Guest Keith- Marshall,Mo Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 I thought I would start a new thread about this to make things easier. I've heard almost everyone who supports banning smoking altogether talk about how much money smoking is costing non smokers. My arguement is that smokers are already paying dearly to smoke but the money is not or never has gone to treat smoking related illness. I got the follwing numbers from about.com/economics and they were dated as of Jan. 2007. These are for example only. Taxes in alot of places may be higher by now. Highest state cigarette tax: New Jersery @ $257.5 New York state was #14 on the list @ $1.50 but the city of New York had the right to impose another $1.50 per pack. I don't live there and don't know if they have inacted that city tax but for the sake of arguement let's say they have. I am also not counting regular sales tax at this point either. Let's say I smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years- @ $6 tax per day That's $2190 tax per year and $65,700 in 30 years. Now imagine if that money were allowed to earn interest over thirty years. Maybe here's what we should do.First we establish a national tobacco tax that is fair,but not obscenely high and the same across the country.All adult tobacco users apply for an indentification card that has to be used everytime they buy tobacco and could not buy it without the card.Ok, fine I'll jump thru that hoop. Then, this card is swiped thru a reader and the tax money they paid is then put into an interest bearing account for use when they become ill or even better, if they quit and get a doctor's exam for proof the money could then be returned to them ? That would also be another incentive to quit beside the obvious health issues. In this age of debit cards and high tech I really don't find it that implausible. I think it's safe to say that would be well on the way of offsetting medical costs by making sure that the taxes paid are actually used as intended or if you quit the money could then be returned or maybe even rolled over into an IRA. I would like to hear others thoughts on this issue. Thanx Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 I thought I would start a new thread about this to make things easier.I've heard almost everyone who supports banning smoking altogether talk about how much money smoking is costing non smokers. My arguement is that smokers are already paying dearly to smoke but the money is not or never has gone to treat smoking related illness. I got the follwing numbers from about.com/economics and they were dated as of Jan. 2007. These are for example only. Taxes in alot of places may be higher by now. Highest state cigarette tax: New Jersery @ $257.5 New York state was #14 on the list @ $1.50 but the city of New York had the right to impose another $1.50 per pack. I don't live there and don't know if they have inacted that city tax but for the sake of arguement let's say they have. I am also not counting regular sales tax at this point either. Let's say I smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years- @ $6 tax per day That's $2190 tax per year and $65,700 in 30 years. Now imagine if that money were allowed to earn interest over thirty years. Maybe here's what we should do.First we establish a national tobacco tax that is fair,but not obscenely high and the same across the country.All adult tobacco users apply for an indentification card that has to be used everytime they buy tobacco and could not buy it without the card.Ok, fine I'll jump thru that hoop. Then, this card is swiped thru a reader and the tax money they paid is then put into an interest bearing account for use when they become ill or even better, if they quit and get a doctor's exam for proof the money could then be returned to them ? That would also be another incentive to quit beside the obvious health issues. In this age of debit cards and high tech I really don't find it that implausible. I think it's safe to say that would be well on the way of offsetting medical costs by making sure that the taxes paid are actually used as intended or if you quit the money could then be returned or maybe even rolled over into an IRA. I would like to hear others thoughts on this issue. Thanx Keith 71209[/snapback] Maybe you should realize how foolish you are for wasting all of that money on cigarettes. Like you and Paul tell everyone else, you've lost now get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 The problem is even larger than that. Studies by the World Health Organization and the Canadian National Health Service both determined that treating smoking-related illnesses is CHEAPER than treating age-related complaints requiring long term care. Neither of the studies even factored in the cost savings provided by reduced life expentancies through Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid expenses. The facts bear out that the crying about smokers costing more money is simply a lie. It is cheaper for the government to treat lung cancer (cure or not) than it is to provide 3 years of long term care in an assisted living facility for simple dementia. Don't even begin to consider long term care costs for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or other severely diseases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 I thought I would start a new thread about this to make things easier.I've heard almost everyone who supports banning smoking altogether talk about how much money smoking is costing non smokers. My arguement is that smokers are already paying dearly to smoke but the money is not or never has gone to treat smoking related illness. I got the follwing numbers from about.com/economics and they were dated as of Jan. 2007. These are for example only. Taxes in alot of places may be higher by now. Highest state cigarette tax: New Jersery @ $257.5 New York state was #14 on the list @ $1.50 but the city of New York had the right to impose another $1.50 per pack. I don't live there and don't know if they have inacted that city tax but for the sake of arguement let's say they have. I am also not counting regular sales tax at this point either. Let's say I smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years- @ $6 tax per day That's $2190 tax per year and $65,700 in 30 years. Now imagine if that money were allowed to earn interest over thirty years. Maybe here's what we should do.First we establish a national tobacco tax that is fair,but not obscenely high and the same across the country.All adult tobacco users apply for an indentification card that has to be used everytime they buy tobacco and could not buy it without the card.Ok, fine I'll jump thru that hoop. Then, this card is swiped thru a reader and the tax money they paid is then