Tobacco taxes are a regressive tax on lower income people

[renard_ruse]

These days a disproportionate amount of smokers are lower income. Many of them have been smoking for years and just can't quit the habit no matter how hard they try. They will pay whatever it costs for cigarettes even if they can't really afford it. It will come before food or other necessities for some of them.

So, why do those who claim to care about lower income people keep promoting ever higher taxes on tobacco when they know it will hurt the poor? Lets keep trying to discourage smoking but not with ever higher regressive taxes on people who are unable to quit an unfortunate habit.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

These days a disproportionate amount of smokers are lower income. Many of them have been smoking for years and just can't quit the habit no matter how hard they try. They will pay whatever it costs for cigarettes even if they can't really afford it. It will come before food or other necessities for some of them.

So, why do those who claim to care about lower income people keep promoting ever higher taxes on tobacco when they know it will hurt the poor? Lets keep trying to discourage smoking but not with even more regressive taxes on people who are unable to quit an unfortunate habit.

Would you agree that nicotine companies should surrender more of their profits to help people kick the habit?

 

[renard_ruse]

Would you agree that nicotine companies should surrender more of their profits to help people kick the habit?

They will just pass the costs on to consumers. Duh.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

They will just pass the costs on to consumers. Duh.

Then no one would buy their product, they would go out of business and the problem would be solved.

 

[renard_ruse]

Then no one would buy their product, they would go out of business and the problem would be solved.

Obviously some people are still smoking despite all the taxes and education campaigns, which is the point of the thread. Why don't you care about those people? They will buy cigarettes before they would buy food. Why not just leave them alone to do what they want?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Obviously some people are still smoking despite all the taxes and education campaigns, which is the point of the thread. Why don't you care about those people? They will buy cigarettes before they would buy food. Why not just leave them alone to do what they want?

What education campaigns?

 

[renard_ruse]

What education campaigns?

You've never noticed the anti-smoking publicity campaigns? Have you been in a cave for the past thirty years?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You've never noticed the anti-smoking publicity campaigns? Have you been in a cave for the past thirty years?

You said education campaign, not a publicity campaign. Which one is it?

 

[TexasWife25]

Who do you think paid for those anti-smoking ads?

 

[Bert Notorius]

The tax is a fixed amount assuming one person can only consume a certain amount of tobacco. Therefore the percentage of tax paid per total income per consumer decreases as income increases. To maintain an equality across the the board, a consumer would either have to a). consume less tobacco or b.). make more money.

 

[badbabysitter]

We have federally and provincially supported smoking cessation programs in Canada that are free to lower income folks


this of course wouldnt fly south of the border because it's evil and "socialist"

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Lets not forget what happened when we outlawed alcohol. Millions of dollars went to criminal organizations and housands of people died. There's no way we can outlaw tobacco and have it stop. Hell we cant even stop the illegal trade of legal narcotics never mind illegal ones so the issue is education and prevention.

Besides Tobacco is the only dngerous product forced to fund efforts to stop it's use. The federal government licensed and taxed it for decades, yet now the federal gov't sued the companies making this legal product because it was addictive? So they taxed a product known to cause cancer and then sued the companies that made the product. Is it just me or is this ass backward. How about the money from these lawsuits go to people who died from cancer?

Wait! They used a legal product by choice, knowing that it was dangerous. SO what right do they have to sue? Is it just me or is this really fucked up.

 

[KRCummings]

I find it funny that millions of dollars are spent telling people that smoking is bad for you. If there is a person alive who doesn't know this then no amount of advertising is going to change that.

 

[renard_ruse]

You said education campaign, not a publicity campaign. Which one is it?

In my usage, they are synonyms. Is there a difference in your dialect?

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Hey KR tell me is drunk driving a good idea, or maybe not wearing a seatbelt?

BTW can anyone tell me how to use shampoo? and Should I dry my hair while I'm in the shower?[/sarcasm]

 

[fair_warning]

These days a disproportionate amount of smokers are lower income. Many of them have been smoking for years and just can't quit the habit no matter how hard they try. They will pay whatever it costs for cigarettes even if they can't really afford it. It will come before food or other necessities for some of them.

So, why do those who claim to care about lower income people keep promoting ever higher taxes on tobacco when they know it will hurt the poor? Lets keep trying to discourage smoking but not with ever higher regressive taxes on people who are unable to quit an unfortunate habit.

