U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-02-2009, 03:02 AM
 
2,141 posts, read 7,035,617 times
Reputation: 1245

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLORIDA TO NIOTA 2010 View Post
Maybe, it has something to do with insurance cost? I believe that insurance is higher for smokers. The State probably pays for the employees insurance. Sorry I just read the article. I know where I work (municipality) the smokers are always on a smoke break. And the non-smokers are working and having to cover for them. At the end of the day the employer gets more work time out of the non-smoker.
First of all, smokers pay hefty taxes per pack which more than compensates for any monies the government spends on health expenditures for smokers. Secondly, non-smokers can always take breaks too. No one is stopping them. Go outside and chat with the smokers or take a walk or something. Smokers are paying a lot of taxes to smoke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2009, 04:25 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,886 posts, read 12,536,143 times
Reputation: 5210
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokyMtnGal View Post
You are correct. This is tied directly to insurance costs.

personally I think that smokers subsidize non smokers.

a smoker will most likely die before a non smoker will, they subsidize social security because they are not taking as much money from the system.

they subsidize the system in general through the taxes they provide, for if no one smoked, everyones income taxes would go up to provide for all the welfare programs that they liberals like to spout off about.

so I dont know what everyone is crying about, just tell your local smoker to go out and buy another pack of smokes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2009, 02:21 AM
 
540 posts, read 1,062,917 times
Reputation: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Do you have kids? Why should we subsidize them?
Actually, if you don't have kids, you're probably more of a leech than those who do. Kids are the future taxpayers and theose who are going to drive industry when it comes time for you to retire. Need those government programs? Need those stocks to hang in there?

Those who don't have kids put nothing back into the pot. Wholly unrelated, I know, but it caught my eye.

Not arguing for or against anything here, other than to say Americans on the whole are not having enough kids--particularly productive segments of the American populace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2009, 02:46 AM
 
540 posts, read 1,062,917 times
Reputation: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun View Post
Also consider this --- the reason you don't have "high speed rail" might very well be because of the "good roads" being subsidized by the government. Governmental policy has favored automobile transportation and trucking over public transportation and rail for several decades, which is one of the reasons why public transportation is a complete failure in most localities in the US. In essence, the government has distorted the marketplace so that it appears that it's cheaper to drive.
It is cheaper to drive. Especially when you live in a smaller town. It's a heck of a lot more convenient, too. As for high-speed rail, I heard Obama's push for a route between Minneapolis and Chicago. It would take 5.5 hours. Or you could take an Amtrak train and be there in 8.5 hours. Or drive it in about 6.5. Cost on Amtrak? About $220 (I can only imagine high speed rail would be more.) Cost to drive in my car? About $21. And no waiting around for an hour or more for a train departure, either. (Though you do have to drive through those dreadful Chicago toles...).

Quote:
Not that I'm saying we should make all roads private. But in the larger cities, it might not be such a horrible idea to make all the major highways toll roads, which would force people to move inward, make public transportation more feasible, and create greater efficiencies over the long run.
How about the freedom of choice? You really think the government should be in the business of "forcing" people to live where it so chooses? I think the 10th Amendment has all but been ignored as a guiding principle in this country. The whole purpose was to limit the powers of government and to minimize incursions.

Quote:
People used to actually talk about the effectiveness and usefulness of policies --- I'm not seeing that any more and this thread seems like a prime example to me.
I agree to an extent. Still, effectiveness is one thing. Personal liberty is a much higher, more profound and more vital consideration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2009, 03:09 AM
 
985 posts, read 2,300,348 times
Reputation: 722
So, basically, people should smoke and have tons of kids they don't want to support "the system". That says more about how ridiculous our "system" is, imo, than who is leeching off whom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2009, 05:17 AM
 
10 posts, read 18,902 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
I'm all in favor of people not smoking BUT is this government flexing its muscle where irt doesn't belong. The Tennessee State government is going to charge state workers $600 per year after December 31 if they OR THEIR SPOUSE smokes.

[URL="http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/apr/28/tennessee-state-employees-will-have-pay-smoke-2010/"]Tennessee state employees will have to pay to smoke in 2010 : Mid-South : Memphis Commercial Appeal[/URL]

This demonstrates the beauty of being a libertarian. I believe that anyone should be able to inject themselves with whatever they want to. Cocaine or Drain-o, it's their life. Not for me to decide what someone chooses to be poisoned with.

the only problem with smoking is socialized medicine.

