A tax I don't mind, and might even support

from JoeUser Forums

With apologies to my friends and acquaintances that are smokers, I have to say that the news here: O'Malley pushes cigarette tax doesn't really bother me.

Martin O'Malley and his friends continue to be tax happy, especially his party mate the dis-honorable slothlike Michael Busch, the speaker of the House in the Maryland legislature who continues to be anti-slots gambling and continues to push for other tax increases while basically letting the Maryland horse racing industry die a slow and agonizing death (in a state that used to be known as one of the best states for equestrian sports).  I wish the voters in Mr. Busch's district would wake up and send him to the early retirement that he seems to so desperately want, but that's a different topic for another time.

In this particular case though I'm not really bothered by the idea that people that are cigarette smokers will be asked to pay an additional $1 per pack in state taxes on their cigarette purchases.  I begrudge no one the right to smoke if they wish (though I greatly appreciate having that smoking be done outside so I don't have to be subjected to it), and would defend to the death the rights of people that wish to smoke in their homes and outdoor areas, but at the same time I'd like to see more people that do smoke drop the habit and help improve their health and the health of others around them.

If raising the tax on packs of cigarettes by $1 per pack helps even one smoker quit permanently, then I think it's worth it.  Also on the plus side though is the idea that the $1 per pack that is paid by those that just can't quit, or just refuse to quit.  That $1 per pack will help to raise funds to pay for state provided services, for health care for underprivileged and underserved individuals, for education or for a host of other fairly worthy causes.  Of course those $1 per pack taxes will also help to keep the tax happy Democrats in the legislature from having to raise other taxes to pay for all of the programs they have promised, and the other existing programs that they refuse to cut budgets for.  Taxes that I know I really don't want to pay, and which I'd rather see be kept at bay thanks to letting those that partake in the various sins (gambling, smoking, etc.) help to offset with payments for their own vices.

politics
7,501 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry smokers, I really do hope you all find a way to quit and in doing so can avoid paying these taxes, but if you must smoke then I hope you'll help pay more for the needs of the many.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yeah, it's okay to raise taxes as long as it's on a product you don't use.  How very big of you. 

Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry, but your logic is flawed on this one terp.
They raise the prices on all items that have a "sin tax" on them whenever consumption goes down. Not for so called "quit assist programs", alcohol diversion programs or whatever trendy name they give it.
Look at alcohol taxes in any state, As consumption per annum goes down, the clowns in every state's legislature have been quick to raise the taxes on each proof gallon of alcohol.
Proof gallon = 2 gallons of 100 proof liquor. remember to figure alcohol percentage, divide proof by 2.

At least twice in a 4 year period when I was working in a liquor store, the state increased the taxes for this reason. The fun part was that they raised the taxes on what was in inventory too!
This caused a price increase, extra expenses to figure out how many proof gallons you have at that moment, and then repricing labor.

Anyone who thinks these taxes are anything but politicians feeding at their troughs is either mistaken, or flat out deluded.
Wait till they tax your internet access; to fight kiddie porn or some other idea.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yeah, it's okay to raise taxes as long as it's on a product you don't use. How very big of you.

How about I put into Loca speak:

'Yeah, it's ok to raise taxes on rich people as long as you aren't rich'

See the hypocrisy and irony in your own comment there Loca?

How big of me... nice shot.  Care to try again?

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Yeah, it's ok to raise taxes on rich people as long as you aren't rich'


which I've never said - care to try again
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wait till they tax your internet access; to fight kiddie porn or some other idea.

Too late, they already do in this state.  Taxes on anything and everything they can.  Maybe not directly on hi-speed internet, but on telephone services with labels of 'universal access fee' and similar that are supposed to fund internet for poor people.

 

Honestly, sin taxes suck FOR THE SINNERS.  It is a fact of life that people that consume alcohol and tobacco products pay taxes for those vices.  I feel for those people for about 2 seconds and then I think about the negative impacts of the consumption of those products and don't feel so sorry any more.

Liver problems, DUI, domestic violence and a bunch of other problems are traceable to alcohol consumption.  Raise the taxes and make the products more expensive for the users and you may cut the consumption of same.  If you don't (cut consumption), at least you are raising more money to pay for other important needs.

Do the politicians make stupid decisions on what to do with the money?  Hell yes.  But quite honestly I'd rather that the Bud drinkers pay more for their products than myself and a bunch of others have to pay 1% more in state sales taxes (which, whether I like it or not is probably coming too).  Same with cigarette smokers.  If they pay $1 more per pack in taxes and it keeps myself and a bunch of others from having to pay 10% for our state sales taxes.

 

Pointing back a Loca again - what are *you* going to tell the low income workers that will be asked to pay higher state sales taxes if the state doesn't raise these sin taxes??  If the state sales taxes and state income taxes are doubled (which is a possibility, as in the taxes could be raised from 5% to 10% at cash registers, and state income taxes may also be raised in obscene percentages, though the Governor is promising -- yeah, right, I believe that crap -- that he wants to make the taxes progressive and cut the burden on regular Joes while significantly increasing it on those that the state labels as 'well to do') then who gets hit the hardest???

You cry a river about injustices done in the Bush administration, and how the Bush tax cuts sucked and helped the wealthy, and yet you slam me for pointing at consumption taxes and suggesting that they are a good thing because they can and do help curb that consumption, can and will help improve the health of citizens of the state (because some people will quit smoking/drinking, or at least not do it as much and because the state will take a good size chunk of the money raised and spend it on health care for it's citizens).