put into an interest bearing account for use when they become ill or even better, if they quit and get a doctor's exam for proof the money could then be returned to them ? That would also be another incentive to quit beside the obvious health issues. In this age of debit cards and high tech I really don't find it that implausible. I think it's safe to say that would be well on the way of offsetting medical costs by making sure that the taxes paid are actually used as intended or if you quit the money could then be returned or maybe even rolled over into an IRA. I would like to hear others thoughts on this issue. Thanx Keith 71209[/snapback] Keith, the statistics on the amounts of tobacco taxes collected across the country should be available somewhere. That's a good framework to help us start thinking about what is the best and fairest thing to do. I'm not sure about your idea for a national tobacco tax with an ID card. I wouldn't mind, but then I don't smoke. Do you think it might create a black market? Some people would object on privacy grounds. Personally, that doesn't bother me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 I thought I would start a new thread about this to make things easier.I've heard almost everyone who supports banning smoking altogether talk about how much money smoking is costing non smokers. My arguement is that smokers are already paying dearly to smoke but the money is not or never has gone to treat smoking related illness. I got the follwing numbers from about.com/economics and they were dated as of Jan. 2007. These are for example only. Taxes in alot of places may be higher by now. Highest state cigarette tax: New Jersery @ $257.5 New York state was #14 on the list @ $1.50 but the city of New York had the right to impose another $1.50 per pack. I don't live there and don't know if they have inacted that city tax but for the sake of arguement let's say they have. I am also not counting regular sales tax at this point either. Let's say I smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years- @ $6 tax per day That's $2190 tax per year and $65,700 in 30 years. Now imagine if that money were allowed to earn interest over thirty years. Maybe here's what we should do.First we establish a national tobacco tax that is fair,but not obscenely high and the same across the country.All adult tobacco users apply for an indentification card that has to be used everytime they buy tobacco and could not buy it without the card.Ok, fine I'll jump thru that hoop. Then, this card is swiped thru a reader and the tax money they paid is then put into an interest bearing account for use when they become ill or even better, if they quit and get a doctor's exam for proof the money could then be returned to them ? That would also be another incentive to quit beside the obvious health issues. In this age of debit cards and high tech I really don't find it that implausible. I think it's safe to say that would be well on the way of offsetting medical costs by making sure that the taxes paid are actually used as intended or if you quit the money could then be returned or maybe even rolled over into an IRA. I would like to hear others thoughts on this issue. Thanx Keith 71209[/snapback] You're just never going to deal with the argument that you're infringing on other people's rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Maybe you should realize how foolish you are for wasting all of that money on cigarettes. Like you and Paul tell everyone else, you've lost now get over it. 71263[/snapback] Do me the courtesy of identifying yourself andI'll be happy to argue with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Keith, the statistics on the amounts of tobacco taxes collected across the country should be available somewhere. That's a good framework to help us start thinking about what is the best and fairest thing to do. I'm not sure about your idea for a national tobacco tax with an ID card. I wouldn't mind, but then I don't smoke. Do you think it might create a black market? Some people would object on privacy grounds. Personally, that doesn't bother me. 71354[/snapback] Paul, Those are all good points and I appreciate the dialogue. I undertstand that a non smoker probably wouldn't give a squat but for me it is an issue of personal liberty and much like free speech we need to protect that which we may not agree with. It is my understanding that there is a vibrant black market already, especially in Canada where taxes are much worse and we all know how alcohol prohibition worked out. As far as privacy goes I guess for some that could be an issue. It' would be just as easy to have another adult buy your smokes for you and in trade your tax money would go into thier account. Just like any system thier would be ways to circumvent or abuse it, but I believe that the vast majority would not feel it was worth the hassle. For me it is perfeclty logical, fair and makes sense which is exactly why the govt' would never go along with it. I do find it intersting that everyday, today included, the we are hearing of the results of studies of things that increase the risk of cancer. Diet, Weight, Height and Heredity. Seems to me that simply being alive means one is at risk for cancer. That being the case I hope to live my life as I choose without govt. interference and I truly feel I am paying my way. Thanx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 The problem is even larger than that. Studies by the World Health Organization and the Canadian National Health Service both determined that treating smoking-related illnesses is CHEAPER than treating age-related complaints requiring long term care.Neither of the studies even factored in the cost savings provided by reduced life expentancies through Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid expenses. The facts bear out that the crying about smokers costing more money is simply a lie. It is cheaper for the government to treat lung cancer (cure or not) than it is to provide 3 years of long term care in an assisted living facility for simple dementia. Don't even begin to consider long term care costs for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or other severely diseases. 71311[/snapback] See! That is an excellent point. Besides I've always said that I would rather live a shorter life on my own terms than a longer life on someone elses terms. Furthermore, smoker or not a lot of people cannot afford to pay every medical bill regardless of the illness because medical costs are quite honestly a crime in themselves. For me instead of everyone arguing about how someone else will for pay thier health care we should be asking why healthcare is so criminally expensive in the first place. Deep down I think we all know the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,MO Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 You're just never going to deal with the argument that you're infringing on other people's rights. 