Why? Because people want the freedom to smoke but they also want their insurance to cover them if they get lung cancer, despite numerous warnings on the pack. Well, why should MY insurance premiums be raised because someone else has a relaxed attitude towards smoke inhalation? You wanna smoke then pay your own bills when it kills you. Yes, you smoke, you got cancer (like my own dad did), I got no sympathy for you. Sorry.

I don't think this law goes far enough. It should be "wanna smoke? go ahead. CHOKE."

Smoke if you want. Don't ask me to pay for your new lungs. I guess that's all I have to say about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2009, 06:31 AM
 
3,628 posts, read 9,023,374 times
Reputation: 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMartel2 View Post
It is cheaper to drive. Especially when you live in a smaller town. It's a heck of a lot more convenient, too. As for high-speed rail, I heard Obama's push for a route between Minneapolis and Chicago. It would take 5.5 hours. Or you could take an Amtrak train and be there in 8.5 hours. Or drive it in about 6.5. Cost on Amtrak? About $220 (I can only imagine high speed rail would be more.) Cost to drive in my car? About $21. And no waiting around for an hour or more for a train departure, either. (Though you do have to drive through those dreadful Chicago toles...).
But if your precious roads WEREN'T subsidized, it would cost you quite a bit more than $21 to drive. Are you also taking into account wear and tear on your car, insurance costs and parking costs in that $21?

If the government was willing to provide for TRUE high speed rail (more than 110 mph, up to 150 mph), it would only take 2.5-3.5 hours to get to Minneapolis. Alternately, that investment could make St. Louis into a commuter city for Chicago, with it taking a little less than two hours to get between the two cities. Now if you think it's stupid to spend two hours on a train, which, if they truly invested in it with ROW for just the HSR, would generally be on time without idiots that don't know how to drive getting in the way, please tell me the logic of why people sit in their cars for two hours to drive from far flung exurbs to come downtown and spend up to $30 for parking per day - and god forbid if someone wrecks their car, you might not have any idea of when you'd get to work.

As far as your comment about subsidizing kids, it can go the same way with disabled people. They're REALLY not contributing anything to society, so why should I subsidize them?? (People don't start yelling at me, I'm just taking his/her comments to an extreme...)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2009, 06:38 AM
 
10 posts, read 18,902 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by supernerdgirl View Post

As far as your comment about subsidizing kids, it can go the same way with disabled people. They're REALLY not contributing anything to society, so why should I subsidize them?? (People don't start yelling at me, I'm just taking his/her comments to an extreme...)
If only our taxes repaired roads! iN my state, we have one of the largest state governments and also taxes on every road and tolls out the wazzoo. We still have pot-holes.

As for disabled people, or anyone, I firmly believe there's a job out there for anyone who wants one. It may not be the most dramatic or glorious job, but people can get paid. Disabled or no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2009, 09:28 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
606 posts, read 1,483,582 times
Reputation: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMartel2 View Post
How about the freedom of choice? You really think the government should be in the business of "forcing" people to live where it so chooses? I think the 10th Amendment has all but been ignored as a guiding principle in this country. The whole purpose was to limit the powers of government and to minimize incursions.
The Constitution has no guaranteed right to a subsidized highway system.

The government is already "forcing" people to live in various locales through fiscal policies. If one city taxes property at an exboritant rate and another one taxes it at a very low rate, you might be "forced" to live in the lower-taxed city to survive. This is not uncommon and it would be naive to believe that government policies do not affect development patterns.

So yes, I believe that if I'm going to give my money to the government, they should promote development patterns that increase economic efficiency and reduce waste and pollution --- rather than promoting development patterns that lead to sprawl, massive traffic jams, and extreme economic inefficiencies.

I'm also of the belief that those who consume the most resources, should pay for those resources --- I do not believe that "personal liberty" somehow requires the government to subsidize those who use the most resources. I think urban taxpayers have been getting the short end of the stick for a long time despite being the most efficient and least wasteful.

Last edited by DiderotsGhost; 05-03-2009 at 09:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2009, 10:02 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 80,998,062 times
Reputation: 17978
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
I'm all in favor of people not smoking BUT is this government flexing its muscle where irt doesn't belong. The Tennessee State government is going to charge state workers $600 per year after December 31 if they OR THEIR SPOUSE smokes.

Tennessee state employees will have to pay to smoke in 2010 : Mid-South : Memphis Commercial Appeal

I agree as the next thoing will be a fee for evry pound your overweight for your height. Then a fee for havingheart disease;diabetes;or high blood pressure if they can be reduced or thouhgt to be by losing weight or lifestyle changes.Its just a slippery slope really to mandating lifestyle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top