Wagner of George Mason University contends that when a state's cigarette tax is significantly higher than a readily available alternative source, it is counterproductive in more ways than one.

It should be noted that in the early 1990s, Wagner received a grant from the Tobacco Institute to coauthor the book "The Economics of Smoking" and the Institute had asked him while he was a professor at Florida State University to testify before Congress.

However, Wagner said he did not receive any funding for the paper on which this article is based.

In "State Excise Taxation: Horse-and-Buggy Taxes in an Electronic Age," Wagner argues that a high cigarette tax:

Pushes smokers to cross state lines to purchase cigarettes or to break the law by buying them underground.

In recent years, the illegal trade of cigarettes has been growing via smuggling and Internet sales. Investigations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have found that millions of dollars each year from such sales are funneled to organized criminals.

What's more, a General Accounting Office report notes that according to officials at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, states with high cigarette taxes are typically those that lose cigarette tax revenue to smuggling.

"As a result, data on taxed sales no longer track actual consumption in any useful way, and revenue estimates of future tax rate changes will be even less reliable than they already are," Wagner writes.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/12/pf/t...cise/index.htm

One of the problems with "black market" activity is that it is very difficult to measure.

According to the Heritage Foundation study (the methodology use is here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Hea...48-methods.cfm)
your information is correct with higher taxes more tax revenue will be collected in the short term, but there is price elasticity, as shown by the differing slopes under the proposed and current tax rates as shown in the chart below. Also it is clear that the tax with have to be replaced, increased or new smokers are needed.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1548.cfm

dc_dux · 07-25-2007, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

According to the Heritage Foundation study (the methodology use is here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Hea...48-methods.cfm)
your information is correct with higher taxes more tax revenue will be collected in the short term, but there is price elasticity, as shown by the differing slopes under the proposed and current tax rates as shown in the chart below. Also it is clear that the tax with have to be replaced, increased or new smokers are needed.

I agree it should not be the basis of a permanent funding source. But the CBO estimates that it will generate enough revenue to expand the program for the 5 years proposed in the bill. It is a temporary (and successful, based on the existing program) solution to dealing with a critical heath crisis among the working poor.

Hopefully, by then, we might have meaningful, affordable and comprehensive health care, particularly for the uninsured.

CheapBastid · 07-25-2007, 09:04 AM

You've now been officially Godwin'd

dc_dux · 07-25-2007, 09:06 AM

Thanks...thats very helpful to the discussion.

CheapBastid · 07-25-2007, 09:09 AM

I live to serve.

joshbaumgartner · 07-25-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I agree it should not be the basis of a permanent funding source. But the CBO estimates that it will generate enough revenue to expand the program for the 5 years proposed in the bill. It is a temporary (and successful, based on the existing program) solution to dealing with a critical heath crisis among the working poor.

Hopefully, by then, we might have meaningful, affordable and comprehensive health care, particularly for the uninsured.

The HF charts seem to be very suspect. Chart 3 below appears to be simply based on one linear line (the red), from which the blue is extrapolated simply by percentage. I don't believe the decline is that purely linear, so therefore the only true data points on the graph are the two points of the Current Tax line, and that much is giving the credit that may not be due.

But even if we assume the red line to be accurate, the blue line doesn't really show how the increased tax rate accelerates decline. The red line declines from $6.5 billion to $3.0 billion (decline of 58% with 12 year total receipts of $57 billion) while the blue is from $7.5 billion to $3.5 billion (decline of 53% with 12 year total receipts of $66 billion). This seems in fact to go against their findings that decline is accelerated, in that the blue line declines about the same (the 4% probably is due to my own inaccuracies in reading the graph), if not less than the red line, and in any case total revenue is indeed higher by more than 15% over the 12 year illustrated period.

So while the graph below is supposedly indicating how increasing taxes will actually undermine future tax revenue, it actually demonstrates quite the opposite if you look at it more closely than to simple see three downward lines and assume that the graph title is therefore true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheapBastid

What I'm having difficulty with is the rate of tax increase (20,000%) on a small struggling industry. Yes, I understand that tobacco is not a health product. Yes, I know that anyone who uses it in any way, shape, or form is a blind idiot. But the values of this country have been (in my mind) to allow the pursuit of happiness without undue taxation. This country was founded on a fight against unfair taxation and for freedom.

