|$7.00 a pack for cigarettes in NYC?||jose_Tex_mex|
Jul 1, 2002 2:14 PM
I heard about Mayor Bloomberg's plan to tax smoking out of existence in NYC. Does this seem fair or right to you? I do not smoke, never have, never will. However, I am concerned about the state taking it upon themselves to regulate behavior and to where this might lead.
Why not tax coffee, sugar, beer, and/or fast food to start? What about taxing gasoline up to $6.00 a gallon- more people would be on bikes, less accidents, less polution.
At first such an idea my sound fine as it could get rid of some things we would be better off without. However, should the state be allowed to in effect regulate freedoms by taxation?
What about taxing motorcycles - they're dangerous. We might even want to tax extreme sports. Again - where does it stop.
It just does not seem right or fair that the state is going to force their budget problems on to the backs of a minority.
I vote no. What do you think?
|I'll shed no tears...||mr_spin|
Jul 1, 2002 2:44 PM
|I think it's idiotic, but I'm not going to stand in their way. Cigarette smoke gives me terrible headaches, so if less people do it as a result, I couldn't be happier.
We should tax hot air generated by politicians. Talk about global warming!
|how does that compare to marijuana? :-) nm||DougSloan|
Jul 1, 2002 4:13 PM
|a pack of marijuana cigs would last you a lot longer (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Jul 2, 2002 6:06 AM
|Tax the s*&t out of them.||look271|
Jul 1, 2002 6:18 PM
|True, the other things that you have pointed out are "dangerous", but none of them have been proven to be as harmful as cigarettes even to those who don't smoke (2nd hand smoke). $10 a pack sounds good to me. Maybe THAT would stop my brother from smoking (doubt it).|
|agree. i even agreed w/this WHEN I SMOKED. nm||JS Haiku Shop|
Jul 2, 2002 1:05 PM
Jul 2, 2002 4:23 AM
|If I remember correctly 15 years ago when I worked at a Gas Station in High School they were 1.10 a pack, 10.25 for a carton.
It's much cheaper to smoke marijuana, if that's the high you prefer!
Really these people should be paying much higher health benefits, which they do to an extent. I guess the justification for it is that the state covers so many smokers health care that they have to recoup the money somewhere. I guess as long as you're still free to buy them than I wouldn't oppose the taxes. Then it's up to you to decide if the cost is worth the pleasure. I don't think we should make them illegal. That would only lead to the sorry state of affairs associated with other illicit drugs and with alcohol back during prohibition.
|Just buy them in NJ.||Sintesi|
Jul 2, 2002 5:04 AM
|Honestly, all this will do is start the easiest black market in the world. This is NYC so trust me on this.
If the extra revenue is used to pay for smokers suffering in the hospital and prevention programs to stop kids from starting in the first place then I may become amenable to the idea. However, it is my understanding that this is a cynical tax against smokers whom mayor Bloomberg has a personal prejudice against (he detests smokers)and the money is getting dumped right into the central coffers to make up for budget shortfalls post 9/11, post dotcom Wallstreet bust. I'm pretty sure mayor Mike enjoys a little vino here and there, why not tax that out of existence as well? Alcohol related fatalities are right up there with smoking related diseases, drunk drivers and alcohol abusers take tens of thousands of innocent teetolars year in and year out. Why should smokers get hammered for participating in legal, voluntary act?
This is a step towards prohibition which I'm against. If it truly reduces smoking then great (it might work!) but otherwise the tax should be rolled back. Yeah right.
|If it was a directed tax, then OK||PaulCL|
Jul 2, 2002 5:19 AM
|Not a smoker here, hate smoking, won't allow it in my house, in my car, in my office. I wouldn't date a smoker (when I was single).
If the tax from smokers would go directly to the health care system, then I'd be all for it. I have always resented paying the same health insurance premium as the the 300lb smoker in the office next to me. It's unfair - its' discrimination against the healthy minority. But if the tax $$ go to the general coffers, then its' wrong. You're right: the next step is alcohol, then junk food, then ???? Hey, think "luxury tax". The door was opened a decade ago.
I live in Kentucky. There is not a chance in hell of any tax at all on cigarrettes. Any anti-tobacco legislation is shot down immediately. Too many tobacco $$ in my state.
|Yeah but I don't think you pay the same||Wayne|
Jul 2, 2002 5:49 AM
|health care as the smoker next to you. At least for some insurance companies I know you pay more if you're a smoker (tested via urine). If you're overweight and don't exercise you're probably at a comparable higher risk for cardiovascular disease, and many other illnesses. Does anyone know if these people have to pay higher insurance?|
|Higher life insurance rates, yes||PaulCL|
Jul 2, 2002 7:32 AM
|but the same health insurance rates in a group setting. If you, as an individual, goes to a health insurance company to apply, your rates will be dependent upon your history and current health.
In a group setting - such as the very large corporation that I work for - I am charged the same as everyone else. Not fair. It would be in the interest of the insurers to test all employees for fitness. As simple as an observation of weight. Thank your federal government for this one: no discrimination allowed for health insurance based on gluttony, sloth, or inhalants.
Life insurers ARE allowed to charge different rates (discriminate???) based upon your smoking history and current health. In addition, if you participate in certain activities deemed high risk - skydiving, scubadiving, sex with large, horned animals - the insurance company can exclude you or your death benefit if you die during one of these activities.
Health insurance is such a political hot potato. They will never allow discrimination testing. Paul
Jul 2, 2002 6:00 AM
|>I am concerned about the state taking it upon themselves to regulate behavior and to where this might lead.
You born yesterday? The government has been doing this forever. With specific taxes, deductions, credits, defining this or that as income, the tax codes are woven into ever fiber of our beings. Buying a house is more attractive because of interest and property tax deductions. Having a kid gives you another sizeable deduction. Plus, there are hundreds that affect you that you never even are aware of, like some credit your home builder got for installing energy saving appliances.
The government probably regulates behavior more through the tax codes than direct legislation. Just think how life would be different if there were a flat tax or no taxes at all.
|Regulating vs Encouraging Behaviors||jose_Tex_mex|
Jul 2, 2002 7:31 AM
|I am not sure if I agree with your conclusion as to why many of the tax codes originated. People with children could probably use the extra cash over those without. Deriving - the state wants you to make babies out of this one is a bit of a stretch. As for homeowners getting a break - they're the ones that always vote- pure narcissim here. If more renters voted, renters would benefit.
I don't doubt that the gov't wants us to behave in certain fashions. However, using laws or taxation to force someone to do so does not seem right.
Just wait until they decide to tax disposable diapers out of existence (wouldn't the environment be better off without them?)- then we'll see who is giving the bird!
|you spend way more on a kid than any deduction you get (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Jul 2, 2002 8:04 AM
|but it was your choice to incur those expenses (Nm)||TJeanloz|
Jul 2, 2002 9:43 AM
|that is very true! same with buying a house (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Jul 2, 2002 10:43 AM