T1B

Them poor folk shouldn't be smokin' anyhoo. This tax will help them quit. It's a win/win.

mvscal wrote:Obama Raises Taxes on the Stupid

FTFY.

At what point do these sin taxes start having the opposite effect?

There is a threshold at which the increased tax will reduce the number of packs purchased, therefore lowering the overall monies taken in by the tax. Not sure that it will happen with this increase or the next but it will happen.

That or sending more of the smokers to indian casinos to buy their smokes.

So, only poor people smoke?

Who knew...

The libtard elites will really start to bitch when he tacks $0.62 onto a bottle of Chardonnay.

mvscal wrote:

Left Seater wrote:At what point do these sin taxes start having the opposite effect?

Almost immediately. It will be great for organized crime, though.

Bullshit. For most smokers, this won't affect them. They'll always find a way to get their little fix... even the poor smokers will just go from buying the 52 inch plasmas to spruce up their single wides down to just a 42, or whatever. Smokers always make it work. They'll eat more hot dogs and beans and maybe not treat the wife to McDonald's Drive through on "date night." Perhaps they'll change brands from Marlboro to Kool or whatever the fuck is cheaper. Don't worry. Smokers... smoke. Always have. Always will.

ucunt,

You only back up his statement. As you say, smokers will get their's. They will find a way. That way for some, will be the black market.

Anyone with 3 brain cells to rub together, knows that higher taxes are in the best interest of black marketeers. Do you think moonshiners do bidness because drunks prefer their rot gut shit? No, have a market because it is cheaper. It is cheaper, in part because they don't pay the excise tax.

There is a tipping point on the price of smokes. It was not long ago up in Canada when a pack (Ok so they had more to a pack) went for around $7-8. The folks who rob convenience stores and such would come in with trash bags and dump all the cartons of cigarettes ito them, leaving the cash registers alone. Of course tractor trailer loads headed up I-87 from places like VA and NC that had no state taxes.

What should be pointed out is that this "for the children" health care is the first step to total socialized medicine. If you get into the details you find that the qualifications for receiving benefits are pretty high-- around $80K or so per annum for a family ?

No problem. Eventually we'll all be able to quit working and just live off the free stuff.

mvscal wrote:Check back in when you have some actual facts to support your position instead of guesswork.

We were having a serious discussion... or bagging on the losers who smoke?

Okay, let's get serious. What are your thoughts regarding the effects of counter-economies (black markets) on price elasticity of supply? Demand?

A tax on cigs can be avoided - just don't smoke, jackasses.

mvscal wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:A tax on cigs can be avoided - just don't smoke, jackasses.

Let's say that is what happens. Now what? Do you think this program will just go away? So tell me, where do you think the money to fund it is going to come from...jackass?

So, what you're REALLY worried about is that if everybody quits smoking they'll have to tax all us bitchin' non-smokers to pay for Socialized Children's Health care.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But look a it this way. If all those indigent po' people quit smoking they won't be burdening the existing Socialist Health Care System by getting lung cancer and qualifying for free hospital treatment. That savings alone should more than make up for any lost cigarette taxes.

mvscal wrote: To cover the increase in spending, lawmakers approved boosting the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack.

Good

I've decided to not pay any taxes at all, should help me to become a front-runner for Obama's second administration as a cabinet member.

Tom In VA wrote:I've decided to not pay any taxes at all, should help me to become a front-runner for Obama's second administration as a cabinet member.

If you are really interested in profiting from a lack of understanding of the difference between causation and correlation, I suggest you cut off your dick in order to win the lottery.

Ahhhh yes, the old stand by argument that smoker raise healthcare costs.

Too bad it's an utter shit arguement.

Lung cancer tends to kill people rather quickly, usually before they grow old enough to suck off the SS teat for long, if at all.

You wanna be a burden on the healthcare/SS system? Eat right, don't put on the extra pounds, exercise and live into your nineties, where you will quite likely spend a year or three in a rest home drooling/shitting all over your self.

The bottom line here is, who the fukk does the gubmint think they are deciding what should be taxed excessively and what shouldn't?

Here's a fukking idea. Go to a modest sales tax on everything. Stop taxing income and business. And get the fukk away from anything not mentioned in the constitution.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:If all those indigent po' people quit smoking they won't be burdening the existing Socialist Health Care System by getting lung cancer and qualifying for free hospital treatment. That savings alone should more than make up for any lost cigarette taxes.

You're an idiot. Smokers die early and they die fast. Any action or policy that results in people living longer raises health care costs.