This move by the government under the new age call of "it's for the CHILDREN" rubs me the wrong way.

I have to say I agree. Now personally, I'm totally against smoking and stamping it out is a fine and wonderful thing. However, social engineering through taxation is NOT the way to do it. I'm not an 'ends justify the means' sort of guy, and while social engineering can do many good things, even if taxation is the method, I think in the end we end up with this insane taxation scheme that have in which we tax things we don't like at the moment, such as cigarettes, and we give tax breaks to what we want to encourage, such as investors. In the end nearly everyone has tax breaks somewhere and tax hits somewhere, and its whoever has better tax knowledge/attorneys that gets to pay the lowest taxes.

What we need is FAIR and HONEST taxation methods. Then we can have a proper debate over how much we pay and what for.

flstf · 07-25-2007, 11:01 AM

Since our government is so concerned with the healthcare costs from smoking perhaps the taxes paid by tobacco users should be used to offset their healthcare costs. Also any revenue received from states settling lawsuits with the tobacco companies.

In some places I bet the state and federal tobacco taxes paid by individuals would buy a very good policy. The more you smoke, the more money the government refunds to you to buy better health insurance.

I suspect our polititians are more interested in using the tobacco taxes to fund things that further their careers (like child health programs) and are not so concerned with the healthcare costs of smoking. I wonder if all the taxes collected from smokers aren't already more than enough to pay for the additional healthcare costs.

dc_dux · 07-25-2007, 12:41 PM

I dont dispute the philosophical differences here.

But I havent seen one other successful heath related program coming out either Repub or Dem Congress in the last 10 years or one supported by both Clinton and Bush.

That is until Bush announced he would veto if...after his 2004 campaign pledge:

Quote:

“America’s children must also have a healthy start in life. In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government’s health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.”

http://thehill.com/letters/leavitt-u...007-06-08.html

aceventura3 · 07-25-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

The HF charts seem to be very suspect. Chart 3 below appears to be simply based on one linear line (the red), from which the blue is extrapolated simply by percentage.

There is a link to the methodology used. It is fair to question the assumptions used. But, I think the way the chart looks is generally going to be the way it looks regardless of any reasonable assumptions plug into their methodology.

Quote:

I don't believe the decline is that purely linear, so therefore the only true data points on the graph are the two points of the Current Tax line, and that much is giving the credit that may not be due.

In one respect I agree with you because price elasticity is almost never static over time, given the number of real world variables economists can not set up controls for they often use a constant for price elasticity. Assuming the price elasticity of cigarette purchases is greater than zero the demand at higher prices will be lower by definition and for every unit increase in the tax there will be less than a unit in taxes collected. Also assuming a declining population of smokers you will have a downward slope in taxes collected, and then if you assume different price elasticities given the two price levels, the red line will have a different slope than the blue line.

Quote:

But even if we assume the red line to be accurate, the blue line doesn't really show how the increased tax rate accelerates decline. The red line declines from $6.5 billion to $3.0 billion (decline of 58% with 12 year total receipts of $57 billion) while the blue is from $7.5 billion to $3.5 billion (decline of 53% with 12 year total receipts of $66 billion). This seems in fact to go against their findings that decline is accelerated, in that the blue line declines about the same (the 4% probably is due to my own inaccuracies in reading the graph), if not less than the red line, and in any case total revenue is indeed higher by more than 15% over the 12 year illustrated period.

The tax revenue is higher at each point in the chart assuming a higher tax rate and price elasticity less than one.

Using simple numbers:

A) 100 smokers at $1 per pack of cigarettes buy 100 packs.
B) 50 smokers at $1 per pack buys 50 packs.

Assuming price elasticity of 0.25 ( for every incremental increase in price the change in demand changes by .25 of the change in price)

C) 100 smokers at $1.50 per pack buy 75 packs.
D) 50 smokers at $1.50 per pack buy 37.5 packs.

