Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,146,559 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell
It's not Virginia long leaf, but you can grow burley anywhere in America. If people can't break the nicotine addiction, they can always grow it in their back yard and roll their own.
True, but not if it is illegal to grow it. Plenty of people in the environment to do so already do grow their own tobacco. Some folks have been doing so generationally for a few hundred years.
My statement was regarding cities and states that overtax cigarettes - and it has worked to curb the addiction for some but not all nicotine addicts. Judging by the amount of school kids that still ask me for cigarettes whenever they see me smoking, education isnt really that effective either. I wish I had never started, and I never give them any. This country was founded on tobacco. Native Americans were growing tobacco and corn before the colonists ever thought to step foot on a boat.
But if the big deal is the fact that people will die from a highly addictive substance - the feared reality is, in the end, we are all going to eventually die of something. Its feared, normal to fear it, but its also unrealistic to try to make the planet support a single life forever. How would the planet support every single life forever, as well as the new lives each generation creates?
There are places that charge 110% to 125% tax on cigarettes alone, but leave the addictions of the rich to a fair tariff (i.e. pipe tobacco and cigars). Isnt that taxation without representation for the poor? Did the poor ask to be overtaxed?
I have read that the French smoke, drink and eat fatty foods, but have one of the highest life-expectancy rates in the world. This is said to be because their government goes out of their way to reduce stress in their lives. Stress is the number one killer in the world.
I am a tobacco/nicotine addict. I have tried several times over the course of my life to quit, only to evetually pick the habit back up again. I would probably have a much easier time quiting if I couldnt simply walk to any given corner store and buy cigarettes.
How does over-taxing me save my life? What does that unfair tax ever do for me? Not to mention I find it very hard to believe that crime hasnt increased over this in these overtax areas. Addicts robbing social security checks to fund their tobacco habit, and stuff like that.
Ive had health professionals that deal with addictions tell me that it is easier to get people to give up substances like heroin and cocaine, than it is to break the nicotine addiction. Aside from that - the overtaxation naturally creates black markets.
My father-in-law managed to quit 25 years before he died - and long before the anti-smoking campaign started. I asked him when do you stop wanting a cigarette? He said I want one right now.
Sure, making the product illegal would also create black markets - which would be another problem, except for the fact that they already exist, lol.
If they really cared about my health - wouldnt they make it illegal, and not simply reach deeper and deeper into my pockets? Its almost like they are really saying - quit or we will bankrupt you! And, we will smoke a cigar while doing it.
Well, although I pay most of my bills on line, I do still write a few checks a year. Four are for my quarterly real estate tax bill, which I could pay on line, but the township adds a charge of 10% of the bill to pay that way. Since the township building is right around the corner, I just leave the checks in their drop box. Why the heck should I pay an extra 10%?
Well, although I pay most of my bills on line, I do still write a few checks a year. Four are for my quarterly real estate tax bill, which I could pay on line, but the township adds a charge of 10% of the bill to pay that way. Since the township building is right around the corner, I just leave the checks in their drop box. Why the heck should I pay an extra 10%?
So, yeah, some people still do write checks.
It was a joke.
Most of us picture older Americans writing checks at the grocery store, etc because they don't trust the new technology (mom and grandma). It was funny to me.
I'm basically saying people their age don't understand our current economy. They're not comparable.
If you aren't earning enough money to cover monthly expenses, it becomes a juggling act to decide which bill to pay first. Having extra to establish an emergency fund would be nice, but for many people it is not possible. Living paycheck to paycheck is the norm for a lot of people. I've had a good income and I've been desperately poor, so know both sides of the situation.
Issues like child care, transportation, health, and availability of jobs all impact someone's earning ability. In a two income family, it is devastating when one income is lost. Even something like taking a few days off due to illness can throw the entire months budget out of control.
Dave Ramsay's advice on eating beans and rice, rice and beans...moving to a cheaper home ignores the fact that some families want to feed their child adequately, raise them in a safe environment with a good school system and don't have the money to move, anyway. Coming up with first, last, and security deposit is not easy. People who have money have a very limited view of the realities of living within tight financial situations.
Whether or not this report is believable depends largely on the situation of folks reading it. If they have ample income, they are less likely to believe how impossible it is to raise $400. The paycheck to paycheck crowd know very well how tough it can be.
Most of us picture older Americans writing checks at the grocery store, etc because they don't trust the new technology (mom and grandma). It was funny to me.
I'm basically saying people their age don't understand our current economy. They're not comparable.
I'm almost 64 years old. I use whatever new tech suits me and ignore the rest.
I do agree with you, though. The economy is very different from when I was young. For instance, although the minimum wage at that time was something like $1.95/hr., I was able to rent a decent apartment for $80/month.
At $1.95/hr, I would bring home roughly $312/month (before taxes, which weren't much), so say I netted $250/month. Subtract $80 for rent = $170; food was about $20/week for two people (pretty good food; there wasn't a whole lot of packaged/junk food then); so subtract $80/month from the $170 which left $90/month for whatever I wanted to spend it on (television was free; phone bill maybe $10/month; utilities included with apartment).
Also, most jobs offered 40 hours per week; not like it is today with many more part-time jobs.
Today, at a minimum wage of $7.25/hr (assuming 40 hour weeks) the gross monthly pay would be $1,160, meaning in some parts of the country that wouldn't even pay for a decent apartment. It might be enough in other parts of the country, but I imagine someone would have to spend more than half of their monthly income on housing alone, whereas I needed to spend a little less than 1/3 of mine.
5,896 adults responded to the survey out of an adult population of 250 million.
Its called sampling. Read a book for god's sakes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
