Washington state chooses to tax the poor more

[Hannah Bell]

My friendly neighborhood independent corner store operator told me state cigarette taxes going up $1 a pack on Monday; that's in addition to the .70 they went up last year that went to the feds.

That's $1.70 in tax hikes, per pack, in the last year.

Incidence of smoking increases as you move down the income scale. A pack-a-day smoker here will pay $620/year in federal & state taxes just from the last two hikes -- not even counting the old taxes.

State taxes will then be above $3/pack = $1095/year for a pack/day smoker.

One way the poor pay more.

But those are sin taxes targeting the "sins" of the poor & working class, so they're cheered by liberal yuppie types.

Meanwhile, Arizona, home of the new fascist majority, which levies $2/pack, exempts country club memberships and massages from sales tax. For the climbers.

http://www.abc15.com/content/financialsurvival/azstories/story/AZ-representative-proposes-sales-tax-on-luxury/fUFb6M6P-EOVXyAgRQwZZw.cspx

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14349.

[RandomThoughts]

1. I don't mind that tax, and I have no money and do smoke cigarettes

But I also know it is bad, and just have not gotten around to quiting smoking again.


Although I am also a firm believe in a sin tax on greed also.

[ET Awful]

2. Nobody HAS to smoke. Also, in Arizona, at least when I lived there,

you can get cigarettes tax free with little to no effort. I could go 5 miles out of town to the reservation, get tax free cigarettes and save a bundle.

As to paying "more", the tax on cigarettes offsets the public health cost of smoking which is huge. It's really very simple, if you don't like paying taxes on cigarettes, don't smoke. That's one of the main reasons I quit after smoking 1 1/2 packs a day for over 15 years.

[Hannah Bell]

3. nobody has to get a massage, either, or belong to a country club.

nevertheless, untaxed.

nobody has to do anything.

old age = the leading cause of death & the most expensive segment of health care.

it happens to all of us.

japan has a higher proportion of smokers & fewer lung cancer deaths, as do most countries with a greater degree of social/income equality.

this hike alone is supposed to generate about $80 million, which, since state taxes will be raised from 2.25 to 3.25/pack, means about $240 million total, so smokers (about 16% of the state population) would be kicking in about 6% of the state Medicaid budget just from their cigarette purchases alone.

Medicaid is about 23% of the state budget.

Wa state Medicaid covers about half the births in washington state, covers one in three children in washington state, and about 1 million people total, or about 1 in 6 members of the population.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:86pybI9W-5kJ:hrsa.dshs.wa.gov/News/Fact/FS008009WashingtonMedicaidfacts.pdf+washington+state+percent+medicaid&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgQ42pKc0uaSc6j0Lt7GoBxpf2tmG3CAvJLVGejQMmVSF-5XEb_lR0R6KDSxh4bv2FyznKPGzXvJE7HmyYsHl7w54mQYVo9VWEcKV3GIpp9-H1KVuTBkWQP5EO3fJLRfK7l20LW&sig=AHIEtbQ5rk2QwglrDNEQDufuxwWwVjGLmw


And you're telling me it's smokers who account for most of that cost.

Bullshit. It's a scam to shift costs from the rich to the low-income, in effect making them (as a class) pay for the supposed "charity" they receive while simultaneously being looked down on for being poor & having declasse habits.

about 7000 people in wash state die every year from illnesses linked to smoking, e.g. lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, chronic lung disease, etc. but many of those who die from those diseases AREN'T SMOKERS, & never were smokers.

v. 1 million in the medicaid program.

[ET Awful]

4. So explain to me how a country club membership or massage

pose a risk to the public health.

Please give us the medical studies that prove that second hand golf poses a risk to those around the golfer.

BTW - I think those things should be taxed too, but they're VERY different than a cigarette tax. VERY different.

It would appear from your argument that your concern is with taxes that affect YOU.

Also - massage is considered a legitimate form of physical therapy by many, and is covered by many insurance policies for just that purpose (in the same way chiropractic is).

You can cite "fewer lung cancer deaths" as much as you like. How many cases of asthma, emphysema, increased allergies, etc. are experienced by smokers and those around them (especially those around them).

If you CHOOSE to engage in behavior that puts those around you at a significantly higher risk for health problems, you should pay for it. If you don't like it, QUIT SMOKING AND QUIT ENDANGERING THOSE AROUND YOU.

[Hannah Bell]

6. i've added to the post, you can read the numbers.

now you explain to me why massages & country club memberships SHOULDN'T be included in a general sales tax.

