Quote: Original post by Promit
Can we please start banning members who have been 0 rated for an extended period of time? Pleeeeease?

Good contribution to the thread.

One of the main problems I see with this bill is that increased tax will inevitably mean decreased consumption (especially in these hard times). Decreased consumption means decreased revenue, therefore this tax will contradict itself. To what degree is debatable.

But since this tax is going to be applied to all tobacco products, I think it will without question hurt the tobacco industry, which is not what I would consider "stimulus" for the economy.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
But since this tax is going to be applied to all tobacco products, I think it will without question hurt the tobacco industry, which is not what I would consider "stimulus" for the economy.

So for the good of the economy, you'd prefer a tax cut for tobacco products to spur up cigarette sales? You could extend this further by dropping all health warnings, as well as removing the restrictions to advertising and allowing sales to minors. You'd have an industry boom!

You'd also get some great economy boosting knock-on effects, such as increases in heath insurance premiums, fire insurance and extra jobs in removing increased litter. It's win-win!

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid
So for the good of the economy, you'd prefer a tax cut for tobacco products to spur up cigarette sales? You could extend this further by dropping all health warnings, as well as removing the restrictions to advertising and allowing sales to minors. You'd have an industry boom!

You'd also get some great economy boosting knock-on effects, such as increases in heath insurance premiums, fire insurance and extra jobs in removing increased litter. It's win-win!

I'll start by saying I agree with your point (reading between the sarcasm, anyway). But I'll clarify.

On one end, we have focused taxes on a specific choice that a person can make (to smoke or not), and on the other end we have a system of insurance. Insurance is typically meant to protect people against the UNFORSEEN, unintended, or unknown consequences.

When someone makes a choice to smoke, the consequences are particularly well studied and known. Rather than let the health insurance system attempt to evenly distribute premiums, taxing particular people for their choices seems apt.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by Promit
Can we please start banning members who have been 0 rated for an extended period of time? Pleeeeease?

Good contribution to the thread.

One of the main problems I see with this bill is that increased tax will inevitably mean decreased consumption (especially in these hard times). Decreased consumption means decreased revenue, therefore this tax will contradict itself. To what degree is debatable.

But since this tax is going to be applied to all tobacco products, I think it will without question hurt the tobacco industry, which is not what I would consider "stimulus" for the economy.

Sounds like the Broken Windows Fallacy.

Quote: Original post by zedz

Quote: The only downside would be the possible effect it may have on big tobacco companies

how is that a downside?

Hey, I hate the tobacco companies too. They are evil, they are greedy, and their entire business strategy relies on people becoming addicted.

But with all that said, I'll bet there are a lot of people that work there that aren't evil. The folks who took the job purely for the paycheck at the end of the month. It's a massive industry, I can't imagine how many people would lose their jobs if it fell under.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
But since this tax is going to be applied to all tobacco products, I think it will without question hurt the tobacco industry, which is not what I would consider "stimulus" for the economy.

So for the good of the economy, you'd prefer a tax cut for tobacco products to spur up cigarette sales? You could extend this further by dropping all health warnings, as well as removing the restrictions to advertising and allowing sales to minors. You'd have an industry boom!

You'd also get some great economy boosting knock-on effects, such as increases in heath insurance premiums, fire insurance and extra jobs in removing increased litter. It's win-win!

I think "do nothing" is also an option. I think it probably would be good to kick the tobacco industry a time or two, but I think the economy will feel that kick as well. Now, a healthy economy might bruise a bit and the bruise will heal relatively quickly, but we don't have a healthy economy. I don't know, maybe the tax increase will do more good than harm, but it certainly seems reasonable to suggest thinking twice about kicking the economy when it's already down. Aren't medical procedures sometimes put off until the patient is healthier?

Quote: Original post by Way Walker
I think "do nothing" is also an option. I think it probably would be good to kick the tobacco industry a time or two, but I think the economy will feel that kick as well. Now, a healthy economy might bruise a bit and the bruise will heal relatively quickly, but we don't have a healthy economy. I don't know, maybe the tax increase will do more good than harm, but it certainly seems reasonable to suggest thinking twice about kicking the economy when it's already down. Aren't medical procedures sometimes put off until the patient is healthier?

