Obama wants to raise tobacco taxes - again...

[Wry Catcher]

This highly pisses me off - again. Not one penny of tobacco taxes goes toward smokers' healthcare - so why in the hell should smokers (tobacco users) be taxed to pay for children's healthcare and schooling?

On this - I say fuck you, Obama!

I'm 65 years old; at age 50 many friends and acquaintances began to drop dead from smoking, or being overweight. I support taxing tobacco until the last tobacco farm has been reduced to producing organic vegetables.

Spoken like a true wanna be dictator.

Nah, at one time I managed over three hundred staff. My style was never to ask anyone to do anything I wouldn't do (and had done) and to communicate not only what I needed done but why. As usual you have no clue.

Smoking kills - some drop dead, some suffer from cancer and all die before their time. The cost associated with tobacco use is enormous in terms of health care and lost productivity. The taxes raised won't ever cover the cost so even if you don't smoke you pay for the rights of others to kill themselves.

 

[Katzndogz]

Cigs, causes cancer and kills the customer.

Hey how much does to cost to treat a cancer patienst on Medicare? Or just how much does it cost to treat any smoking related illness? Especially when the smoker is living on the government check.

You all don't want to pay those crazy cig prices? Then quit smoking.

You all ever notice the number of welfare recipients that smoke? Or the number of unemployed that smoke. Wasted money up front and even more wasted money when the health issues kick in.

I don't like paying taxes for welfare either. Does that mean you and I support mandatory drug test and work programs as a requirement for subsidy?

-Geaux

That's already a proven failure. It costs more to test welfare recipients than they save. They have found this out in a number of states. I find it amazing how so many people are still pushing for this even after they have figured out a net loss in tax dollars by testing these people for drugs.

Not if the druggies can't get welfare. It certainly doesn't cost more to test if the result is stopping the monthly check and other benefits.

 

[hboats]

Percentage-wise, Obama is smacking the hell out of tobacco users.

5. Tobacco tax hike. The president's budget nearly doubles the tobacco tax, from $1.01 to $1.95 per pack, and then indexes it to inflation from there. This is a clear tax hike on middle class Americans. According to independent estimates, the average smoker in America makes about $40,000 per year. Additionally, tobacco taxes are a declining tax revenue base, and as a result it's inappropriate to fund new government programs using it. This isn't the first time President Obama has raised federal tobacco taxes. In 2009, on his 16th day in office, he signed into law a 156 percent increase in the tobacco tax. Such tax increases are a violation of Obama's central campaign promise not to sign "any form of tax increase" on Americans making less than $250,000 per year. Tax increase: $78 billion.

Top 10 Tax Hikes in the Obama Budget

Not this tobacco user. I roll my own cigarettes and i pay about 1/4 what you would pay if you went out and bought a pack of Marlboro cigarettes. Want to know the secret? They call the tobacco "pipe tobacco" so that they can avoid the cigarette taxes. That's right, I can roll a carton of cigarettes for less than $15 where if you went out and bought a carton for smokes it would cost you anywhere from $55 to $65 depending on what brand and where in the country you are.

Rick

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm 65 years old; at age 50 many friends and acquaintances began to drop dead from smoking, or being overweight. I support taxing tobacco until the last tobacco farm has been reduced to producing organic vegetables.

Spoken like a true wanna be dictator.

Nah, at one time I managed over three hundred staff. My style was never to ask anyone to do anything I wouldn't do (and had done) and to communicate not only what I needed done but why. As usual you have no clue.

Smoking kills - some drop dead, some suffer from cancer and all die before their time. The cost associated with tobacco use is enormous in terms of health care and lost productivity. The taxes raised won't ever cover the cost so even if you don't smoke you pay for the rights of others to kill themselves.

Dic, fella. Listen. it's none of your fucking business who smokes and who grows tobacco. Like I said, you want to play social engineer with people because of what you feel is right. Now, i know LOLberals absolutely LOVE to play social engineer, and that's why I call them LOLberals. But don't waste your wind (esp. at your age) trying to tell me you're not a wanna be Dick Tater when you clearly are.

 

[auditor0007]

Spoken like a true wanna be dictator.

Absolutely!

Ya know...I guess I just don't get the whole idea of people wanting to control the actions of others. I mean...is it so hard for people to allow others their freedom to do what they will?

It's sort of like the abortion issue...where the pro-lifers want to force people to have their babies rather than abort the pregnancy. I mean...what's wrong with pro-choice? You don't like it...don't have an abortion!

You don't like smoking...don't do it!!! But leave those of us who choose to partake alone! Why the need to try to force everyone to quit? What you are ultimately trying to do is remove people's choice.