[ET Awful]

16. Do you actually read before you post?

Go back, read my previous post again. See where I specifically say I think they should be taxed? I thought so.

Also - just as a little hint, since you apparently don't think beyond your own sphere of health. You can't base any numbers you spew on just the health of the smoker. EVERYONE that you smoke around is also affected. That's a fact.

[Hannah Bell]

11. first hand golf is enough.

Sick of golf?
By Christopher J. Borgert, Raymond H. Snyder and George H. Snyder

Golfers today have grown accustomed to playing on quality turf and are willing to pay higher greens fees to play on “tour-quality” greens. But are higher greens fees the only price golfers pay for their manicured courses? The press has recently made alarming claims that chemicals used in turf maintenance cause golfers a variety of health problems, including reduced sex drive, reduced fertility, cancer and even fatal allergic reactions.

http://grounds-mag.com/golf_courses/grounds_maintenance_sick_golf/

you think those chemicals stay in one place? nah, they go into the water table, for starters.

oh, & ps: it's the rich who OWN & profit from the chemical factories, the tobacco corps, & the bomb factories.

oh, & the drugs, the hospitals, & the health care corps that profit from smokers' illnesses.

is there some reason they SHOULDN'T PAY?

[ET Awful]

18. Not much for reading are you?

Also - what your article says is that the golf course (or the maintenance thereof) poses the health risk, not the golfer themselves.

Once again, read my previous post, see where it says I think they SHOULD be taxed? Learn to read.

[Hannah Bell]

92. You might have missed this part: massages & country club memberships are NOT taxed.

presumably because the diversions of the rich are special.

your opinion has fuck-all to do with what actually IS, & about as much power to change it.

The poor pay more.

[MajorChode]

108. Actually he was just explaining the logic of taxing cigarettes

You are the one who wants to make this about rich/poor, the evil bourgeoisie, golf course pesticides, and at least a half of a dozen other various red herrings.

Obviously the poor do pay more as a function of income. Regardless of how much you wish it were so, nobody is arguing that point but you. Who you are arguing with is anyone's guess as usual. But that has "fuck-all" to do with the case of taxing cigarettes, which happens to be quite sound tax policy.

[William Z. Foster]

113. why are people having such difficulty understanding this?

Regressive taxation IS about the rich versus the poor, and that was the point of the OP, and that is why people are talking about that.

You are arguing the point when you call a regressive tax - any regressive tax, regardless of how noble you may think the motives behind that tax - "quite sound tax policy."

[MajorChode]

117. Here's where your argument fails

You can't compare the tax on cigarettes with taxes on most other things, regressive or otherwise. Cigarettes create a public health problem, and as such the public is left to foot the bill for the negative effects of smoking. Next, diseases caused by cigarette smoking are also regressive, meaning they disproportionately affect the poor. Finally, higher cigarette taxes have a direct effect on smoking rates. In some cases raising cigarette taxes actually decreases long term revenue because it moves more people to quit smoking a fewer to take it up in the first place. So cigarette taxes aren't all about generating revenue, as you would have one believe. If someone doesn't take up smoking in their teen years, they have only a fraction of the chance of taking up smoking, ever. Ask any smoker and they will almost certainly tell you they started smoking in their teen years. Higher cigarette taxes has a direct effect on the number of teens that take up smoking.

[William Z. Foster]

118. let's say that is true

If what you are saying is true, then smoking should be banned or the use controlled in a similar way to firearms or automobiles - for public safety. That has already happened for the most part. That still does not address the regressive taxation issue. You are saying that regressive taxation is OK if it achieves good social ends. But that is always the argument used to defend regressive taxation.

Taxation is not about generating revenue? Then it is about punishing people? Micro-managing people's behavior? Controlling them? Deciding what is best for them? I support your crusade to stop smoking. I do not support your recommended method - regressive taxation.

I really do have to object to the argument that "the public is footing the bill for people's bad choices." I argued with representative Stupak about this the other day in regards to the health care bill. He defended it and said that the purpose was to solve the problem of poor people not having insurance, and therefore being a burden on the rest of us when they got sick or went to the emergency room. It is the damned poor people who are the problem - they aren't pulling their weight and aren't making the right choices like we nice middle class people are!! In other words, rather than the social problems being immigration, or smoking, or lack of access to health care, or lack of access to the best food at affordable prices being seen as the problem, we are to see the individual people as the problem - they are obese, they don't have health care, they are drinking soda pop, they are smoking, they don't have their documents in order. That leads us to pass legislation aimed at the people, always the poorer people, rather than attacking the problem.