People should be encouraged to smoke, run with scissors, cross busy intersections without looking, assume that all firearms are unloaded, swim less than 30 minutes after eating a full meal, going hiking in the U&L during winter and anything else that would help thin the herd.

Rack!

If I were pres, I would subsidize bacon and eggs for breakfast and encourage everyone past the age of about 50 to ride around on a turbocharged suzuki hayabusa. Wanna buy that pack of cools with your food stamps? No problemo.

The coming social security crisis would be fixed in no time. I'd also promote heavy vodka drinking. It got Russia's life expectancy amongst men down under 60, right where chuck likes it.

smackaholic wrote: The bottom line here is, who the fukk does the gubmint think they are deciding what should be taxed excessively and what shouldn't?

Sin taxes have always been an easy way to swindle money from the public.

Smokers are a despised and dwindling minority, thus easy pickings for legally indulging in their addiction. Under attack from every direction in the form of smoking bans going into effect seemingly everywhere, this is just the latest outrageous attempt to control behavior, under the current guise of providing childrens health care.

And when the population of smokers dwindles to next to nothing, where do you suppose they'll get the money to support this and the next nanny state program?

They already tax alcohol out the wazzou, but I suppose there's more cash to be squeezed from that.

When that's not enough, let's go after coffee and tea drinkers. Too much caffeine is bad for you, afterall.

So when people cut back on that, what's next?

More gas taxes. Driving is dangerous. But that won't be enough.

I think we should tax the shit out of all you fatasses who like donuts, or chocolate... and porn. Porn isn't taxed enough.

Don't like porn?

Then we'll tax your buttered popcorn, your guacamole and cheese dip, your fucking corn chips.

I want to tax the fucking air you bitches breathe. Every breath you take over the age of 60 gets taxed double. Since you've lived that long, we obviously haven't squeezed enough out of you yet.

Left Seater wrote:That or sending more of the smokers to indian casinos to buy their smokes.

Exactamundo! Not to mention the "dealers" who will profit by being the "cigarette runners" from the reservations. Way to create a new black market.

mvscal wrote:Meanwhile back in reality, California has experienced a 20% drop in tobacco revenue since Prop 10 (raised taxes $.50 per pack) went into effect in 1999.

Now where do you suppose all those neat programs "For The Children" are making up their shortfalls in revenue? Feel free to guess again.

The drop in revenue wouldn't have anything to do with the statewide smoking ban in workplaces and restaurants in '94, would it, slappy?

Or further restrictions in bars in '98, would it, dumbfuck?

Where did Prop 99 revenues go when California's general fund shriveled up like your flaccid prick? Exactly shit for brains.

Wow, check out socal with the big angst!

mvscal wrote:Well, that didn't take long. Don't worry, libtards. I know it must look like he's pissing in your face, but you can't believe everything you see. In reality it's just raining. It's for "The Children" though, so that makes it OK.

House set to pass kids' health bill
By KEVIN FREKING – 9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government is poised to extend health coverage to 4 million more lower-income children, a first step in President Barack Obama's promise to shrink the ranks of the uninsured.

The House was expected to approve the expansion of a children's health insurance program Wednesday and deliver it to Obama for his quick signature. The bill passed the Senate last week.

Over the next four years, up to 13 million children could be covered under the program run by the Health and Human Services Department and state governments.

The bill calls for spending an additional $32.8 billion on the State Children's Health Insurance Program. To cover the increase in spending, lawmakers approved boosting the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD964KTCG0

Imagine that! mvscal talking about a black man pissing/jizzing in his face. Who could have ever thought he'd post something like that?

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:If all those indigent po' people quit smoking they won't be burdening the existing Socialist Health Care System by getting lung cancer and qualifying for free hospital treatment. That savings alone should more than make up for any lost cigarette taxes.

You're an idiot. Smokers die early and they die fast. Any action or policy that results in people living longer raises health care costs.

People should be encouraged to smoke, run with scissors, cross busy intersections without looking, assume that all firearms are unloaded, swim less than 30 minutes after eating a full meal, going hiking in the U&L during winter and anything else that would help thin the herd.

I agree, but don't believe for one instant we don't find it humorous you play Russian Roulette with black cock. You never know when you might bite down on one and the force of his cock will tear through the back of your neck or the donkey punch will be so vicious, his hand will break through your skull.

I guess we know who holds the keys to this ^^^^^^ shit troll.

smackaholic wrote:Ahhhh yes, the old stand by argument that smoker raise healthcare costs.

Too bad it's an utter shit arguement.

Lung cancer tends to kill people rather quickly, usually before they grow old enough to suck off the SS teat for long, if at all.

Talk about an utter shit argument.

Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are older than 65; fewer than 3% of all cases are found in people under the age of 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 71.

