Quote: Original post by Gametaku

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Guns are taxed, quite heavily too, if what curtmax_0 has said about it holds true. Let's not forget that tobacco is addicting and guns are not. Just the same, raising taxes on tobacco is one way to get people to stop smoking, not everyone, but enough to make it worthwhile. Likewise, keeping taxes on guns high is one way to prevent people from buying guns they don't truly have a use for.

Except if you like I don't know like to hunt, or enjoy target shooting. Of course all those guns which are not taxed (aka from the black market)can still be used to commit crimes and such.

Presumably at some point those guns passed through the legitimate market on their way to the black market. Fewer guns in the legitimate market means fewer guns in the black market.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Gametaku

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Guns are taxed, quite heavily too, if what curtmax_0 has said about it holds true. Let's not forget that tobacco is addicting and guns are not. Just the same, raising taxes on tobacco is one way to get people to stop smoking, not everyone, but enough to make it worthwhile. Likewise, keeping taxes on guns high is one way to prevent people from buying guns they don't truly have a use for.

Except if you like I don't know like to hunt, or enjoy target shooting. Of course all those guns which are not taxed (aka from the black market)can still be used to commit crimes and such.

Presumably at some point those guns passed through the legitimate market on their way to the black market. Fewer guns in the legitimate market means fewer guns in the black market.

lets take that to it's logical conclusion: War on guns. But don't worry it will work unlike the war on drugs and The war on terrorism.

Don't forget the War on Cancer and before that the War on Poverty.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by Yann L
Stop smoking. Problem solved.

I guess I need to reiterate.

If said people do quit smoking, it's gonna hit the southern tobacco states hard (millions of jobs). Not to mention how this will affect small independent retailers and wholesalers.

I'm finding it a little difficult to muster any sympathy for an industry built around making a product whose sole purpose is to kill people.

Very true, but it's importance to our economy cannot be ignored. the DOW IA is plummeting as we speak (just dropped below 7000)

That implies that tobacco under fire is the only reason the stock market is sinking. Which to anyone that has opened a newspaper or web browser in the last 12 months knows is utterly ridiculous. It also implies that anything that has significant economic influence is somehow exempt from any kind of screwtany as well as taxation.

I would also add that the direct economic impact of the tax hike is easily debatable where as you wish to repeatedly present your predicted outcome as simple fact. Which does not, in and of itself, make you wrong but does make you whole heartedly inflexible and unaffected by eternal stimuli. Which more or less means regardless of how this does actually play out in the future, it will only play out, in your head, the way you predicted.

Quote: It also implies that anything that has significant economic influence is somehow exempt from any kind of ... taxation.

i believe that they should be exempt from new taxes in hard economic times.

Quote: I would also add that the direct economic impact of the tax hike is easily debatable where as you wish to repeatedly present your predicted outcome as simple fact

without presenting my predicted outcome, there would be no debate. why would i post a thread in a forum full of democrats for any other reason than to debate such a debatable topic? i just want to hear rebuttals to my opinion to make sure i'm not missing something.

i have conceded many points, but my failure to concede the point that this is bad for the economy doesn't mean i'm "unaffected by external stimuli", it just means i have an opinion

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
without presenting my predicted outcome, there would be no debate. why would i post a thread in a forum full of democrats for any other reason than to debate such a debatable topic? i just want to hear rebuttals to my opinion to make sure i'm not missing something.

Common sense maybe ? I seriously find the mere idea that the government should essentially help/subsidize an industry which sole base of existence is the manufacturing and sale of a product that kills the people using it ridiculous and disgusting. And if you had in any way followed the recent (and not so recent) economic crisis in the US (and worldwide), then you would understand how laughable your assertion over the scale of the economic effects of such a tax is. Maybe you should think about the actually relevant economic problems the US is facing right now.

Or maybe you have some kind of personal interest / agenda with respect to the tobacco industry ? Some relatives or friends working there, hmm ?

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
without presenting my predicted outcome, there would be no debate. why would i post a thread in a forum full of democrats for any other reason than to debate such a debatable topic? i just want to hear rebuttals to my opinion to make sure i'm not missing something.

Common sense maybe ? I seriously find the mere idea that the government should essentially help/subsidize an industry which sole base of existence is the manufacturing and sale of a product that kills the people using it ridiculous and disgusting. And if you had in any way followed the recent (and not so recent) economic crisis in the US (and worldwide), then you would understand how laughable your assertion over the scale of the economic effects of such a tax is. Maybe you should think about the actually relevant economic problems the US is facing right now.

Or maybe you have some kind of personal interest / agenda with respect to the tobacco industry ? Some relatives or friends working there, hmm ?