I mean seriously...it seems like a control issue to me. And...there is probably a 12 step program for that.

I truly do not care if you smoke, whatever your reason may be. You are a junkie and need your fix, and I get it. Quitting is difficult, and many people don't even care about the benefits or about feeling better. It's not until their later years when they are carrying around an 8 pound tank of oxygen with them just so they can breath that they finally get it. My concern is for those who have not yet started smoking. I don't want to see any young kid start smoking, because it is the dumbest thing they can ever do.

Based on a total savings of $500 per month, which is the cost of smoking when you include the cost of the cigarettes along with the additional higher costs of insurance as well as lost value on cars and your home due to the smoke, the total lifetime loss from smoking is nearly $1 million. In other words, if you take the $500 per month that it costs in total to smoke, and you invest that receiving a rate of return just 4% above inflation, then in 50 years you will have saved nearly $1 million. The best thing about it is that you can actually enjoy it too.

Yea, it's really not about you. It's about those who have not yet started to smoke.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Spoken like a true wanna be dictator.

Absolutely!

Ya know...I guess I just don't get the whole idea of people wanting to control the actions of others. I mean...is it so hard for people to allow others their freedom to do what they will?

It's sort of like the abortion issue...where the pro-lifers want to force people to have their babies rather than abort the pregnancy. I mean...what's wrong with pro-choice? You don't like it...don't have an abortion!

You don't like smoking...don't do it!!! But leave those of us who choose to partake alone! Why the need to try to force everyone to quit? What you are ultimately trying to do is remove people's choice.

I mean seriously...it seems like a control issue to me. And...there is probably a 12 step program for that.

I truly do not care if you smoke, whatever your reason may be. You are a junkie and need your fix, and I get it. Quitting is difficult, and many people don't even care about the benefits or about feeling better. It's not until their later years when they are carrying around an 8 pound tank of oxygen with them just so they can breath that they finally get it. My concern is for those who have not yet started smoking. I don't want to see any young kid start smoking, because it is the dumbest thing they can ever do.

Based on a total savings of $500 per month, which is the cost of smoking when you include the cost of the cigarettes along with the additional higher costs of insurance as well as lost value on cars and your home due to the smoke, the total lifetime loss from smoking is nearly $1 million. In other words, if you take the $500 per month that it costs in total to smoke, and you invest that receiving a rate of return just 4% above inflation, then in 50 years you will have saved nearly $1 million. The best thing about it is that you can actually enjoy it too.

Yea, it's really not about you. It's about those who have not yet started to smoke.

yet you waste a shit ton of wind telling everyone who does your thoughts on it as if they give a fuck.

ZERO!!! ZERO FUCKS GIVEN ON YOUR OPINION!!!

 

[auditor0007]

I don't like paying taxes for welfare either. Does that mean you and I support mandatory drug test and work programs as a requirement for subsidy?

-Geaux

That's already a proven failure. It costs more to test welfare recipients than they save. They have found this out in a number of states. I find it amazing how so many people are still pushing for this even after they have figured out a net loss in tax dollars by testing these people for drugs.

Not if the druggies can't get welfare. It certainly doesn't cost more to test if the result is stopping the monthly check and other benefits.

Most people on welfare are not doing drugs. That's what they found out, so there is no real savings, but there is a huge cost to test all the non druggies. Damn, don't you read the news? You believe too many of those chain letters you see on Facebook.

 

[auditor0007]

Absolutely!

Ya know...I guess I just don't get the whole idea of people wanting to control the actions of others. I mean...is it so hard for people to allow others their freedom to do what they will?

It's sort of like the abortion issue...where the pro-lifers want to force people to have their babies rather than abort the pregnancy. I mean...what's wrong with pro-choice? You don't like it...don't have an abortion!

You don't like smoking...don't do it!!! But leave those of us who choose to partake alone! Why the need to try to force everyone to quit? What you are ultimately trying to do is remove people's choice.

I mean seriously...it seems like a control issue to me. And...there is probably a 12 step program for that.

I truly do not care if you smoke, whatever your reason may be. You are a junkie and need your fix, and I get it. Quitting is difficult, and many people don't even care about the benefits or about feeling better. It's not until their later years when they are carrying around an 8 pound tank of oxygen with them just so they can breath that they finally get it. My concern is for those who have not yet started smoking. I don't want to see any young kid start smoking, because it is the dumbest thing they can ever do.

Based on a total savings of $500 per month, which is the cost of smoking when you include the cost of the cigarettes along with the additional higher costs of insurance as well as lost value on cars and your home due to the smoke, the total lifetime loss from smoking is nearly $1 million. In other words, if you take the $500 per month that it costs in total to smoke, and you invest that receiving a rate of return just 4% above inflation, then in 50 years you will have saved nearly $1 million. The best thing about it is that you can actually enjoy it too.