Goober McTuber wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Ahhhh yes, the old stand by argument that smoker raise healthcare costs.

Too bad it's an utter shit arguement.

Lung cancer tends to kill people rather quickly, usually before they grow old enough to suck off the SS teat for long, if at all.

Talk about an utter shit argument.

Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are older than 65; fewer than 3% of all cases are found in people under the age of 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 71.

How so. Average age of diagnosis is 71. Most die rather quickly. I would say that they check out at an average age of under 73. This is well below the average life expectancy. So, it frees up a SS teat for another blue hair.

Are you arguing that it is more cost effective to have that person hang around long enough to become senile and waste away and punch out at 91?

Both my grandparents on my dad's side made it into their mid nineties. My grandmother was completely senile for atleast 5 or 6 years. She spent the last 2 years in a home. Going quickly from cancer at 85 would have been a cakewalk compared to what she and my gramps went through. My gramps was comparatively lucky. He made it to 95 without losing his marbles and only spent about 3 or 4 days in hospice before checking out. Unfortunately, his case is the exception.

smackaholic wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Ahhhh yes, the old stand by argument that smoker raise healthcare costs.

Too bad it's an utter shit arguement.

Lung cancer tends to kill people rather quickly, usually before they grow old enough to suck off the SS teat for long, if at all.

Talk about an utter shit argument.

Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are older than 65; fewer than 3% of all cases are found in people under the age of 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 71.

How so. Average age of diagnosis is 71. Most die rather quickly. I would say that they check out at an average age of under 73. This is well below the average life expectancy. So, it frees up a SS teat for another blue hair.

Are you arguing that it is more cost effective to have that person hang around long enough to become senile and waste away and punch out at 91?

Both my grandparents on my dad's side made it into their mid nineties. My grandmother was completely senile for atleast 5 or 6 years. She spent the last 2 years in a home. Going quickly from cancer at 85 would have been a cakewalk compared to what she and my gramps went through. My gramps was comparatively lucky. He made it to 95 without losing his marbles and only spent about 3 or 4 days in hospice before checking out. Unfortunately, his case is the exception.

You’re just throwing out anecdotes about your family and totally fabricated facts about people dying quickly. Feel free to back up your claim of lung cancer victims dying by age 73, which is only 5 years less than the current US life expectancy and even if it were true, these people could easily have been collecting SS for 11 or 13 years.

Then there’s this:

The financial costs of lung cancer are high. One study estimated that the cost of treating lung cancer in the United States in 2004 was about $9.6 billion per year (see Costs of Cancer Care). This made it one of the most expensive cancers to treat in the country.

The financial costs of getting really old are tremendous. If lung cancer doesn't get you, something else will. Getting old pretty much sux. ANd the longer it is dragged out, the more healthcare $$$$$ get spent.

No anecdotes here, just the ugly truth.

If you are gonna pile on smokers and use there addiction as a form of income, it's no skin off my nose. I don't smoke. Never have and don't ever plan on starting. Just come up with a better arguement than smokers drive up costs.

Where’s Jimmy Meds when you need him?

War Wagon wrote:I want to tax the fucking air you bitches breathe. Every breath you take over the age of 60 gets taxed double. Since you've lived that long, we obviously haven't squeezed enough out of you yet.

Fuck yeah! Air in a can, baby! Only $19.95/6-pack!

IndyFrisco wrote:

War Wagon wrote:I want to tax the fucking air you bitches breathe. Every breath you take over the age of 60 gets taxed double. Since you've lived that long, we obviously haven't squeezed enough out of you yet.

Fuck yeah! Air in a can, baby! Only $19.95/6-pack!

Let them tax cigarettes to 50 bucks a pack. After the die-hard smokers resort to the black market and everyone else has quit, a 6 pack of domestic beer can be taxed to 30 bucks or more to make up for the lost revenue. Hopefully the moonshiners will fire up the stills and the gubmint can enact an "emergency" federal sales tax that will never go away.

And, as a bonus our teenage kids will be forced to buy marijuana or crack cocaine when they want to rebel, be cool, and experiment as most youngsters do...it will be cheaper than tobacco and alcohol. And when half of America's teenagers are strung out on illicit drugs, the feds will be forced to jack up the federal sales tax to cover the cost of treatment for our beloved children...the ones we cared about so much we shot ourselves in the fucking foot to begin with.

Sounds pretty good.

Stick to commenting about CFB. That may be safe enough.

Here, not so much.

That was reeallyy fucking terrible.

God and G0d damn it, can't believe I'm about to say it.

Rack Illiterate Wagon? Yes. Rack that dumbfuck.