Why I like taxes on cigarettes [Archive]

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 10:01 AM

How can any of you support this? Isn't this nothing more than government deciding what you should do and what you shouldn't do? Just because you disagree with smoking doesn't make the idea of taxing it ok. What if Obama taxed all non-essentials. Junk food? 4X4's? SUV's? Certain types of clothes? Recreational activities? Fishing? Hunting? Camping?
The list is miles long of items that could be taxed because they are non-essential. But a tax is a tax regardless of how valid your need for it is. Besides, if cigarettes are such a threat that he can justifiy another tax on them then why not make them illegal????

Buckeye1980

07-10-2009, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
How can any of you support this? Isn't this nothing more than government deciding what you should do and what you shouldn't do? Just because you disagree with smoking doesn't make the idea of taxing it ok. What if Obama taxed all non-essentials. Junk food? 4X4's? SUV's? Certain types of clothes? Recreational activities? Fishing? Hunting? Camping?
The list is miles long of items that could be taxed because they are non-essential. But a tax is a tax regardless of how valid your need for it is. Besides, if cigarettes are such a threat that he can justifiy another tax on them then why not make them illegal????

I can support taxing cigarettes for this reason

Person on welfare smoke and gets lungs cancer, MY tax money pays for his medical cost if it is paid at all or health care cost goes up cause it goes unpaid . So his ignorance cost me !

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
How can any of you support this? Isn't this nothing more than government deciding what you should do and what you shouldn't do? Just because you disagree with smoking doesn't make the idea of taxing it ok. What if Obama taxed all non-essentials. Junk food? 4X4's? SUV's? Certain types of clothes? Recreational activities? Fishing? Hunting? Camping?
The list is miles long of items that could be taxed because they are non-essential. But a tax is a tax regardless of how valid your need for it is. Besides, if cigarettes are such a threat that he can justifiy another tax on them then why not make them illegal????

I'd be perfectly fine making cigarettes illegal. I don't smoke, and the fact that others choose to smoke in public places and thereby expose my lungs to their carcinogenic habits makes me perfectly comfortable with the idea of outlawing it.

And to follow up on your "non-essential" tax, a junk food tax on soft drinks is already in the senate to help pay for Obama's health plan:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133450.html

SintonFan

07-10-2009, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
How can any of you support this? Isn't this nothing more than government deciding what you should do and what you shouldn't do? Just because you disagree with smoking doesn't make the idea of taxing it ok. What if Obama taxed all non-essentials. Junk food? 4X4's? SUV's? Certain types of clothes? Recreational activities? Fishing? Hunting? Camping?
The list is miles long of items that could be taxed because they are non-essential. But a tax is a tax regardless of how valid your need for it is. Besides, if cigarettes are such a threat that he can justifiy another tax on them then why not make them illegal????
.
I agree with you.
A tax is a tax. But for supporters of this, it's a case of "It won't affect me". They are talking about a massive new tax on alcohol now. We'll see if the same attitude persists.:thinking:

Buckeye1980

07-10-2009, 10:08 AM

Questions I would ask smokers?

1) Would you roll up a $5 dollar bill and burn it?
2) If a can food a warning it could lead to your death, would you still eat it?
3) Do you want hold your grandchildren ?
4) Do you miss someone who had died from cancer ?

SintonFan

07-10-2009, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Buckeye1980
I can support taxing cigarettes for this reason

Person on welfare smoke and gets lungs cancer, MY tax money pays for his medical cost if it is paid at all or health care cost goes up cause it goes unpaid . So his ignorance cost me !
.
That may not be as common as you might think. Smokers save billions of dollars in Social Security payments by dying younger than those who don't. Sad but true.

DDBooger

07-10-2009, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
That may not be as common as you might think. Smokers save billions of dollars in Social Security payments by dying younger than those who don't. Sad but true. Very interesting perspective SF:thinking: I imagine they may have some medical bills leading up to their death though, but still wonder what the figures are.