If the tax collected is $.50 per pack in scenario A the tax collected is $50. In scenario B the tax collected is $25.

Then if we increase the tax to $1.00 per pack in scenario C the tax collected is $75.00. In scenario D the tax collected is $37.50.

If we graphed the data we would have two separate lines with the same slope because we used a constant for elasticity. But the gap between the two gets progressively smaller. The HF did not use a constant for elasticity . They correctly used different price elasticity ratios to try and more accurately reflect the demographics of smokers. For example a 50 year old millionaire won't change his smoking behavior because of price the way a 21 year old student would.

Quote:

So while the graph below is supposedly indicating how increasing taxes will actually undermine future tax revenue, it actually demonstrates quite the opposite if you look at it more closely than to simple see three downward lines and assume that the graph title is therefore true.

I think the graph illustrates two issues, one is price elasticity and the other is an assumption of fewer smokers over time. If the only variable was a change in the tax or the price all we would have seen two horizontal lines in the chart.

pan6467 · 07-25-2007, 03:06 PM

If the Democratic party supports this and still fights against smoking rights, I will no longer support the Democratic party. This will be the straw that broke my back and I will not hesitate to go to the Republican party or the Libertarians or whomever else.

But I am tired of the Dems making promises to focus on the true issues then take freedoms away (taxing to the point of non affordance is taking away the right). I'm done with them.

This country is going to Hell and we worry about smokers???? We worry about gay marriages, Euthanasia, Abortion, etc.etc. These are all PERSONAL MORAL decisions, not governmental rights to be taken away or worse yet, taxed into non affordance.

Take the BILLIONS the states got from their tobbaco lawsuits and look where the money went. Ask yourself if that money went to healthcare and smoking cessation help and so forth, as promised then why is healthcare and smoking cessation help still floundering and in need of money?

Our government is out of control and freaks, powertripping asswipes and sheep who follow the majority lap it up. The problem is, they'll come after alcohol next, then sugar, then caffeine, and they are already starting with fats in food. WHERE DOES IT FUCKING END?????

People who support taxing into oblivion, truly need to look deep down and ask themselves why they support this. Is it because you don't like smoke? Well, I don't like a lot of choices people make but I don't cry for the government to do something about it. Is it because you buy the bullshit that the money will only go where they promise it will go? Look at fucking Social Security, if that money truly went where it was supposed to, it would be very healthy, but it doesn't. Once government gets the money they put it where THEY fucking want to and don't even think about it.

The gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater, this generation will never exceed the previous one, the government is trying to merge with Mexico so we can adapt their standards of living, our education is falling apart, we are allowing this government to fall apart before our very eyes and we worry over bullshit?

Wow.....

joshbaumgartner · 07-25-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think the graph illustrates two issues, one is price elasticity and the other is an assumption of fewer smokers over time. If the only variable was a change in the tax or the price all we would have seen two horizontal lines in the chart.

Regardless, the end result was that their chart showed that adding the tax did not increase or decrease the rate of decline in revenue over the time period, as the decline over the illustrated period was about 55% (give or take a couple points for roughly interpreting the exact numbers the chart tries to illustrate) both with or without the new tax.

Thus the chart shows the following four points conclusively:

1) Tax revenue for tobacco will steadily decline over the next 12 years.
2) The rate of decline in tax revenue over the period will not be exaggerated by the introduction of a new tax.
3) Total tax revenue collected over the period will be greater by approximately 15% with implementation of the new tax.
4) The percentage of revenue represented by the new tax will remain constant at about 15% over the duration.

Now all of this is just from the chart itself. If the goal was to illustrate elasticity, it doesn't accomplish this, because that element is not illustrated, even though it is supposedly part of the behind-the-scenes calculations. If the goal was to show that the new tax will cause a greater decline of tax revenue, it doesn't accomplish this, because it actually shows that the new tax has no impact.

As for variables shown, the only three are time (X-axis), revenue (Y-axis), and which tax law is applied (red vs. blue lines). All other variables are hidden, and thus the chart is meaningless in demonstrating their effects.