 

Yet more examples of liberal hypocrisy.  And hmm, don't I recall a recent exchange between us where I had left a comment on one of your articles pointing out your own hypocrisy before?

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

which I've never said - care to try again

You may not have said it directly, but you have certainly implied it many times.  I'll leave it to the heavy duty googler's and article searchers to call you on it, but it's there for the world to see if they've been looking.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

You cry a river about injustices done in the Bush administration, and how the Bush tax cuts sucked and helped the wealthy, and yet you slam me for pointing at consumption taxes and suggesting that they are a good thing because they can and do help curb that consumption, can and will help improve the health of citizens of the state (because some people will quit smoking/drinking, or at least not do it as much and because the state will take a good size chunk of the money raised and spend it on health care for it's citizens).

See this is the problem with painting everyone with a broad brush.  You label me a liberal and think that I am 100% your idea of a liberal.  On this site, I am liberal because everyone else here is so far to the right but actually in reality I am very middle of the road.  You never heard me crying about the Bush tax cuts.  I actually enjoyed spending my unexpected $1200 check. 

As for your link, I am for living a greener life but I think feeding food to our cars in the form of ethanol is wrong.  We can make ethanol from the inedible parts of corn or other plants but we choose not to.  Ethanol increased corn prices which in turn increased prices on meat and dairy.  Anyway the whole thing was a stupid, smart-ass comment that I made not some deep philosophical discussion but okay you have "proved" my hypocrisy.  Good on ya.   

Hey it's not my fault that the Maryland state motto is "if you can dream it we can tax it".  I guess it's time for a Baltimore tea party or something. 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am going to disagree with you on this one Terp.  There are no good taxes.  There are punitive taxes, income taxes, and sin taxes. But there are no honest taxes.  This is one.

It has been shown time and again that when you start pumping up the sin tax like this (and like the democrats want to do for SCHIP), the consumption goes down.  IN this case, that is a good thing.  However, with a national tax, people can pony up or quit.  And they will.  But with a state tax, they just go to another state.  Any wonder that bootlegging in NY is so rampant?  And you think MD is going to be different?  No, it is going to be worse since Va is right next door.

Plus, if you want to tax something for a program, be honest.  When the revenues do not materialize (and they will not), cut the program!  But do you think that clown in Annapolis is going to cut anything?  Fat chance!

Here is where the tax is going to get YOU!  Because like all taxes, when the revenue does not materialize, they will then go after you to make up the difference.  And while today you are cheering (or silently applauding)  this tax, you are going to wind up paying it.  not the smokers who will just buy their stuff from Virginia.

That is why I say there are no good taxes.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Plus, if you want to tax something for a program, be honest. When the revenues do not materialize (and they will not), cut the program! But do you think that clown in Annapolis is going to cut anything? Fat chance!

Here is where the tax is going to get YOU! Because like all taxes, when the revenue does not materialize, they will then go after you to make up the difference. And while today you are cheering (or silently applauding) this tax, you are going to wind up paying it. not the smokers who will just buy their stuff from Virginia.

Well, on the plus side if the smokers all drive over to Virginia to their smokes, they'll wind up having to fill up their cars with more gas and will in turn pay more into the transportation trust fund to help pay for the roads

To be more serious, yes, I understand the point you are making and it is true, but in the case of cigarettes (and alcohol to a large degree) I think it's better to try to bring in more revenue for now and hope that consumption does go down (and revenues in turn with it).  If the revenues do not come in, then yes, the taxaholics in this state will certainly find other places to get revenue from as they will probably never cut programs or promises that they make to fund everything they can ever possibly pander to.  When that time comes though I'll be out leading the Simpsons style mob with the pitchforks and such demanding something better.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

See this is the problem with painting everyone with a broad brush. You label me a liberal and think that I am 100% your idea of a liberal. On this site, I am liberal because everyone else here is so far to the right but actually in reality I am very middle of the road. You never heard me crying about the Bush tax cuts. I actually enjoyed spending my unexpected $1200 check.

Please accept my apologies on the mischaracterization of your stance on taxes.  I appreciate the clarification (and your position).

I wish others were more in line with that sort of position, but it seems instead they are more interested in the idea of soak the rich but seemingly never seem to be able to explain who the rich are.

In anycase, I do apologize.  /bow

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hey it's not my fault that the Maryland state motto is "if you can dream it we can tax it". I guess it's time for a Baltimore tea party or something.

I also wanted to give you Loca credit for truly understanding the way taxes work (or try to work) under the Democrat controlled legislature and governorship in Maryland.  Your line above has it pretty much dead on  

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, on the plus side if the smokers all drive over to Virginia to their smokes, they'll wind up having to fill up their cars with more gas and will in turn pay more into the transportation trust fund to help pay for the roads

OIC!  So this is just your sneaky way of increasing the gas tax!  Now I get it!

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

OIC! So this is just your sneaky way of increasing the gas tax! Now I get it!

I joke, and you may be right in thinking that many people will flock to where the packs of butts are cheaper, but I've seen far too many smokers that will pay whatever the price is just to get their smokes when they need 'em.

Though it would be nice to see consumption go down, and it just might, I really don't think that in the end the consumption will change much.  At least not long term.  People that smoke will continue to smoke and they'll pay the prices.  Especially people in Baltimore (have to love that their former mayor will be the one stickin' it to 'em) and other parts of 'central Maryland' where the drive to run out of state and go get the cheaper smokes is just too much work.

It might inspire more black market smuggling of cig's from out of state, but that'll just give the law enforcement officers a bit more work to nab the smugglers and fine them for yet more revenue collection for the state.