Buckeye1980

07-10-2009, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
That may not be as common as you might think. Smokers save billions of dollars in Social Security payments by dying younger than those who don't. Sad but true.

so you say let people smoke and kill theirselve to save social security....interesting thought...interesting but STUPID!

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Buckeye1980
I can support taxing cigarettes for this reason

Person on welfare smoke and gets lungs cancer, MY tax money pays for his medical cost if it is paid at all or health care cost goes up cause it goes unpaid . So his ignorance cost me !

I'm speechless! You agree with a accross the board tax because perhaps less than 1% of the population will use welfare money to buy cigarettes????? How about just making it illegal to buy cigarettes with welfare money? Wait! It already is...............

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
I'd be perfectly fine making cigarettes illegal. I don't smoke, and the fact that others choose to smoke in public places and thereby expose my lungs to their carcinogenic habits makes me perfectly comfortable with the idea of outlawing it.

And to follow up on your "non-essential" tax, a junk food tax on soft drinks is already in the senate to help pay for Obama's health plan:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133450.html

Examine the idea from the perspective of right or wrong and not just because "You don't smoke"! Because the NEXT proprosal will concern something that you do and no amount of arguing against it will be valid if you agree with this tax. This is the big problem with so many people in our society today. They support a tax like this because they don't like cigarettes but will fight to the death against a tax on ammo for their guns. If you are going to give Obama the ability to decide for you then you better expect him to decide for you on everything. End of story!

SintonFan

07-10-2009, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Buckeye1980
so you say let people smoke and kill theirselve to save social security....interesting thought...interesting but STUPID!
.
I didn't advocate or support it. It is sad indeed.

pirate4state

07-10-2009, 10:38 AM

I liked the discussion on marijuana better than this, yet I can't help but come back and read these posts. :doh: :( :crazy1:

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Buckeye1980
.interesting but STUPID! [/B]

"You are Black", said the Pot to the Kettle. :D :D :D

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Examine the idea from the perspective of right or wrong and not just because "You don't smoke"! Because the NEXT proprosal will concern something that you do and no amount of arguing against it will be valid if you agree with this tax. This is the big problem with so many people in our society today. They support a tax like this because they don't like cigarettes but will fight to the death against a tax on ammo for their guns. If you are going to give Obama the ability to decide for you then you better expect him to decide for you on everything. End of story!

I AM examining this from the perspective of right or wrong.

It is WRONG for other people to decide that they want to pollute MY lungs by smoking in public. They shouldn't have the ability to choose what happens with me; I shouldn't have to be picky about the public places that I go to for fear of someone else doing something that could harm my body. Therefore, they should be punished for taking the liberty to choose how they're going to possibly affect other people's lives.

AP Panther Fan

07-10-2009, 10:56 AM

I personally think it SUCKS! Maybe they should just tax people that are overweight?????? How many of you would agree to that?

I don't care how good looking Rick Perry thinks he is ... he has destroyed any confidence I MIGHT have had in him.

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by AP Panther Fan
I personally think it SUCKS! Maybe they should just tax people that are overweight?????? How many of you would agree to that?

Some airlines now require overweight people to pay for an additional seat.

I'm cool with that too.

AP Panther Fan

07-10-2009, 11:12 AM

I still think it is discrimination against a certain group of people.

Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will get very far in changing it....

Smokers vs State of Texas....pffft

Maybe increased alcohol taxes will wake a few more people up.

BILLYFRED0000

07-10-2009, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
How can any of you support this? Isn't this nothing more than government deciding what you should do and what you shouldn't do? Just because you disagree with smoking doesn't make the idea of taxing it ok. What if Obama taxed all non-essentials. Junk food? 4X4's? SUV's? Certain types of clothes? Recreational activities? Fishing? Hunting? Camping?
The list is miles long of items that could be taxed because they are non-essential. But a tax is a tax regardless of how valid your need for it is. Besides, if cigarettes are such a threat that he can justifiy another tax on them then why not make them illegal????