I don't believe that all four of the above points are true, therefore I doubt the validity of the chart itself. As far as I can tell, a spreadsheet of data points was not there to see, so more precise calculations can not be made.

Personally, I'm not a fan of cigarette taxes (or any of these focused taxes that are ramped up because they target politically vulnerable sectors), but this chart really does a disservice to those arguing against such taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

But I am tired of the Dems making promises to focus on the true issues then take freedoms away (taxing to the point of non affordance is taking away the right). I'm done with them.

This country is going to Hell and we worry about smokers???? We worry about gay marriages, Euthanasia, Abortion, etc.etc. These are all PERSONAL MORAL decisions, not governmental rights to be taken away or worse yet, taxed into non affordance.

I agree that the government should not be in the business of legislating morality, and you are right that doing so by taxing something excessively is as bad as making it illegal...and in fact worse in my opinion, because tax schemes are like saying it is illegal for the poor, but not those who can afford it. If something needs to be illegal than just do it and we'll debate whether or not that is right to do. Don't use the back door way to enforce your will on people in a way you know would never pass the democratic process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Take the BILLIONS the states got from their tobbaco lawsuits and look where the money went. Ask yourself if that money went to healthcare and smoking cessation help and so forth, as promised then why is healthcare and smoking cessation help still floundering and in need of money?

Well, it didn't of course! I mean sure, some of it did, and in some states more than others. But of course, tax starved state legislatures who are filled with politicians who don't have the nuts to raise honest taxes, nor cut into cherished programs, licked their lips at the incoming cash and by and large treated it as general revenue. Even where the money was earmarked correctly, it often just freed up other money to be spent as they pleased.

To some extent this is our own fault...really to a great extent. We constantly put the sword to any politician that we catch raising taxes on us, but yet we demand that they do all these expensive things. The money has to come from somewhere, so they find low hanging fruit like tobacco and alcohol to tax, they obfuscate other taxes behind a bunch of different schemes, they raise 'user fees' and in some cases enforce the law almost entirely for the revenue gained by fines (speeding being the classic example).

We should have one source for taxes and that is income. Both individuals and corporations. I know a lot of people will scream, but think about it, sales, property, tariffs, fees, fines, all of that is ultimately paid by us the people. So just take it out up front in a way that it can't be hid. Every American will know EXACTLY how much they have to pay and then we'll have grounds to debate whether it is too much, too little, whatever. We can't have that debate right now because no one knows how much they pay in taxes exactly. Debates over individual taxes (sales or cigarette or user fees or whatever) are hard to come to any meaningful result because it is lost in the swamp of all this complex tax scheming.

One tax, up front and clear.

pan6467 · 07-26-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

Regardless, the end result was that their chart showed that adding the tax did not increase or decrease the rate of decline in revenue over the time period, as the decline over the illustrated period was about 55% (give or take a couple points for roughly interpreting the exact numbers the chart tries to illustrate) both with or without the new tax.

Thus the chart shows the following four points conclusively:

1) Tax revenue for tobacco will steadily decline over the next 12 years.
2) The rate of decline in tax revenue over the period will not be exaggerated by the introduction of a new tax.
3) Total tax revenue collected over the period will be greater by approximately 15% with implementation of the new tax.
4) The percentage of revenue represented by the new tax will remain constant at about 15% over the duration.

Now all of this is just from the chart itself. If the goal was to illustrate elasticity, it doesn't accomplish this, because that element is not illustrated, even though it is supposedly part of the behind-the-scenes calculations. If the goal was to show that the new tax will cause a greater decline of tax revenue, it doesn't accomplish this, because it actually shows that the new tax has no impact.

As for variables shown, the only three are time (X-axis), revenue (Y-axis), and which tax law is applied (red vs. blue lines). All other variables are hidden, and thus the chart is meaningless in demonstrating their effects.

I don't believe that all four of the above points are true, therefore I doubt the validity of the chart itself. As far as I can tell, a spreadsheet of data points was not there to see, so more precise calculations can not be made.

Personally, I'm not a fan of cigarette taxes (or any of these focused taxes that are ramped up because they target politically vulnerable sectors), but this chart really does a disservice to those arguing against such taxes.