Yea, it's really not about you. It's about those who have not yet started to smoke.

yet you waste a shit ton of wind telling everyone who does your thoughts on it as if they give a fuck.

ZERO!!! ZERO FUCKS GIVEN ON YOUR OPINION!!!

And I truly give zero fucks on yours. Voila! Dipshit.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ohhhhh! Good one, man!

 

[jan]

Based on a total savings of $500 per month, which is the cost of smoking when you include the cost of the cigarettes along with the additional higher costs of insurance as well as lost value on cars and your home due to the smoke, the total lifetime loss from smoking is nearly $1 million. In other words, if you take the $500 per month that it costs in total to smoke, and you invest that receiving a rate of return just 4% above inflation, then in 50 years you will have saved nearly $1 million. The best thing about it is that you can actually enjoy it too.

Yep! It's true that one has to have money to smoke! Those who can't afford to smoke...will indeed quit. I'd actually go as far as to say that smoking is one of life's little luxuries, and not everybody can afford those.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

By Tara Culp-Ressler

President Obama unveiled his budget proposal on Tuesday morning, confirming early reports that his initiatives include an expansion of universal preschool programs by raising revenue from additional tobacco taxes. Obama’s preschool plan is winning praise from both anti-smoking advocates and early childhood education proponents, but it isn’t popular with everyone. Even before the specific details were made available on Tuesday, the proposed tax increase garnered criticism from the powerful companies that comprise Big Tobacco.

The current federal tax on cigarettes is about $1 a pack, and President Obama’s proposal would increase that by an additional 94 cents. That hike would raise $75 billion to help subsidize preschool for children whose families who earn up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line, in a national effort to encourage more four-year-olds to enroll in pre-K programs. The tax increase would also raise $1.6 billion for the Early Head Start program and $15 billion for other programs.

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids has praised the policy, noting that higher tobacco taxes are a proven method of reducing smoking rates as well as a reliable revenue source. The advocacy group also points out that the majority of Americans support increasing taxes on tobacco products. In a statement released last week in regards to Obama’s forthcoming budget, the Campaign described the proposed tax as “a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives, a financial win that will raise revenue to fund an important initiative and reduce tobacco-related health care costs, and a political win that is popular with voters.” Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking are estimated at $96 billion.

More: Big Tobacco Already Resisting Obama's Proposal To Fund Universal Preschool With Cigarette Taxes

What a nice handout for Circle K. Once the tax raise comes into effect, the hysteria will be so high they'll be able to jack up the price by $4 a pack MORE than the tax increase and their customers will blame Obama.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This highly pisses me off - again. Not one penny of tobacco taxes goes toward smokers' healthcare - so why in the hell should smokers (tobacco users) be taxed to pay for children's healthcare and schooling?

On this - I say fuck you, Obama!

Lakota, you should just quit smoking. Its bad for you.


I don't think its fair, either, but if the GOP won't allow him to raise the revenue through income taxation then what else is he to do?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't like paying taxes for welfare either. Does that mean you and I support mandatory drug test and work programs as a requirement for subsidy?

-Geaux

That's already a proven failure. It costs more to test welfare recipients than they save. They have found this out in a number of states. I find it amazing how so many people are still pushing for this even after they have figured out a net loss in tax dollars by testing these people for drugs.

Not if the druggies can't get welfare. It certainly doesn't cost more to test if the result is stopping the monthly check and other benefits.

I suggest you find out how much a single test for four common drugs (opiates, meth, THC and cocaine) costs. Then consider every person receiving 'welfare' is tested and a small percentage will text positive. Some will be false positives (believe it or not we learned that Costco poppy seed muffins can cause a false positive for opiates). Keep in mind that only THC when used chronically remains in the system long enough to be detected after a couple of days, other drugs are gone within hours. Alcohol is gone at the rate of an ounce an hour.

Then consider the consequences of stopping all welfare and benefits. Think about not only a cost-benefit but also a cost-deficit.

 

[hortysir]

By Tara Culp-Ressler

President Obama unveiled his budget proposal on Tuesday morning, confirming early reports that his initiatives include an expansion of universal preschool programs by raising revenue from additional tobacco taxes. Obama’s preschool plan is winning praise from both anti-smoking advocates and early childhood education proponents, but it isn’t popular with everyone. Even before the specific details were made available on Tuesday, the proposed tax increase garnered criticism from the powerful companies that comprise Big Tobacco.