The simple truth is that it is a use tax or excise tax which means you can choose to use it or not. As long as it is not out of line then it is a non issue. The smoking Nazi's however have made the smoke tax unfair in my opinion. But not to worry. The same Nazis are trying to make it illegal to smoke anyway so there wont be any tax before long.

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by AP Panther Fan
I still think it is discrimination against a certain group of people.

Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will get very far in changing it....

Smokers vs State of Texas....pffft

Maybe increased alcohol taxes will wake a few more people up.

It's pretty rare to see alcohol consumption result in good things, so I'm all for that too. Curb it and make people think twice about getting drunk.

Ingleside Fan

07-10-2009, 11:31 AM

Any new Tax, Fee, cap and trade isn't right. The Government has enough of our money. :mad: Make a budget like you and I have to and stick with it! :mad:

AP Panther Fan

07-10-2009, 11:31 AM

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
I AM examining this from the perspective of right or wrong.

It is WRONG for other people to decide that they want to pollute MY lungs by smoking in public. They shouldn't have the ability to choose what happens with me; I shouldn't have to be picky about the public places that I go to for fear of someone else doing something that could harm my body. Therefore, they should be punished for taking the liberty to choose how they're going to possibly affect other people's lives.

You are confusing two different issues. Almost all citys have made it illegal to smoke in public places because of the reasons you mentioned. I don't argue with that. This tax penalizes people who decide to smoke even in their own homes because Uncle Sam has determined that you shouldn't smoke so he will make it more expensive as a incentive to quit. This is wrong on so many different levels. What if P.E.T.A. convinces Obama that Dolphins are in danger so he passes a big tax on Tuna? It's not an issue of IF people should smoke or not smoke- it's an issue of who has the right to make that decision.

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
It's pretty rare to see alcohol consumption result in good things, so I'm all for that too. Curb it and make people think twice about getting drunk.

The definition of "Good things" is very subjective. I took my boys to the lake for 4 days last weekend and they drank their weight in beer and had a very nice and enjoyable weekend. Isn't THAT a good thing? The problem with your kind of statement is that not everyone will agree with what is a good thing and what isn't. Hence the inconsistant answers to the cigarette tax question. Some people don't see a problem with it because they hate smoking but would be exact opposite if it pertained to something they did like. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where we can extend and retract the government leash. Once it's out it tends to stay out!

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
it's an issue of who has the right to make that decision.

So what decisions do you believe that people have the right to make? At what point do people not deserve to make their own decisions? Obviously, there is a point where that happens because I think we all can agree that anarchy is not a solution. If we can find and nail that point down, that's fine.

But the reality is that our government has been telling people what to do and what not to do since 1776. The issues have changed over the years, but much of the premises remain the same.

carter08

07-10-2009, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
We already have a marriage tax too...

If you guys are worried about a slippery slope, that slope got crossed around the time of FDR's administration.

before that. if you're going to trace this downfall of our society back, it starts well before FDR.

how about Prohibition? thats government interference in our private lives, and it took place during a string of 3 Republican presidents.

Lincoln was a Republican, but he interferred with states rights by making slavery illegal.

the point is, we can trace this slippery slope back as far as the 1800s.

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
The definition of "Good things" is very subjective. I took my boys to the lake for 4 days last weekend and they drank their weight in beer and had a very nice and enjoyable weekend. Isn't THAT a good thing? The problem with your kind of statement is that not everyone will agree with what is a good thing and what isn't. Hence the inconsistant answers to the cigarette tax question. Some people don't see a problem with it because they hate smoking but would be exact opposite if it pertained to something they did like. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where we can extend and retract the government leash. Once it's out it tends to stay out!

I've always taken issue with people who associate alcohol with having a good time. Not saying that's what you specifically meant, just generalizing.

Do people mean that you can't have a good time without alcohol? I've had many terrific experiences in life without it.

Do they mean that alcohol enhances the experience? How? It "loosens you up"? Maybe you shouldn't be so uptight to begin with. It makes you throw up if you drink enough? Different strokes for different folks, but I've never found that fun. It's "something to do"? Then why can't you just drink a Dr Pepper and have just as much enjoyment.