I agree that the government should not be in the business of legislating morality, and you are right that doing so by taxing something excessively is as bad as making it illegal...and in fact worse in my opinion, because tax schemes are like saying it is illegal for the poor, but not those who can afford it. If something needs to be illegal than just do it and we'll debate whether or not that is right to do. Don't use the back door way to enforce your will on people in a way you know would never pass the democratic process.

Well, it didn't of course! I mean sure, some of it did, and in some states more than others. But of course, tax starved state legislatures who are filled with politicians who don't have the nuts to raise honest taxes, nor cut into cherished programs, licked their lips at the incoming cash and by and large treated it as general revenue. Even where the money was earmarked correctly, it often just freed up other money to be spent as they pleased.

To some extent this is our own fault...really to a great extent. We constantly put the sword to any politician that we catch raising taxes on us, but yet we demand that they do all these expensive things. The money has to come from somewhere, so they find low hanging fruit like tobacco and alcohol to tax, they obfuscate other taxes behind a bunch of different schemes, they raise 'user fees' and in some cases enforce the law almost entirely for the revenue gained by fines (speeding being the classic example).

We should have one source for taxes and that is income. Both individuals and corporations. I know a lot of people will scream, but think about it, sales, property, tariffs, fees, fines, all of that is ultimately paid by us the people. So just take it out up front in a way that it can't be hid. Every American will know EXACTLY how much they have to pay and then we'll have grounds to debate whether it is too much, too little, whatever. We can't have that debate right now because no one knows how much they pay in taxes exactly. Debates over individual taxes (sales or cigarette or user fees or whatever) are hard to come to any meaningful result because it is lost in the swamp of all this complex tax scheming.

One tax, up front and clear.

We're taxed on income, we're taxed on the product, we then have sales tax when we buy the product, and there maybe taxes after that.

The truth is if we ever woke up and saw how we are taxed and double taxed and triple taxed with hidden taxes the people would truly be pissed.

Let's say you buy a car, first you were taxed on your income, then you are taxed with sales tax, now how much of the price of that car was from interstate commerce taxes, taxes the corporation had to pay, taxes the car dealership had to pay, taxes the trucker had to pay for the fuel to deliver the car????? And again, YOU ARE PAYING ALL THOSE TAXES WITH MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED.

There is so much taxation and we are oblivious to it.... but the true question that we need to ask is where is all the money?

Paq · 07-26-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

We're taxed on income, we're taxed on the product, we then have sales tax when we buy the product, and there maybe taxes after that.

The truth is if we ever woke up and saw how we are taxed and double taxed and triple taxed with hidden taxes the people would truly be pissed.

Let's say you buy a car, first you were taxed on your income, then you are taxed with sales tax, now how much of the price of that car was from interstate commerce taxes, taxes the corporation had to pay, taxes the car dealership had to pay, taxes the trucker had to pay for the fuel to deliver the car????? And again, YOU ARE PAYING ALL THOSE TAXES WITH MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED.

There is so much taxation and we are oblivious to it.... but the true question that we need to ask is where is all the money?

hey pan, you forgot about the yearly property taxes some of us pay for owning a car.

dksuddeth · 07-26-2007, 09:40 PM

nickeled and dimed

good book, you all should read it.

tecoyah · 07-27-2007, 03:55 AM

Hatred is too strong a word....distrust seems fitting.

dc_dux · 07-27-2007, 05:43 AM

The House is currently marking up their version of the S-CHIP reauthorization bill with a cigarette tax increase of half the senate version.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/CHAMP/CHAMP_index.shtml

I dont think any in the Senate expected their bill to be the final word. But I think it is very likely the program will be reauthorized this year with some increase in funding.

Why? Because the basic program currently funded by tobacco taxes has bi-partisan support and overwhelming support of the public.

flstf · 07-27-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I dont think any in the Senate expected their bill to be the final word. But I think it is very likely the program will be reauthorized this year with some increase in funding.

Why? Because the basic program currently funded by tobacco taxes has bi-partisan support and overwhelming support of the public.