The current federal tax on cigarettes is about $1 a pack, and President Obama’s proposal would increase that by an additional 94 cents. That hike would raise $75 billion to help subsidize preschool for children whose families who earn up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line, in a national effort to encourage more four-year-olds to enroll in pre-K programs. The tax increase would also raise $1.6 billion for the Early Head Start program and $15 billion for other programs.

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids has praised the policy, noting that higher tobacco taxes are a proven method of reducing smoking rates as well as a reliable revenue source. The advocacy group also points out that the majority of Americans support increasing taxes on tobacco products. In a statement released last week in regards to Obama’s forthcoming budget, the Campaign described the proposed tax as “a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives, a financial win that will raise revenue to fund an important initiative and reduce tobacco-related health care costs, and a political win that is popular with voters.” Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking are estimated at $96 billion.

More: Big Tobacco Already Resisting Obama's Proposal To Fund Universal Preschool With Cigarette Taxes

I thought Obama wasn't going to raise taxes for the Middle Class.

It's funny that "they" want me to quit smoking but want to fund the pet project of the day with my tax dollars.
What if I and everyone else quit smoking?
What cash cow will they milk next?

 

[Wry Catcher]

This highly pisses me off - again. Not one penny of tobacco taxes goes toward smokers' healthcare - so why in the hell should smokers (tobacco users) be taxed to pay for children's healthcare and schooling?

On this - I say fuck you, Obama!

Lakota, you should just quit smoking. Its bad for you.


I don't think its fair, either, but if the GOP won't allow him to raise the revenue through income taxation then what else is he to do?

Is it fair that chronic smokers use the health care system for smoking related illness which raises the rates for all of us? Is it fair that smokers are less productive at work and others must pull some of their weight? Is it fair that smokers use more sick leave than others, creating additional costs for a business?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

By Tara Culp-Ressler

President Obama unveiled his budget proposal on Tuesday morning, confirming early reports that his initiatives include an expansion of universal preschool programs by raising revenue from additional tobacco taxes. Obama’s preschool plan is winning praise from both anti-smoking advocates and early childhood education proponents, but it isn’t popular with everyone. Even before the specific details were made available on Tuesday, the proposed tax increase garnered criticism from the powerful companies that comprise Big Tobacco.

The current federal tax on cigarettes is about $1 a pack, and President Obama’s proposal would increase that by an additional 94 cents. That hike would raise $75 billion to help subsidize preschool for children whose families who earn up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line, in a national effort to encourage more four-year-olds to enroll in pre-K programs. The tax increase would also raise $1.6 billion for the Early Head Start program and $15 billion for other programs.

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids has praised the policy, noting that higher tobacco taxes are a proven method of reducing smoking rates as well as a reliable revenue source. The advocacy group also points out that the majority of Americans support increasing taxes on tobacco products. In a statement released last week in regards to Obama’s forthcoming budget, the Campaign described the proposed tax as “a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives, a financial win that will raise revenue to fund an important initiative and reduce tobacco-related health care costs, and a political win that is popular with voters.” Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking are estimated at $96 billion.

More: Big Tobacco Already Resisting Obama's Proposal To Fund Universal Preschool With Cigarette Taxes

I thought Obama wasn't going to raise taxes for the Middle Class.

Maybe he didn't know that tobacco smoking is an indicator of class.

What if I and everyone else quit smoking?

Oh, NO! That would be HORRIBLE!!!! Please don't quit smoking!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Brilliant!! Let's fund something with taxes on something we're trying to get people to stop purchasing.

How utterly stupid these folks are.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's already a proven failure. It costs more to test welfare recipients than they save. They have found this out in a number of states. I find it amazing how so many people are still pushing for this even after they have figured out a net loss in tax dollars by testing these people for drugs.

Not if the druggies can't get welfare. It certainly doesn't cost more to test if the result is stopping the monthly check and other benefits.

Most people on welfare are not doing drugs. That's what they found out, so there is no real savings, but there is a huge cost to test all the non druggies. Damn, don't you read the news? You believe too many of those chain letters you see on Facebook.

Yea ok, then who is doing the drugs the working folks like me who have to take a random drug test or all the 1%"ers?
You know dang well they are using a simple pee test, use a hair test and it would be a different story.But your right it is a waste of money.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Brilliant!! Let's fund something with taxes on something we're trying to get people to stop purchasing.

How utterly stupid these folks are.

All social and central planners are stupid. Not once in the entire history of human existence has a social or central planner ever done anything that didn't result in some of the most tragic, or comical failures in history.

 

[hortysir]

Brilliant!! Let's fund something with taxes on something we're trying to get people to stop purchasing.

How utterly stupid these folks are.

I haven't looked recently but at one point a good portion of our congress critters' IRAs were invested in companies like Phillip Morris, et.al