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 12:48 PM

carter08

07-10-2009, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Yes, the question as to who has the power, state or federal government, was answered with the Civil War. Federalism died that day.
Prohibition is an example of legislative morality which luckily we learned from. Now, instead of outlaw practices the government has deemed wrong, they just tax it into oblivion(smoking, gas guzzlers, soon to be firearms, etc...).

well, they still outlaw some things. i.e., flavored cigarettes.

and of course, with the huge loss in revenue suffered there, the government's going to need to raise normal cigarette taxes.

i have no problem taxing something that is harmful to other people as well as yourself. smoking? yeah. gas guzzlers? nah. firearms? i'd say if you need more than one, tax all the ones after the first one more.

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
I've always taken issue with people who associate alcohol with having a good time. Not saying that's what you specifically meant, just generalizing.

Do people mean that you can't have a good time without alcohol? I've had many terrific experiences in life without it.

Do they mean that alcohol enhances the experience? How? It "loosens you up"? Maybe you shouldn't be so uptight to begin with. It makes you throw up if you drink enough? Different strokes for different folks, but I've never found that fun. It's "something to do"? Then why can't you just drink a Dr Pepper and have just as much enjoyment.

Mankind has been drinking alcohol since the beginning of mankind. Alcohol exists on every continient on the planet in some form or another. You can trace intoxicating beverages as far back as recorded history goes. Why do you think that is???? I don't think it's a recent event that our government needs to try to tax out of existance. The same applies to smoking. Mankind found something to smoke about 2 minutes after he had sex for the first time...............:D

carter08

07-10-2009, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
I should be able to drive down the road in an H1 Hummer while smoking unfiltered Chesterfields with two M16's on my lap and not have to pay one cent of extra money for any of it.

then they should outlaw smoking in public.

i'm torn on that. i have a friend who is actually allergic to cigarette smok
e, and i have others who just can't stand it.

on the other hand, there's no denying that i enjoy the occasional swisher or black and mild.

it basically comes down to picking between myself and my occasional pleasures and other people and they're health. and i like their health, because i'm not THAT selfish.

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by carter08
well, they still outlaw some things. i.e., flavored cigarettes.

and of course, with the huge loss in revenue suffered there, the government's going to need to raise normal cigarette taxes.

i have no problem taxing something that is harmful to other people as well as yourself. smoking? yeah. gas guzzlers? nah. firearms? i'd say if you need more than one, tax all the ones after the first one more.

So how is the second firearm more harmful to other people than the first? And many people will claim that gas guzzlers are more harmful to the masses than any cigarette is. Cause and effect. More gas demand creates a chain of events that will eventually lead to the downfall of humanity.....
It all boils down the idea of taxing personal decisions because you disagree with them. It's wrong in my book. But you are ok with it?

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
That is pretty simple. If it's legal and doesn't conflict with someone else's rights then people have the right to decide for themselves. Like I said before, if it's bad enough to place a "Sin Tax" on it then make it illegal. Otherwise leave it alone.

Drinking and smoking are legal, so people do have a right to choose them.

Now you've gone full circle in your argument from the government shouldn't tell people what to do to make something illegal if it's "bad" enough to place a "sin tax" on. If we've already stated that people have differing opinions on what they should and should not do, and we agree that the government should in some instances tell people things that they cannot do, then I don't see a problem with the government encouraging people to do things.

That's all the sumptuary taxes are...encouragements for people to do certain things. Nobody is arguing whether or not smoking is bad for your lungs or if havey drinking is bad for your liver. You're still more than welcome to do those things if you choose, but the government encourages you not to by placing a premium on doing those things.

When you're riding an airplane, you really don't need to have a reclining plush seat with a full meal on it and more leg room. If you want it, you're more than welcome to pay extra for it.

People don't really need to drink alcohol or consume tobacco. But if they want to do so, they're more than welcome to pay extra for it.

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 01:17 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by carter08
[B]then they should outlaw smoking in public.