Where I live a pack of 20 cigarettes is around $16, and yes, I know people who live on government welfare and still buy a pack a day and moan and bitch that they can't feed or clothe their children properly.

Maybe their welfare needs to be dispensed in other ways - ensuring these people (who obviously can't be trusted to spend their money wisely) get their rent, food and basic necessities provided for with vouchers or something similar. Their free spending money would then be limited, reducing the amount spent of tobacco products.

Social problems are by nature complex and this is a good example. Here, these 'poor' smokers also get free health care, clogging up the hospitals with their smoking related illnesses.

 

[KRCummings]

Hey KR tell me is drunk driving a good idea, or maybe not wearing a seatbelt?

BTW can anyone tell me how to use shampoo? and Should I dry my hair while I'm in the shower?[/sarcasm]

Sense. Make it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

In my usage, they are synonyms. Is there a difference in your dialect?

Than your usage is different than reality. A 30 second commercial on at 3 in the morning that people may or may not watch isn't education.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Sense. Make it.

Sorry you don't understand simple humor. You said

I find it funny that millions of dollars are spent telling people that smoking is bad for you. If there is a person alive who doesn't know this then no amount of advertising is going to change that.

So I commented on other things that are as obvious as smoking is bad land yet we have advertising or directions for them like

Hey KR tell me is drunk driving a good idea, or maybe not wearing a seatbelt?

BTW can anyone tell me how to use shampoo? and Should I dry my hair while I'm in the shower?[/sarcasm]

Hope this is simple enough for even you to understand.

 

[KRCummings]

Sorry you don't understand simple humor. You said
So I commented on other things that are as obvious as smoking is bad land yet we have advertising or directions for them like

Hope this is simple enough for even you to understand.

I made no comment on those other things. The thread is about smoking. Did I say that I didn't think certain PSA's for other issues dumb? No, I did not.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

These days a disproportionate amount of smokers are lower income. Many of them have been smoking for years and just can't quit the habit no matter how hard they try. They will pay whatever it costs for cigarettes even if they can't really afford it. It will come before food or other necessities for some of them.

So, why do those who claim to care about lower income people keep promoting ever higher taxes on tobacco when they know it will hurt the poor? Lets keep trying to discourage smoking but not with ever higher regressive taxes on people who are unable to quit an unfortunate habit.

Gasoline taxes are another highly regressive tax and further proof that the left is full of hypocrites on class warfare issues. If they cared about the little man, they wouldn't tax gasoline, beer, or tobacco. Period. That leaves a lot less for the social welfare state that they claim is for the benefit of the selfsame little guy.

You see? They're not free at all. The very people who supposedly benefit pay through the nose for it. Typical statist hypocrisy.

Not to mention the increase in the prices of food and medicine, among other things from the gas tax and the spike in the electric power bills (which Obama will increase with his new energy policies, btw).

And before you complain, let me remind you that I rejected Herman Cain's 999 plan and Bachmann's views on taxes, too. For much the same reason. (She actually said that a person making an income of 3 dollars a year should still pay taxes. I couldn't believe it when I heard it.)

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Gasoline taxes are another highly regressive tax and further proof that the left is full of hypocrites on class warfare issues. If they cared about the little man, they wouldn't tax gasoline, beer, or tobacco. Period. That leaves a lot less for the social welfare state that they claim is for the benefit of the selfsame little guy.

You see? They're not free at all. The very people who supposedly benefit pay through the nose for it. Typical statist hypocrisy.

Not to mention the increase in the prices of food and medicine, among other things from the gas tax and the spike in the electric power bills (which Obama will increase with his new energy policies, btw).

And before you complain, let me remind you that I rejected Herman Cain's 999 plan and Bachmann's views on taxes, too. For much the same reason. (She actually said that a person making an income of 3 dollars a year should still pay taxes. I couldn't believe it when I heard it.)

Of course if they didn't tax gasoline there would be no need for it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Of course if they didn't tax gasoline there would be no need for it.

No need for what?

 

[Ldy_Sea]

I never said you did make a comment on those things. I made the comment in AGREEMENT with you and to emphasize your point.

Remind me not to do that again.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I never said you did make a comment on those things. I made the comment in AGREEMENT with you and to emphasize your point.

Remind me not to do that again.

KRC is incapable of taking yes for an answer. Misery is her joy.