The problem I see is that people are using "But think of the economy!" as a general argument against anything. Yes, the crisis with the ecnonomy is important, but I don't think it should be used as the trump card for every executive argument. If Obama takes the view that he can't do anything at all that could possibly shake the economy even a teensy-weensy little bit, then he's a lame duck president from day 1.

Quote: Original post by Way Walker

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
But since this tax is going to be applied to all tobacco products, I think it will without question hurt the tobacco industry, which is not what I would consider "stimulus" for the economy.

So for the good of the economy, you'd prefer a tax cut for tobacco products to spur up cigarette sales? You could extend this further by dropping all health warnings, as well as removing the restrictions to advertising and allowing sales to minors. You'd have an industry boom!

You'd also get some great economy boosting knock-on effects, such as increases in heath insurance premiums, fire insurance and extra jobs in removing increased litter. It's win-win!

I think "do nothing" is also an option. I think it probably would be good to kick the tobacco industry a time or two, but I think the economy will feel that kick as well. Now, a healthy economy might bruise a bit and the bruise will heal relatively quickly, but we don't have a healthy economy. I don't know, maybe the tax increase will do more good than harm, but it certainly seems reasonable to suggest thinking twice about kicking the economy when it's already down. Aren't medical procedures sometimes put off until the patient is healthier?

A decent line of reasoning on the against side. I came across an interesting link saying that health care cost would see near immediate boost if everyone quit smoking. One thing I read said 48$ million in within the first year. This article however suggest that more people living longer would eventually cost more over a lifetime. So perhaps one could argue that now is the perfect time for everyone to quit, but something would have to be looked at in the future. Though that would be purely based in health care which is hardly the only factor.

Quote: Original post by blueEbola

Quote: Original post by zedz

Quote: The only downside would be the possible effect it may have on big tobacco companies

how is that a downside?

Hey, I hate the tobacco companies too. They are evil, they are greedy, and their entire business strategy relies on people becoming addicted.

But with all that said, I'll bet there are a lot of people that work there that aren't evil. The folks who took the job purely for the paycheck at the end of the month. It's a massive industry, I can't imagine how many people would lose their jobs if it fell under.

I don't personally see it all going belly up over night. There are many companies supported by customers addicted to a product that is distributed across many economies. They have survived strain better than say the US car companies, and my guess would be that they will continue to do so. Could the strain cause losses in some areas, sure. However, tobacco use has a lot of negative indirect cost effects which could easily out weigh the more obvious, immediate effects. I was also looking to see if people smoke more in hard times or not. I've met people with beer distribution ties that say beer sells better in hard times so I wondered if its true for Cigarettes.

Quote: Can we please start banning members who have been 0 rated for an extended period of time? Pleeeeease?

Promit. Seriously, I have a 0 rating as well though, but I post meaningful help outside of the Lounge. Problem is, some kid got pissed cuz I was too harsh at criticizing his work and even offered advice. And so he kept rating me down.

So your suggestion of low rating = fool I would hope never works. I dont care one bit that mine is 0, I would never whine about my rating, but if it were to get me banned or something, that would suck.

Yea though, browsing this guys threads, he serves no help to this community.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
But since this tax is going to be applied to all tobacco products, I think it will without question hurt the tobacco industry, which is not what I would consider "stimulus" for the economy.

So for the good of the economy, you'd prefer a tax cut for tobacco products to spur up cigarette sales? You could extend this further by dropping all health warnings, as well as removing the restrictions to advertising and allowing sales to minors. You'd have an industry boom!

You'd also get some great economy boosting knock-on effects, such as increases in heath insurance premiums, fire insurance and extra jobs in removing increased litter. It's win-win!

Well, following your point of view, all the food that has fat or sugar should warn that it can lead to obesity. That would bump up the consumption of low fat products!

I would like to know what kills more people (or wich one has greater impact on healt care usage) in the US (the world?), lung cancer, or healt problems due to obesity...

In a way, if people smoked more, they'd eat less. Then you could apply more taxes on tobaco and less taxes on food.

One can extremize any argument.