It has been outlawed in most public areas. And soon all public areas will be protected.

carter08

07-10-2009, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
[QUOTE]Originally posted by carter08
[B]then they should outlaw smoking in public.

It has been outlawed in most public areas. And soon all public areas will be protected.

inside buildings.

i can still walk down the sidewalk in houston smokin a blunt.

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by carter08

it basically comes down to picking between myself and my occasional pleasures and other people and they're health. and i like their health, because i'm not THAT selfish.

I can agree with that. I enjoy alcoholic beverages on occasion, but I don't feel slighted or that my personal freedom is being encroached upon for having to pay a premium for them because I understand that there are potential dangers involved both to my health and the health of others depending on what I choose to do with the alcohol.

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by carter08
inside buildings.

i can still walk down the sidewalk in houston smokin a blunt.

maybe in Houston, but that's not the case everywhere. I work in Flower Mound (near DFW airport for those who don't know where it is), and they recently passed a law banning smoking within 100 feet of any public building.

AP Panther Fan

07-10-2009, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03

That's all the sumptuary taxes are...encouragements for people to do certain things. Nobody is arguing whether or not smoking is bad for your lungs or if havey drinking is bad for your liver. You're still more than welcome to do those things if you choose, but the government encourages you not to by placing a premium on doing those things.

LOL....you almost made it sound like "they" care about our health....

What they care about is $$$$ and that's the bottom line, I believe.

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
Drinking and smoking are legal, so people do have a right to choose them.

Now you've gone full circle in your argument from the government shouldn't tell people what to do to make something illegal if it's "bad" enough to place a "sin tax" on. If we've already stated that people have differing opinions on what they should and should not do, and we agree that the government should in some instances tell people things that they cannot do, then I don't see a problem with the government encouraging people to do things.

That's all the sumptuary taxes are...encouragements for people to do certain things. Nobody is arguing whether or not smoking is bad for your lungs or if havey drinking is bad for your liver. You're still more than welcome to do those things if you choose, but the government encourages you not to by placing a premium on doing those things.

When you're riding an airplane, you really don't need to have a reclining plush seat with a full meal on it and more leg room. If you want it, you're more than welcome to pay extra for it.

People don't really need to drink alcohol or consume tobacco. But if they want to do so, they're more than welcome to pay extra for it.

I have not gone full circle. I have repeatedly said it's wrong to put extra tax on the use of a legal substance. Regardless of what that substance is. And your analogies are good except for one single point: In the cigarette tax proposal it's the government putting the premium on a retail product. It's not the retailer charging more for giving you more.
People don't really need to own a sailboat at the lake or take ski vacations every winter. So you would be ok if Obama tried to TAX those things into extinction???? Your words-not mine.

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan

People don't really need to own a sailboat at the lake or take ski vacations every winter. So you would be ok if Obama tried to TAX those things into extinction???? Your words-not mine.

We already have hotel taxes that cover most of that.

We also have gasoline taxes and flight taxes.

I don't have a problem paying those taxes when I want to fly to a vacation spot, rent a hotel, and pay for gas in my rental car.

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I have not gone full circle. I have repeatedly said it's wrong to put extra tax on the use of a legal substance. Regardless of what that substance is. And your analogies are good except for one single point: In the cigarette tax proposal it's the government putting the premium on a retail product. It's not the retailer charging more for giving you more.
People don't really need to own a sailboat at the lake or take ski vacations every winter. So you would be ok if Obama tried to TAX those things into extinction???? Your words-not mine.

oh, and one last thing before I head out for a while...let's be real here...the government is NOT going to tax anything into extinction...it's economics. They need money, so they raise taxes, because taxes are the government's form of "profits". People are willing to pay the price increase, so the income goes up. When the prices get too high, people stop doing things, and then the prices go back down.

Does anybody remember mortgage rates in the 12-14% range in the 80s? What about some of the import taxes that have been lowered or repealed in recent years? When the cost outweighs the reward, eventually the cost goes back down.

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
We already have hotel taxes that cover most of that.