I'm not solely basing the recent economic troubles on this one particular tax, it's all the taxes and uncertainty that obama is bringing. In the past 5 weeks it has become clearly evident that obama's new policies are scaring investors and slowing the recovery process. True, obama did inherit a recession but it has become considerably worse with the introduction of the policies.

From election day until now, the DOW has dropped nearly 3000 points, with the steepest drop occuring just this past month.

There is hardly any doubt in my mind that America will see the fault in electing obama over the next 6 months. And when that day comes, I believe I will be the one saying "told you so".

I fully hope I don't have to say that as I'm 20 years old, and obama's future is my future. But this spending and taxing is out of control. If I were born in the year 0 A.D. and spent a million dollars every day for 2009 years, it would still not amount to the amount of spending in the stimulus bill.

Tabacco industry isn't going to be truely hurt by this. Sure they will make a song and dance about it, but its just a distraction.

The government subsidizes tabacco farmers and much of the industry profits go to lobbing groups (They can't exactly spend money on superbowl TV spots now can they).

Some smokers will quit, but most will reluctantly poney up for the tax increase. A chunck of the tax goes to groups like the American Lung Association, so they get more funding for promoteing public smokeing bans.

But its kinda a sham, a lot of smoke and mirrors and cherry picking numbers to show that "something is being done about smokeing".

The real thing that should be done is cigarette regulation - no, not an outright ban - but regulateing the addictive qualities...the nicotine and other chemicals added to cigarettes. In 1998 the American Medical Association did a study into the feasability of gradual increased regulation on cigarettes with the objective to reduce addictiveness to zero within a 5 to 10 year time frame. The AMA concluded it was entirely possible, with the cavet that smokeing will increase the first few years as addicts increase thier useage to meet thier addiction (smoke 20 cigarettes to equal what they get from a single one now)...but this would quickly reach a plateau and smokers will have to give it up (smoke 200 or more to equal a single cigarette).

Its not entirely supriseing that anti-tabacco groups are against such regulations...saying it won't work (and citing faulty reasons why), to calling it prohibition(!?)

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
without presenting my predicted outcome, there would be no debate. why would i post a thread in a forum full of democrats for any other reason than to debate such a debatable topic? i just want to hear rebuttals to my opinion to make sure i'm not missing something

I've already presented my "rebuttal", but you ignored it.

Assuming a tax on cigarettes would hurt the economy is like assuming going around breaking windows would help. You're looking only at the tobacco industry and ignoring all others.

See, if I decided to stop buying cigarettes because of this tax, then sure I'm hurting the tobacco industry. But then what do I do with the $x a week I'm no longer spending on cigarettes? I spend it on something else. Perhaps I buy more clothes. Perhaps I pay off some of my personal debt. Perhaps I save up and buy a big screen TV. Doesn't matter: it might hurt the tobacco industry, but it'll help all of those others.

That's even assuming I stop (or cut down) smoking, and don't just suck it up (so to speak) and pay the extra tax. In which case, I'm still helping the enconomy by providing for better healthcare.

You could argue that by spending more on this tax, I'm hurting those other industries that I mentioned, but that is offset by the bonus I'm giving to healthcare. Now, whether giving my money to healthcare is more important to the economy than paying off personal debt or whatever, that is debatable.

But the idea that "hurting" the tobacco industry by taxing cigarettes is overall bad for the economy is very short-sighted and also totally misses the point!

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
without presenting my predicted outcome, there would be no debate. why would i post a thread in a forum full of democrats for any other reason than to debate such a debatable topic? i just want to hear rebuttals to my opinion to make sure i'm not missing something

I've already presented my "rebuttal", but you ignored it.

Assuming a tax on cigarettes would hurt the economy is like assuming going around breaking windows would help. You're looking only at the tobacco industry and ignoring all others.

See, if I decided to stop buying cigarettes because of this tax, then sure I'm hurting the tobacco industry. But then what do I do with the $x a week I'm no longer spending on cigarettes? I spend it on something else. Perhaps I buy more clothes. Perhaps I pay off some of my personal debt. Perhaps I save up and buy a big screen TV. Doesn't matter: it might hurt the tobacco industry, but it'll help all of those others.

That's even assuming I stop (or cut down) smoking, and don't just suck it up (so to speak) and pay the extra tax. In which case, I'm still helping the enconomy by providing for better healthcare.

You could argue that by spending more on this tax, I'm hurting those other industries that I mentioned, but that is offset by the bonus I'm giving to healthcare. Now, whether giving my money to healthcare is more important to the economy than paying off personal debt or whatever, that is debatable.

But the idea that "hurting" the tobacco industry by taxing cigarettes is overall bad for the economy is very short-sighted and also totally misses the point!

That is a good point. But it still doesn't justify taxing the industry. Sure people's money might make it back around to the economy, but the planned tax hikes on big business coupled with new federal taxes on the industry spell out layoffs. And this is all part of early term stimulus?