It is not surprising that those who do not pay tobacco taxes would support raising taxes of those who do.

Child health programs seem to be important as long as someone else pays for it. I wonder if the program would have bi-partisan and overwhelming support of the public if we raised everyone's taxes to pay for it?

aceventura3 · 07-27-2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

Regardless, the end result was that their chart showed that adding the tax did not increase or decrease the rate of decline in revenue over the time period, as the decline over the illustrated period was about 55% (give or take a couple points for roughly interpreting the exact numbers the chart tries to illustrate) both with or without the new tax.

I think the red and blue lines have different slopes. The absolute dollar difference gets smaller over time.

I also think the chart's purpose is to give casual viewers a rough visual to illustrate their conclusions. I don't think the chart was meant for a PhD level evaluation of their methodology.

Quote:

I don't believe that all four of the above points are true, therefore I doubt the validity of the chart itself.

The point is not the chart, the point is in their projections. On one hand it is clear that over time the tax will not support the program for which the tax was intended. Two factors lead to that conclusion, one being the decline in the number of smokers. The second is price elasticity. If you take the position that increasing the price of cigarettes has no impact on demand, at some price increases and demographics this is true, however it is false in many other circumstances. The methodology used tried to take that into account.

Quote:

As far as I can tell, a spreadsheet of data points was not there to see, so more precise calculations can not be made.

You have to look at their footnotes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

It is not surprising that those who do not pay tobacco taxes would support raising taxes of those who do.

Child health programs seem to be important as long as someone else pays for it. I wonder if the program would have bi-partisan and overwhelming support of the public if we raised everyone's taxes to pay for it?

That's a good question. Why not have everyone with a Washington DC zip code pay for the program? Remember it is for the children.

pan6467 · 07-27-2007, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

It is not surprising that those who do not pay tobacco taxes would support raising taxes of those who do.

Child health programs seem to be important as long as someone else pays for it. I wonder if the program would have bi-partisan and overwhelming support of the public if we raised everyone's taxes to pay for it?

Exactly, and when they have taxed all they can out of cigarettes and gotten the last dollar out of that product, they'll go after alcohol, sugar, caffeine, and keep going until it does it affect enough people that they stand up and say enough.

07-21-2007, 10:00 AM	#6 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I agree with the OP. Why should a select group like smokers, drinkers, etc... be targeted to provide some universally desirable and specific program as child healthcare that benefits all society. Shouldn't we all pay for this equally? Last edited by flstf; 07-21-2007 at 03:34 PM..

07-23-2007, 07:27 AM	#12 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think it is a reasonable bi-partisan bill to continue to provide (and expand) basic heath care to children of working poor and uninsured but not eligible for medicaid. It would potentially expand the number of covered children from 6+million to 9+ million. The original CHIPs program enacted in 1996 was funded through the federal cigarette tax and by all accounts worked well and gave states the flexibility to run the program. Increasing the cigarette tax (the first federal increase in 10 years) and a higher cigar tax seems like a reasonable trade-off to me to provide basic health care to millions of poor children (which ultimately saves money in the health care system). I dont like regressive taxes that adversely affect the lowest income groups' ability to meet their basic needs. Cigarettes are not a basic need and in this case, a regressive taxes is not all bad. At the very least, it would likely help prevent more young people (from most income levels) from starting to smoke but would not significantly result in lower revenue (based on the experiences of many states that have raised state cigarette taxes). And the added tax on most cigars would not be any more signficant than the tax on cigarettes...but anyone willing to pay $9 for a cigar can afford another couple bucks. Fact sheet on CHIPS (pdf) __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-23-2007 at 08:35 AM.. Reason: added fact sheet on CHIPs

07-25-2007, 01:34 AM	#13 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	as much as i'm against smoking and tobacco in general... this is just ...weird and i think it has no chance in hell of passing. just my .05..they increased taxes on pennies, apparently. __________________ Live. Chris