We also have gasoline taxes and flight taxes.

I don't have a problem paying those taxes when I want to fly to a vacation spot, rent a hotel, and pay for gas in my rental car.

Those are hospitality taxes set by cities to help pay for stadiums, museums ect, ect.............. And they are almost always voted on by the citizens of those cities. And they are not set up as a punishment for doing something legal that the government thinks they shouldn't do..... Apples & Oranges!

DDBooger

07-10-2009, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Mankind has been drinking alcohol since the beginning of mankind. Alcohol exists on every continient on the planet in some form or another. You can trace intoxicating beverages as far back as recorded history goes. Why do you think that is???? I don't think it's a recent event that our government needs to try to tax out of existance. The same applies to smoking. Mankind found something to smoke about 2 minutes after he had sex for the first time...............:D absolutely, altered states of conscience is as old as humans. Anthropologists have found it among all early civilizations an even pre-civ.

ronwx5x

07-10-2009, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
absolutely, altered states of conscience is as old as humans. Anthropologists have found it among all early civilizations an even pre-civ.
Death is an altered state of conscience, therefore it is no surprised that anthropologists have found it in all early civilizations!:)

DDBooger

07-10-2009, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Death is an altered state of conscience, therefore it is no surprised that anthropologists have found it in all early civilizations!:) geez, that even goes beyond apples and oranges. :rolleyes: :p

ronwx5x

07-10-2009, 02:06 PM

Am I being insulted? Just trying to give back to those who give!:D

DDBooger

07-10-2009, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Am I being insulted? Just trying to give back to those who give!:D smoking pot, drinking alcohol isn't anywhere akin to being DEAD, in fact many on this board would consider that LIVING! haha ;)

pirate4state

07-10-2009, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
smoking pot, drinking alcohol isn't anywhere akin to being DEAD, in fact many on this board would consider that LIVING! haha ;)

L-I-V-I-N'

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
smoking pot, drinking alcohol isn't anywhere akin to being DEAD, in fact many on this board would consider that LIVING! haha ;)

Well, where death is concerned would you consider the Apple or the Orange more relevant???

DDBooger

07-10-2009, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Well, where death is concerned would you consider the Apple or the Orange more relevant??? i'd say the original comparison is irrelevant. I'd say anything abused from food to drugs is a health hazard. Moderation isn't in American vocabulary however LOL

ronwx5x

07-10-2009, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
Moderation isn't in American vocabulary however LOL

According to Merriam-Webster it is!

Main Entry: 2mod·er·ate
Pronunciation: \ˈmä-də-ˌrât\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mod·er·at·ed; mod·er·at·ing
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 : to lessen the intensity or extremeness of <the sun moderated the chill>
2 : to preside over or act as chairman of
intransitive verb
1 : to act as a moderator
2 : to become less violent, severe, or intense <the wind began to moderate>

— mod·er·a·tion \ˌmä-də-ˈrâ-shən\ noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderation

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Those are hospitality taxes set by cities to help pay for stadiums, museums ect, ect.............. And they are almost always voted on by the citizens of those cities. And they are not set up as a punishment for doing something legal that the government thinks they shouldn't do..... Apples & Oranges!

Maybe to you. To me, taxes are taxes. It doesn't matter who levies them or why they're levied, the fact is that more money is going to come out of my pocket than the retailer is taking out of my pocket.

If you want to discuss opinion on who levies taxes, then the discussion is about the power of the federal government versus the power of the state or local government, and the issue isn't really about taxes at all.

DDBooger

07-10-2009, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by ronwx5x
According to Merriam-Webster it is!

