Yeah, we pay hidden taxes and higher costs for government regulation too.

Pick your poison.

And you know what? I challenge the assertion smokers cost more in long term health care. They die much earlier and easier than smug pricks doing yoga and eating salad every day.

Add to that, the State and Federal governments already FAR out tax whatever that added cost may be.

So put that tired argument in your pipe and smoke it

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

_________________
"Go out and run 'em."
- Lindy Ruff, 23 Feb. 2007

When I smoked, this was pretty much how I felt. I didn't mind paying a huge tax on my addiction because I actually liked the idea of the sin tax. I didn't want to smoke forever, so the economic impact of expensive cigarettes was a plus to help me quit. Also, I knew how much tax money was going to pay for treatment of people who smoke. I know there's very little chance the $ you pay for your cigarettes goes directly to treat someone's emphysema or cancer, but I still kinda of like the idea that it should.

At least you can go to the store and safely and legally buy the drug you're addicted to Schony. Addicts of illegal drugs would probably be willing to pay all kinds of taxes to legally buy their fixes and do it with a smile on their faces.

Which is not to say that smoking cigarettes is in any way as harmful as smoking meth or something. Don't take this as some sort of judgement about smoking. I've been there, done that, and I have plenty of my own vices. I just mean to say that on the whole, smokers having to pay $8 per pack doesn't seem that unreasonable to me when it costs more than that to see a movie, and they can still readily access their fix anywhere. my two cents.

That's just because it's all the people chain smoking their way through the 50's that have been expiring recently.

But your argument is still moot.
You challenge the Libertarian ideal that people be allowed to make bad decisions for themselves by saying it increases the costs of social programs?
The same social programs a Libertarian opposes?
There's a slight disconnect there, and an unfair one.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Yeah. I got a kick out of that one. Smokers make a choice to perform an action detrimental to their health. That puts a financial strain on everyone, including the non-smokers. So instead of shifting the cost to where it should be, on the health care customer, instead lets take away people's choices by putting rediculous taxes on products we deem unhealthy or undesireable, or outright banning them. Seems backward to me.

I have several problems with taxes like these. First of all, you support the tax because you feel it will reduce the unwanted behavior. Less smokers? Great! Only now, the state or federal government sees a drop in their tax revenue. And the Lord knows they can't do without their revenues. So now they need to find a new source of revenue. Let's come up with another tax/fee/penalty to impose on the unwitting constituents.

Those of you who don't smoke might be tempted to say, "well good, get those dirty smokers". But you know it's only a matter of time before the government comes after some hobby or product that you use. Trans fats. Soda. Fast food. Red meat. Coffee. Beer. Ice Cream. Candy. Where does it end? So long as whatever they're going after is utilized by a minority of Americans, they can go after it without anyone raising a stink. Unless, of course, you oppose it on the grounds of principle, rather than how it does or does not affect your personal finances.

Ham

_________________
Do you believe yet?

Just to clarify, I don't pay $8.00 a pack now nor do I plan on paying $9.00

NYS hasn't received any cigarette related tax dollars from me in at least five years. The Indian Reservation has received my $18.00 a carton and always will until I quit or die.

I'm trying to say what Ham did. NYS is its own worst enemy.

They're grasping at straws trying to get us out of debt. How about trying to keep more residents in the state with good jobs.

Friggin Morons running this state.

_________________
"Go out and run 'em."
- Lindy Ruff, 23 Feb. 2007

If a business doesn't feel like putting themselves at an economic disadvantage by wasting worker time with smoking they can choose to NOT HIRE SMOKERS.

I know...it's a crazy thought.

And we all know how screwed up Florida is. It's a "special" case though. The economy in Florida and what drives it locally down there is very different from other parts of the country.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

i suppose the theory is that more money coming in, more money to be spent on worthwhile projects creating jobs...

what the US needs is a hoover dam project, but bigger. a full out massive overhaul of more eco-friendly energy. turn that coal burning plante to a wind farm! jobs are created at record pace to build and run these new plantes, and the environment saves its bacon!

pipe dream..

_________________

Slowly repeat after me.

Our
Government
Can't
Create
Jobs

That's not what government is for.
It's a 0 sum game.
Rob from Paul to Pay peter....well, more like rob from Paul, buy some nice jewelry, write Peter an IOU.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Speaking strictly about NYS, I moved because there isn't shit for jobs. Actually, I moved because I joined the Marine Corps. I chose not to come back to NYS because there isn't shit for jobs... I think smokers should pay more in health care (a LOT more), and that be the end of the argument.

I'm all for taxing the the non-Indian customers on reservations...if you really want to get down to it, that's what the exemption was supposed to be.

Job creation is going to come from entrepreneurs, not the government. Guys like slesh, who see an opportunity and jump into it.

_________________

_________________
"Go out and run 'em."
- Lindy Ruff, 23 Feb. 2007

Yeah...the job creating engine of our economy...the Federal government.

Give me a break.

You just listed about...oh say 11 million people....out of 300+ million.
Are we still hiring?
Who pays those salaries?

We have more people currently unemployed than are employed by government.
There's a massive difference between simply employing people (at a net loss) and creating jobs.

The government
Doesn't
Create
Jobs.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

you dont think the government could contract out projects to get the ball rolling? come on, the government can create jobs. or announce a project to contract out through cities and regions.

_________________

Projects, by definition, are finite.

That's NOT job creation, it's temporary employment and it fixes nothing.

Oh, yeah...we're also broke(The dipshits in Washington haven't bothered to check).

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Let me lay it out simply...this is how you create jobs:

Someone has a great idea for a widget or a service that people really love. He hires some people to make that widget and it gains in popularity. He hires some marketing and sales people and breaks into the Asian market where popularity explodes.
He opened up a second and third factory because demand is so high and employs a lot more people. He hires some R&D guys right out of MIT and they develop the second generation of the widget which costs a bit more but is the must have gift of Christmas season. He opens up a 4th factory and outsources various parts of the second generation widget creating yet more external jobs.
etc.
etc.
etc.

As opposed to:
The Federal government takes your money and gives it to someone to build a road. The road is built.
End of job.

See the difference between job creation and just employing someone?

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

_________________
"Go out and run 'em."
- Lindy Ruff, 23 Feb. 2007

Actually, when it comes to commercialization and popularization of the internet and e-commerce, I give:
America Online
Cisco
Oracle
Microsoft
Apple
Intel
Sun
Motorola
etc.
far more credit than the Federal government....

remember, ARPANET originally connected Universities and *gasp* private corporations. It was created by private citizens with backing from the government...not by the government.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

_________________
"Go out and run 'em."
- Lindy Ruff, 23 Feb. 2007

facilitate != create

The government
doesn't
create
jobs

it employs people...using the money it takes from citizens involuntarily.

Argue until you're blue in the face, you know I'm right.
Unless the government we're talking about is communist...then I suppose the *have* to create jobs just to give everyone something to do.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...