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.
people can struggle for 10-20 years with smoking related illnesses and only may die a few years earlier (there's no way to validate this however), but you rack up some pretty hefty bills during your illness.
if what you say is true, why do health care providers ask if you smoke?
I remember reading about the cost a while back. And while it is true that smokers can certainly incur hefty medical bills, most big medical expenses come when you get older. So dying younger means they don't happen. Again, I certainly didn't research this, just read about it.
I don't understand the link you are making between what I said and why a health care provider would ask you if you smoke?
ive never smoked a cigarette in my life. but i still dont like the idea of government taxing the crap out of it while its a legal product under the false notion that its to offset costs of smokers. what about cars? car accidents big and small cost tons of money from various injuries and deaths. should there be some ridiculious sales tax to compensate for those costs? im sure some environmental geniuses would think there should be simply because of the co2 emissions. would people start wasting tears if they were hit with a 50% sales tax when they buy a car?
I would also love to see where the tax on smokers actuallys goes. Knowing NJ is there any chance in hell it doesn't go towards something that has nothing to do with smoking?
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,688,469 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
I would also love to see where the tax on smokers actuallys goes. Knowing NJ is there any chance in hell it doesn't go towards something that has nothing to do with smoking?
It's going into the general fund. McGreevey started this, saying that instead of reversing Christie Whitman's tax cuts, he'd make it up with cigarette taxes.
If you're going to have a "sin" tax, don't just put it on one item. That's why people got POed & got creative.
I remember reading about the cost a while back. And while it is true that smokers can certainly incur hefty medical bills, most big medical expenses come when you get older. So dying younger means they don't happen. Again, I certainly didn't research this, just read about it.
I don't understand the link you are making between what I said and why a health care provider would ask you if you smoke?
I'm just asking if smokers don't incur large medical bills, why would an insurer care if you smoke or not? Obviously they feel they will pay more if you are a smoker.
ive never smoked a cigarette in my life. but i still dont like the idea of government taxing the crap out of it while its a legal product under the false notion that its to offset costs of smokers. what about cars? car accidents big and small cost tons of money from various injuries and deaths. should there be some ridiculious sales tax to compensate for those costs? im sure some environmental geniuses would think there should be simply because of the co2 emissions. would people start wasting tears if they were hit with a 50% sales tax when they buy a car?
if a 50% tax were levied, the price of the car would drop. driving is more of a necessity than pumping tobacco smoke into your lungs.
It's going into the general fund. McGreevey started this, saying that instead of reversing Christie Whitman's tax cuts, he'd make it up with cigarette taxes.
If you're going to have a "sin" tax, don't just put it on one item. That's why people got POed & got creative.
I can't find the stats for NJ but a lot of states have an enormous tax on liquor (and even larger if you order a drink from the bar), and I don't see the outrage there. I'm sure NJ's tax levy isn't cheap. Still investigating.
if a 50% tax were levied, the price of the car would drop. driving is more of a necessity than pumping tobacco smoke into your lungs.
a car isnt like the used real estate market. prices cant just drop below the cost to build the cars. im sure if a 50% sales tax on cars was levied, people would hold onto their cars until they have driven them to death. but also they would cry cry cry.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,688,469 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by tahiti
I can't find the stats for NJ but a lot of states have an enormous tax on liquor (and even larger if you order a drink from the bar), and I don't see the outrage there. I'm sure NJ's tax levy isn't cheap. Still investigating.
NJ's taxes on liquor have always been considerably cheaper than PA's. Pennsylvanians have made runs to NJ for booze as long as I can remember. McGreevey didn't raise the taxes on booze for that reason.
I'm a boomer & when we were kids there were still luxury taxes & sin taxes in effect, left over from WWII. They were across the board, not concentrated on one or two items. An example of the luxury tax was silk stockings. During WWII a luxury tax was levied on silk stockings to discourage their use, as the silk was needed for parachutes. Nylon stockings were invented to circumvent the luxury tax & provide a product that women who were not wealthy could afford.
By raising a sin tax instead of getting Whitman's tax cuts repealed, McGreevey thought that he would look good to people who dislike cigarettes. He never thought about Delaware. Not only did he not take into consideration what the price of cigarettes was in Delaware, he also didn't think about their lack of a sales tax. This is typical. North Jersey polititians have little to no knowledge of South Jersey & have used it as a source of tax money with little to no return to the area. When McGreevey raised the cigarette tax the 2nd time, people who had never gone to Delaware started going & not only bought cigarettes but other items taxable in NJ. He lost cigarette sales & additional sales tax for the state. I already gave an example of how someone could save well over $100. If the purchases are small enough to not raise suspicions (a state trooper is stationed at the bridges) & the purchases are made in cash, there is no proof that you've taken money out of the state & spent it.
This is why I said that the article is probably right about the number of cigarettes brought into the state, but probably wrong about how many are brought in illegally.
It doesn't matter whether you like or dislike cigarettes. Since McGreevy, the state has been attempting to patch a hole in the budget that Christie Whitman created with taxes on one item. Corzine patched the hole with the temporary tax increase on the wealthy, which is who benefitted from Christie Whitman's tax decrease. Christie let it expire saying that it would drive out the wealthy. This is BS. People from all economic levels have been flocking to NC which has a higher income tax.
but you have to realize, smokers are typically sick their entire lives. costing a lot even though they die early...and they typically die of illnesses that are treated for a while, and those treatments are costly.
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.
