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.
He's a smoker, you're a vegetarian. If the cost of your produce increased $100 a month, would you still be a vegetarian? Are you saying you wouldn't care? I bet you would. That's the point.
Of course I would still be vegetarian.
I'm vegetarian for health & political reasons.
I have no reason to kill anything for my needs.
There's a difference, though.
Food is a necessity in life, smoking is not.
It's an option, ask the millions of people who quit.
The price of food is constantly going up.
If I want to eat something, I pay for (or grow) it.
I am an anti-smoker and very against smoking in public. Even I found the tax increase to be unfair. However, then I read this in the Washington Times.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says cigarette smoking results in an estimated 443,000 premature deaths each year and costs the economy $193 billion in health care expenses and lost time from work. Smoking is a major contributor to heart disease, cancer and lung disease.
Okay, but I wanna know about the "sandwish" - is this a New York regional delicacy?
Seriously, any convenience store will have higher prices. And any little bodega in NYC is going to be priced through the roof on everything.
Unquestionably, NYC is higher. My wife is from Brooklyn, and when her relatives came down to visit years ago they filled the trunk up with cigarettes to take back at $3.00 or so a carton. In NY they were more than twice that.
That store, BTW, is on the edge of Chinatown. You may not want to ask what goes into the food. Just enjoy it.
I am an anti-smoker and very against smoking in public. Even I found the tax increase to be unfair. However, then I read this in the Washington Times.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says cigarette smoking results in an estimated 443,000 premature deaths each year and costs the economy $193 billion in health care expenses and lost time from work. Smoking is a major contributor to heart disease, cancer and lung disease.
Smokers on average die earlier. They collect less social security and other benefits. So smokers save us money.
I know a great way to solve the "health care expenses" problem. Make people pay for their own health care. In the case of smoking, have zero taxes on tobacco. But if a smoker (or anyone for that matter) get's sick they pay all medical expenses, no insurance, tough luck. Get rid of medicaid. Taxpayers should only pay for their healthcare and their families, they should never pay for people they don't know.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says cigarette smoking results in an estimated 443,000 premature deaths each year and costs the economy $193 billion in health care expenses and lost time from work. Smoking is a major contributor to heart disease, cancer and lung disease.
Mind blowing numbers, aren't they? If this were a non smoking nation, it would be easy to have Universal Health Care.
Smokers on average die earlier. They collect less social security and other benefits. So smokers save us money.
I know a great way to solve the "health care expenses" problem. Make people pay for their own health care. In the case of smoking, have zero taxes on tobacco. But if a smoker (or anyone for that matter) get's sick they pay all medical expenses, no insurance, tough luck. Get rid of medicaid. Taxpayers should only pay for their healthcare and their families, they should never pay for people they don't know.
Agreed. Smokers should either pay full price for health services or pay higher premiums. They don't work, they don't get paid. No tax necessary.
Democrat operatives say this isn't a tax on the poor since smoking is optional. So now that Dems can tax "optional" things, what else can they tax?
-Fast food
-Organic food (Have you seen the price of Arugula before taxes? )
-Driving
-Soda/Pop/Coke
-Brand name clothing
-Computers
-Cell phones
-Houses over 200 sq ft per person
So he could technically increase your taxes massively, but as long as you don't need it to survive, it isn't really a tax...
I hope you all know that the poor and middle class aren't going to get their taxes raises by the Boy President, but they will be paying way more in taxes. Got it?
Like a 'luxury' or 'indulgence' tax... I could see that gaining traction. It's already happening with cars - the 'gas guzzler' tax. If you choose to spend money on things that are widely considered unhealthy, bad for the environment, or just things that are considered indulgences, you might end up paying more taxes in the future. I can see that happening. It would be interesting to see how those things are determined, wouldn't it? Talk about heated debates!
Let's see how far those dirty 'Dems' take it (as if they're the only side good at taxing, LOL!). Ironically, this type of taxation sounds familiar - haven't I seen discussions about proposals that would do away with income taxes in favor of a tax system that is based on how much you spend, not how much you make? If I'm not mistaken, it's not Dems who are big on that type of system.
I can imagine the uproar if the target becomes coffee/caffine...a non-esstential consumable....a "drug" ...one that is addictive and can produce some nasty withdrawl symtoms.... One that has benefits similar to nicotine but can be similarly hazardous to ones health....one with no appreciable nutritional value.
So why not a big fat income producing tax on coffee?
Do you really need a link to know that smoking is not healthy behavior?
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.