71434[/snapback] Maybe, but I'll keep trying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Maybe you should realize how foolish you are for wasting all of that money on cigarettes. What about money spent on booze? Do you consider that the same kind of waste? By your logic, everyone who goes to bars are also foolish--do you agree? Just want to see if your logic is internally consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 What about money spent on booze? Do you consider that the same kind of waste? By your logic, everyone who goes to bars are also foolish--do you agree? Just want to see if your logic is internally consistent. 71512[/snapback] Someone drinking does not directly affect me. If that person's drinking does affect me, lets say by a car accident, then I have laws that protect me. If someone is drinking away their money then I guess it is wasteful. But what does that have to do with me? Anyway, Keith is the one complaining about the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Maybe, but I'll keep trying 71507[/snapback] Really, when have you dealt with it? Link to the post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Someone drinking does not directly affect me. The statement I was responding to was not about whether something affects others. It was a statement about Keith wasting money on cigarettes. Now, I'm asking if alcohol is considered just as much a waste financially, since it is also poison. If someone is drinking away their money then I guess it is wasteful. And that's all I was asking. Anyway, Keith is the one complaining about the cost.71559[/snapback] I only remember reading him complaining about regulations, not the cost. Can you link me to such a complaint, if I missed it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 What about money spent on booze? Do you consider that the same kind of waste? By your logic, everyone who goes to bars are also foolish--do you agree? Just want to see if your logic is internally consistent. 71512[/snapback] Apples and oranges. Alcohol has demonstrated health benefits, recognized throughout the medical community. That's not true for tobacco products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Really, when have you dealt with it? Link to the post. 71560[/snapback] Hmmm. I thought that was why I started this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Someone drinking does not directly affect me. If that person's drinking does affect me, lets say by a car accident, then I have laws that protect me. If someone is drinking away their money then I guess it is wasteful. But what does that have to do with me? Anyway, Keith is the one complaining about the cost. 71559[/snapback] Please go back and read my posts. What I am complaining about is people who say that I am costing them money. I disagree. Read the posts again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Lets face it, your money is all going up in smoke!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charlie Brown Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 What about money spent on booze? Do you consider that the same kind of waste? By your logic, everyone who goes to bars are also foolish--do you agree? Just want to see if your logic is internally consistent. 71512[/snapback] Hey Strife, I have a great idea. Why don't you go try spending more time in bars rather than in front of that darn computer of yours? 1,866 posts and counting...yikes!!! good grief! Charlie Brown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Paul, Those are all good points and I appreciate the dialogue. I undertstand that a non smoker probably wouldn't give a squat but for me it is an issue of personal liberty and much like free speech we need to protect that which we may not agree with. It is my understanding that there is a vibrant black market already, especially in Canada where taxes are much worse and we all know how alcohol prohibition worked out. As far as privacy goes I guess for some that could be an issue. It' would be just as easy to have another adult buy your smokes for you and in trade your tax money would go into thier account. Just like any system thier would be ways to circumvent or abuse it, but I believe that the vast majority would not feel it was worth the hassle. For me it is perfeclty logical, fair and makes sense which is exactly why the govt' would never go along with it. I do find it intersting that everyday, today included, the we are hearing of the results of studies of things that increase the risk of cancer. Diet, Weight, Height and Heredity. Seems to me that simply being alive means one is at risk for cancer. That being the case I hope to live my life as I choose without govt. interference and I truly feel I am paying my way. Thanx 71502[/snapback] Keith, how would the addiction of children to tobacco enter into your analysis? For me, this is a critical point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Keith, how would the addiction of children to tobacco enter into your analysis? For me, this is a critical point. 71656[/snapback] Understood. Let's go back to my first post. Let's say that absolutely no one could buy tobacco unless let's say a drivers license is swiped and the taxes were logged. Any store who's tobacco audit didn't match the cards swiped for that day would be in big trouble just like selling alcohol to minors. Could a kid steal a pack of dad's smokes at home? Sure, just like a little kid might get into some poison under the sink.It's up to his or her parents to handle that. I'm not some kind of evil ghoul that wants to hook kids on tobacco but I don't want my personal liberties as an adult stifled just to raise someone elses kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Lets face it, your money is all going up in smoke!! 71634[/snapback] That is a lucid and accurate point. But, it is my money right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Hey Strife, I have a great idea. Why don't you go try spending more time in bars rather than in front of that darn computer of yours? I know this is supposed to be an insult, but seriously? There is no way that booze is better for me than doing stuff on a computer. Bars offer nothing of interest to me. 1,866 posts and counting...yikes!!! 1. I type fast. 2. I read fast. 3. I like to participate in most of the discussions here. 4. I've been here nearly a year. Six posts a day really isn't all that much, especially considering the way this forum gets "bursts" of posts because of the way it's run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.