Main Entry: 2mod·er·ate
Pronunciation: \ˈmä-də-ˌrât\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mod·er·at·ed; mod·er·at·ing
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 : to lessen the intensity or extremeness of <the sun moderated the chill>
2 : to preside over or act as chairman of
intransitive verb
1 : to act as a moderator
2 : to become less violent, severe, or intense <the wind began to moderate>

— mod·er·a·tion \ˌmä-də-ˈrâ-shən\ noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderation i'll put (sarcastically) in all posts that may confuse you to the intent of them! hahaha :D

ronwx5x

07-10-2009, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
i'll put (sarcastically) in all posts that may confuse you to the intent of them! hahaha :D

Oh, I'm not confused, I just like to poke a little at the poker.:devil:

DDBooger

07-10-2009, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by ronwx5x
at the poker.:devil: and

"thats what she said"

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 03:09 PM

crzyjournalist03

07-10-2009, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Wow! I think this statement speaks for itself.....

I usually do prefer to speak for myself. :)

DDBooger

07-10-2009, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
I usually do prefer to speak for myself. :) that's a bada$$ Unicorn

Farmersfan

07-10-2009, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
that's a bada$$ Unicorn

Pot stirrer!!!!!!

AP Panther Fan

07-10-2009, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
Maybe to you. To me, taxes are taxes. It doesn't matter who levies them or why they're levied, the fact is that more money is going to come out of my pocket than the retailer is taking out of my pocket.

If you want to discuss opinion on who levies taxes, then the discussion is about the power of the federal government versus the power of the state or local government, and the issue isn't really about taxes at all.

Actually Farmers tan is correct on this one, I think. Hotel/Motel taxes are paid quarterly by those businesses to the municipalities. The municipalities then have the ability to pass them on to Visitor Centers, Municipal Development Organizations etc...they are earmarked for things that put "heads in beds" and bring in the outside $$$. They are very restrictive in nature and require accountability.

Now does the consumer ultimately absorb the cost? Probably, when the motel charges them more. Next time you stay in a hotel in Aransas Pass, just think...you are helping us pay for the Civic Center. lol.;)

GreenGobbla

07-10-2009, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
I had a coworker a couple of years ago who was a heavy smoker. He said he was very glad that the government taxed him for slowly killing himself, and he honestly wished that the taxes would get higher and higher so that eventually, he'd have to talk himself into quitting.
same here, don't see myself qutting unless they get to about 10$ a pack

sinfan75

07-10-2009, 06:58 PM

Believe it or not cigs have been taxed even before Lord Obama come around. And to all the non-smokers? All that smoke-free air you exhale is the biggest contributor to global warming.:D And cow farts!! (or is it burps)

SintonFan

07-10-2009, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
We already have hotel taxes that cover most of that.

We also have gasoline taxes and flight taxes.

I don't have a problem paying those taxes when I want to fly to a vacation spot, rent a hotel, and pay for gas in my rental car.
.
What is the ratio of taxes against what the product cost? It is much higher when it comes to cigarettes. The government is obviously trying to exploit a certain politically-incorrect product with taxation, and they have many people to support them because said product is in fact politically-incorrect. Your analogy for gasoline and flight taxes is not accurate because much of those taxes are used for highway and airport repair, maintenance, improvements and infrastructure.

SintonFan

07-10-2009, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
I AM examining this from the perspective of right or wrong.

It is WRONG for other people to decide that they want to pollute MY lungs by smoking in public. They shouldn't have the ability to choose what happens with me; I shouldn't have to be picky about the public places that I go to for fear of someone else doing something that could harm my body. Therefore, they should be punished for taking the liberty to choose how they're going to possibly affect other people's lives.
.
Show me one documented case of a person dying from second-hand smoke.
Your argument tells business owners what they can and can not do without solid proof of those who "might" die from second-hand smoke("might" is a very weak argument but is now taken as fact). What is happening today is an infringement of business owners' rights. Government expansion will lessen all our rights. Do you not see that?:(

SintonFan

07-10-2009, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
So what decisions do you believe that people have the right to make? At what point do people not deserve to make their own decisions? Obviously, there is a point where that happens because I think we all can agree that anarchy is not a solution. If we can find and nail that point down, that's fine.