07-25-2007, 07:56 AM	#15 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	All I know is if you want to tax cigarettes fine, but you better start gi9ving us smokers more respect and stop with the no-smoking laws. Or I, for one, will be more than happy to buy black market ciggies. Fuck you hypocrits who complain about the smoke and want to control when and where I can but want to enjoy my tax dollars. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-25-2007, 08:01 AM	#16 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Cheap.....if the tax increase was 20,000% on all cigars, I agree it would have a serious adverse affect on the industry. But that is not the case. Here are the old and new proposed tax rates: Old (current) rates: * cigarettes not weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 ("small cigarettes") are taxed at a rate of $19.50/1000 ($.39/pack) * cigarettes weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 (large cigarettes)are taxed at a rate of $49.50/1000 * cigars not weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 (small cigars) are taxed at a rate of $1.828/thousand * cigars weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 (large cigars) at the rate equal to 20.719 percent of manufacturers or importers sale prices, but not more than $48.75/1000 Proposed new rates: * small cigarettes are taxed at the rate of $50/1000 ($1/pack) * large cigarettes are taxed at the rate of $104.99/1000 * small cigars are taxed at the rate of $50/1000 (same as small cigarettes) or 5 cents/cigar * large cigars are taxed at the rate of 53.3 percent of manufacturers or importers sales price, but not more than $10 per cigar. http://www.senate.gov/~finance/sitep...1307%20JCT.pdf I dont know much about the cigar industry either. How many are small cigars (to be taxed at 5 cents/per cigar) vs large cigars; but I assume most sales are not of $20 cigars (or the maximum $10 tax per cigar). pan.....If i was a smoker, I would buy my cigarettes off of tribal indian websites and pay no tax. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-25-2007 at 08:04 AM..

07-19-2007, 01:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Tax cigarettes that way, not cigars. When smoked like an adult (not in the lungs like someone who doesn't know how to smoke a cigar), they only cause mouth cancer, and the occurrences are SUBSTANTIALLY less frequent. This is almost as stupid as requiring children to pay sales taxes. No taxation without representation.

07-21-2007, 10:22 AM	#7 (permalink)
CheapBastid Tilted off balance... Location: the last place you'd look	I'm not necessarily against the concept of a 'sin tax'. The idea behind which is that the impact of activities that are not necessarily good for an individual is not going to only impact that individual. To help a government deal with those effects by adding a simple tax makes conceptual sense. But, on the other hand the effect of a 20,000% increase will serve to further destroy an ailing industry. Doing this under the banner of 'saving the children' is dishonest and ultimately will not help as the revenue source will be reduced due to the destruction of the very business that is being saddled with the tax.

07-22-2007, 10:03 PM	#9 (permalink)
willynilly Banned	To me it sounds that the tax on cigars will finally be on a parity with the tax on cigarettes. Let's keep things balanced, here. I love it, the Heritage foundation states that the tax on tobacco disproportionately effects the poor. If tobacco is priced out of their reach, then it will cease to effect them. We are not talking about food or medicine hear. Much like the gas guzzler tax on a Dodge Viper does not effect them.

07-25-2007, 08:13 AM	#18 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Pan....there is no evidence to support your conclusion. The evidence from the last federal cigarette tax increase (10 years ago) and the many state cigarette tax increases in the intervening 10 years, may have resulted in a small decrease in the number of user (or those who went to the black market), it resulted in more revenue in every case. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

07-25-2007, 08:16 AM	#19 (permalink)
CheapBastid Tilted off balance... Location: the last place you'd look	dc_dux - The top priced cigars will be going from approximately a $0.05 per cigar rate to the $10.00 per cigar rate cap, that is an increase of 20,000%. It is true that that 20,000% does not apply to all cigars, but the average cigar is considered a 'large cigar' by the new rules and is taxes exorbitantly. For a real world example, a typical handmade cigar that is imported for $9.00 currently pays a federal tax of $0.04875. If this tax increase is imposed, the new federal tax on this same premium cigar will be $4.6017 -- this is an increase of 9,337%. Furthermore, the Senate proposal includes a Floor Tax, in which specialty cigar retailers would be required to pay the increased tax on their existing inventory next spring. Requiring specialty cigar retailers to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes could force thousands of specialty cigar retailer stores to close nationwide.

