if you are going to fund the SCHIP bill, what funding source (tax) would you choose?

[1]

i can tell you which one they picked for the bill obama signed today. a $.61 per pack tax on cigarettes.

how shortsighted and unfuckingbelievable.

as the number of children requiring SCHIP grows each year, the funding source is basically tied to the very people that require the service, and a funding source that will absolutely diminish over time. is that how we do things now? make those that need child health care pay for it indirectly themselves? how very republican of this bill.

sorry if i am not jumping for joy over what was signed into law today. a great bill with absolutely bullshit and shaky funding.

i would suggest that if you are going to implement a service that is going to require increased funding each year, why not make it a bit more progressive and tie to a source that will grow as well over time.

how about a per minute tax on cell phone usage? that surely is not going to slow down in the foreseeable future. something like a $.005 tax per minute per call would bring in incredible revenue for the program, ensure its continued growth, would be hardly noticed by the individual and would spread the burden to just about everyone.


nah! fuck a progressive approach. we don't like smokers anyway. let them pay for it, fuck 'um. besides, i love the SCHIP program and i should love any program that someone else but me pays for, right?.

is that our position here? really, du?

[razors edge]

1. From what I can tell,

yep, that's the position here.

Whats an extra 430 bucks a year to a smoker? Besides they are in the minority.

That's what a Democracy is all about, isn't it?

[depakid]

2. Actually the tie in is quite rational

Smoking and the tobacco industry externalize their costs onto society as a whole. Thus, taxing them is one way to recoup (internalize) these costs. It also provides an incentive that results in less smoking- or causes people to quit, which is beneficial to the person and to society at large.

The obvious problem of course, from an financial standpoint is that selling less and less of the taxable product reduces the revenues for the program- so supplementary revenues will be required down the line.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Screwing the minorities, I don't think so.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Screwing the minorities, I don't think so.

[1]

9. regardless of what you "think is so"....

there are some facts about exactly who will pay for this.

(clue: its not the rich.)

but carry on. i think the world of firefighters and medics. even if the word "regressive" never enters their mind...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. That might make sense if I had responded to you.

[1]

11. doesn't change the facts... n/t.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. I responded to razor edge's post not yours. It makes a huge difference.

[1]

15. sorry bud, my bad. i thought if someone posted on du, it was fair game for anyone to respond...

maybe your post was just something between you and razors edge. i thought you were posting on topic.

please continue...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. If you'd like to defend taxing people just because they are a minority go ahead.

[1]

17. wtf? have you read any of my posts? i am arguing for the exact opposite.

the schip bill puts the funding burden on the very people that need the service. the "lower" classes (if you do not find that term too unacceptable) who consume the vast majority of tobacco products in this country. a great bill with a terrible funding component that makes the beneficiaries of schip largely pay for it themselves.

it should be the other way around. the rich should be paying for the needs of the poor.

schip is a "feel good" bill that fucks the very people it is supposed to serve.

is that clear to you now?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. That's why I questioned your response to my post.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. See here's how this works.

Razors edge makes a statement, "Besides they are in the minority." and then asks a question, "That's what a Democracy is all about, isn't it?"

to which I answered, "Screwing the minorities, I don't think so." Which means screwing the minorities is not what Democracy is all about in my opinion. Is that clear to you now?

David

[1]

21. i totally misunderstood your post. i apologize.

we are on the same side...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. No worries, re-reading it I can see the confusion, not my best writing.

[Maru Kitteh]

3. boo .. hoo.. you got me cryin'.. for you .. hoo...

It's an oldie but a goodie.

[1]

7. don't cry too hard, bud. i, like you, will contribute not one penny to schip...

i, like you, do not pay cigarette taxes.

but don't let that get in your way of your hatred of smokers. or the absurdity of the funding for this bill...

[corruptmewithpower]

5. The only tax we really need for every purpose under government.

In a negative income tax system, people earning a certain income level would owe no taxes; those earning more than that would pay a proportion of their income above that level; and those below that level would receive a payment of a proportion of their shortfall, which is the amount their income falls below that level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

[Johonny]

6. Wait sell a product that's addicting isn't a growth source?

[sutz12]

8. Personally, I think it should come out of the general fund.

I don't really like the "sin tax" method for philosphical reasons. And I'm not a smoker.

However, that was the tactic they used to attract broader support. I know smokers resent this, and I don't really disagree with you. However, I'm really glad this passed. Sorry to the smokers. Perhaps this rather crazy link can someday be unhinged.

Consider this, if we ever do get to some form of UHC, this program will be redundant and maybe they'll drop the tax. Nah, they'll just find something else to spend it on. :shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

12. I posted this earlier but got absolutely no reaction

The proceeds from the tobacco lawsuits were SUPPOSED to go for childrens healthcare BUT

the Bush DOJ decreased the amount from $130 billion to $14 billion, yet NOW they are going to get the money through the backdoor and go after the smokers.This is NOT fair.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/07/doj_officia...
>>>snip
Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum will be deposed this morning in a lawsuit seeking information about why the Justice Department drastically reduced the amount of damages it was seeking in a suit against the big tobacco companies.

Last June, following a lengthy trial, DOJ officials announced they were cutting the amount of damages they were seeking from tobacco companies, from $130 billion to $14 billion.

That decision prompted the lead attorney in the government's case, Sharon Eubanks, pictured above, to quit, saying that Bush political appointees undercut the government's case against big tobacco.

"The amount sought by the U.S. government was dictated by the political appointees of the Department of Justice," Eubanks, a 22-year veteran, told ABC News last year. "It was very difficult to work with political officials," she said, "I did not receive their support or encouragement."

[question everything]

14. I am not jumping for joy, either

and I am not a smoker. I can see it how we tell smokers to keep puffing because it is for the children.

It should come from the general fund.

Better yet, it should come from the universal health care fund supported by (progressively) taxing all of us.

[w4rma]

20. Raise the income tax on the very very wealthy. Raise the capital gains tax, too. (nt)