But the reality is that our government has been telling people what to do and what not to do since 1776. The issues have changed over the years, but much of the premises remain the same.
.
Starting with your bottom statement. This nation was started with at that time, what was considered the most benevolent and "personal rights" system of government out there. Yes, our rights have been eroded since then and the Founding Fathers put in place mechanisms that should have prevented that, but, what is relative now probably wouldn't have been back then. This nation was founded on our unalienable rights from GOD. Many have turned away from that by modern day arrogance or just a rejection of God in general.
.
Going to the top.
The ability of the government to tax something to death(or unethically cause the financial harm for a segment of the population) is in fact Oppression.

SintonFan

07-10-2009, 07:38 PM

BTW crzyjournalist03, I always respect your opinion and love your posts but I do disagree with you here wholeheartedly.
.
PPHSfan started this thread because he expressed his view. He also said, "It's about time!"
more or less... without saying...:doh: ;)

sinton66

07-10-2009, 07:41 PM

PPHSfan will change his mind when they start taxing Mexican Midgets and stick horses.;)

SintonFan

07-10-2009, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
PPHSfan will change his mind when they start taxing Mexican Midgets and stick horses.;)
.
He might be able to afford those from the black market anyway...;):D

PPHSfan

07-10-2009, 10:14 PM

Ya'll have completely taken this thread in a direction I never intended.

The jab was at the poor being taxed for a change, not the cigarette tax itself.

:D

SintonFan

07-10-2009, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan

PPHSfan started this thread because he expressed his view. He also said, "It's about time!"
more or less... without saying...:doh: ;)
.
Really?
:D

Highschoolfan78

07-10-2009, 11:32 PM

I have no problem with the cigarette tax and I am glad it is in place simply because we have to support those same smokers later in life when their health declines. However, I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio program this morning and they were discussing something pretty alarming. He was discussing that some senators are pushing to implement a no smoking policy in our military. I do have a huge problem with that issue. It is their decision and it is how many of the soldiers cope with the anxiety and stress of their position. Support and educate soldiers of the significant risks, but don't infringe on their rights. Nevertheless, government officials and lobbyists will create untested statistics and use those to fool the American public. (Ex. Global Warming, Second hand smoke, anything that affects a political movement.) Sooner or later we should catch on, right?

PPHSfan

07-10-2009, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Highschoolfan78
I have no problem with the cigarette tax and I am glad it is in place simply because we have to support those same smokers later in life when their health declines. However, I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio program this morning and they were discussing something pretty alarming. He was discussing that some senators are pushing to implement a no smoking policy in our military. I do have a huge problem with that issue. It is their decision and it is how many of the soldiers cope with the anxiety and stress of their position. Support and educate soldiers of the significant risks, but don't infringe on their rights. Nevertheless, government officials and lobbyists will create untested statistics and use those to fool the American public. (Ex. Global Warming, Second hand smoke, anything that affects a political movement.) Sooner or later we should catch on, right?

There has been a No Smoking Policy for Basic Training in the Military for over 20 years.

This should show you how addictive nicotine is. Our Military folks get completely off cigarettes for eight weeks, and then some start smoking again.

rockdale80

07-11-2009, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Highschoolfan78
I have no problem with the cigarette tax and I am glad it is in place simply because we have to support those same smokers later in life when their health declines. However, I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio program this morning and they were discussing something pretty alarming. He was discussing that some senators are pushing to implement a no smoking policy in our military. I do have a huge problem with that issue. It is their decision and it is how many of the soldiers cope with the anxiety and stress of their position. Support and educate soldiers of the significant risks, but don't infringe on their rights. Nevertheless, government officials and lobbyists will create untested statistics and use those to fool the American public. (Ex. Global Warming, Second hand smoke, anything that affects a political movement.) Sooner or later we should catch on, right?

You would support military smokers later in life when their health declines too! They have government healthcare and our taxes pay for that, correct? Why let them poison their bodies while on tax payer payroll and under tax payer healthcare? Think about it. Cant have it both ways there buddy. Smoking shouldnt be taxed or prohibited.

I agree with ETB and FF on this one. Things like this dont seem to matter to most until it affects them. Taxes on guns and ammo is out of bounds though...even though they are not a necessity and optional.