07-25-2007, 08:23 AM	#20 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Cheap...I agree that it should not be grandfathered to include existing inventory and I would also agree that a lower tax for large cigars would make sense....something between the old 20% and the new 53%. IMO, large cigars were grossly under taxed (max of $48.50/1000 or less than 5 cents/cigar) But I still support the general concept of the proposed bill to expand a successful health care program with revenue from a source (ie smokers) that disproportionately contributes to the higher cost of heath care for all of us. And it is still far more equitable than requiring me to pay federal income tax when I have no voting representation in Congress (now that is taxation without representation) ......getting off my soapbox now. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-25-2007 at 08:42 AM..

07-25-2007, 09:04 AM	#24 (permalink)
CheapBastid Tilted off balance... Location: the last place you'd look	You've now been officially Godwin'd

07-25-2007, 09:06 AM	#25 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Thanks...thats very helpful to the discussion. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

07-25-2007, 09:09 AM	#26 (permalink)
CheapBastid Tilted off balance... Location: the last place you'd look	I live to serve.

07-25-2007, 11:01 AM	#28 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Since our government is so concerned with the healthcare costs from smoking perhaps the taxes paid by tobacco users should be used to offset their healthcare costs. Also any revenue received from states settling lawsuits with the tobacco companies. In some places I bet the state and federal tobacco taxes paid by individuals would buy a very good policy. The more you smoke, the more money the government refunds to you to buy better health insurance. I suspect our polititians are more interested in using the tobacco taxes to fund things that further their careers (like child health programs) and are not so concerned with the healthcare costs of smoking. I wonder if all the taxes collected from smokers aren't already more than enough to pay for the additional healthcare costs.

07-25-2007, 03:06 PM	#31 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	If the Democratic party supports this and still fights against smoking rights, I will no longer support the Democratic party. This will be the straw that broke my back and I will not hesitate to go to the Republican party or the Libertarians or whomever else. But I am tired of the Dems making promises to focus on the true issues then take freedoms away (taxing to the point of non affordance is taking away the right). I'm done with them. This country is going to Hell and we worry about smokers???? We worry about gay marriages, Euthanasia, Abortion, etc.etc. These are all PERSONAL MORAL decisions, not governmental rights to be taken away or worse yet, taxed into non affordance. Take the BILLIONS the states got from their tobbaco lawsuits and look where the money went. Ask yourself if that money went to healthcare and smoking cessation help and so forth, as promised then why is healthcare and smoking cessation help still floundering and in need of money? Our government is out of control and freaks, powertripping asswipes and sheep who follow the majority lap it up. The problem is, they'll come after alcohol next, then sugar, then caffeine, and they are already starting with fats in food. WHERE DOES IT FUCKING END????? People who support taxing into oblivion, truly need to look deep down and ask themselves why they support this. Is it because you don't like smoke? Well, I don't like a lot of choices people make but I don't cry for the government to do something about it. Is it because you buy the bullshit that the money will only go where they promise it will go? Look at fucking Social Security, if that money truly went where it was supposed to, it would be very healthy, but it doesn't. Once government gets the money they put it where THEY fucking want to and don't even think about it. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater, this generation will never exceed the previous one, the government is trying to merge with Mexico so we can adapt their standards of living, our education is falling apart, we are allowing this government to fall apart before our very eyes and we worry over bullshit? Wow..... __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-26-2007, 09:40 PM	#35 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	nickeled and dimed good book, you all should read it. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

07-27-2007, 03:55 AM	#36 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Hatred is too strong a word....distrust seems fitting.

07-27-2007, 05:43 AM	#37 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The House is currently marking up their version of the S-CHIP reauthorization bill with a cigarette tax increase of half the senate version. http://energycommerce.house.gov/CHAMP/CHAMP_index.shtml I dont think any in the Senate expected their bill to be the final word. But I think it is very likely the program will be reauthorized this year with some increase in funding. Why? Because the basic program currently funded by tobacco taxes has bi-partisan support and overwhelming support of the public. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-27-2007 at 05:58 AM..