If you want to blame, control, and punish the working people, that is fine. Many people do, and that is the main reason that Palin's phony "get the government off our backs" populism resonates with the public. Let's dispense with the "it's for their own good!" hypocrisy, though, and don't then be surprised when this all leads to a police state that may some day bite YOU in the ass, when the Republicans are back in power, and don't be surprised when the strategy of trying to be "just as tough as the Republicans!" leads to the Democratic party being out of power.

[MajorChode]

122. Let's drop the emotion based argumental BS, OK?

You will be hard pressed to find a bigger proponent of progressive taxation on DU. My posts on the subject speak for themselves. So I'm not going to get roped into some BS emotion based nonsense about how if I support cigarette taxation, I must hate poor people. Nice try, but I ain't buying.

Cigarettes are already controlled, so it's anyone's guess why you would suggest otherwise. Bans on vices have never worked and never will. The only thing that is effective in controlling them is a tax stamp. If you want to take the libertarian position that it's never appropriate to "micromanage" some behaviors, then more power to you. I don't share your sentiment. Sometimes the behavior of some affects everyone, and as such there are situations where regulation is appropriate. That's also why we have traffic laws and that's also why we have cigarette taxes.

Cheers!

[William Z. Foster]

127. what the hell?

No one said you hated poor people. I didn't know of you do or do not support progressive taxation. Glad to hear that you do.

It is not a "libertarian approach" to argue against regressive taxation, nor is trying to manage people's behavior the alternative to libertarianism. Nor is "bans on vices" the only alternative to regressive taxation.

Nor am I arguing against regulation.

Regressive taxation is not "regulation."

[MajorChode]

130. Now you're just being duplicitous

Your implications were clear. One doesn't have to explicitly say something to articulate intent and most people rarely do. You did clearly say all "regressive" taxes were bad in all instances. You did clearly say the government should not be "micromanaging" people. You did clearly say that "regressive" taxation was part of the "right wing agenda". So let's not play silly gramatical games, OK? It sure as hell wasn't my fault for inferring as much when your intent was crystal clear.

The government uses taxes and credits for all sorts of regulation. I'm not even going to entertain that silly argument.

[Hannah Bell]

146. actually, you are, cho-de.

[MajorChode]

151. Oh no!

Not the old, "I'm rubber, you're glue" line!

Anything but that!

Most people gave up on that line by the time they got out of grammar school. I have to admit, I never saw that one coming.

[Hannah Bell]

204. as you like it, cho-de, a-ho-de.

[Hannah Bell]

114. there is no logic to taxing cigarettes more than their cost, except that it's an easy target.

if it was the upper crust who were still more likely to smoke, you wouldn't see it.

just like you don't see country club memberships being taxed, despite the overuse of chemicals at their golf greens & their social uselessness.


Even before the medical school study, the New York State Attorney General’s office published a report entitled Toxic Fairways, a widely cited study of pesticide use on 52 Long Island, New York golf courses. The report, which was particularly concerned with the potential for groundwater contamination, concluded that these golf courses applied about 50,000 pounds of pesticides in one year, or four to seven times the average amount of pesticides used in agriculture, on a pound per acre basis.

Of the 30 most commonly used turf pesticides, 19 can cause can¬cer, 13 are linked to birth defects, 21 can affect reproduction and 15 are nervous system toxicants. The most popular and widely used lawn chemical, 2,4-D, which kills broad leaf weeds like dan¬delions, is an endocrine disruptor with predicted human health hazards ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive abnormali¬ties. 2,4-D has also been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Other turf chemicals, like glyphosate (Roundup), have also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans. So, exposure is occurring to golfers who spend time on pesticide-treated turf.

In 2003, EPA negotiated a cancellation of the residential uses of a highly neurotoxic insecticide, chlorpyrifos (dursban) but allowed its continued use on golf courses...

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/golf/background.htm


Abstract

To investigate the effects of golf course construction and operation on the water chemistry of Shield streams, we compared the water chemistry in streams draining golf courses under construction (2) and in operation (5) to streams in forested reference locations and to upstream sites where available.

Streams were more alkaline and higher in base cation and nitrate concentrations downstream of operational golf courses.

Levels of these parameters and total phosphorus increased over time in several streams during golf course construction through to operation.

There was evidence of inputs of mercury to streams on two of the operational courses.

Golf course construction and operation had a significant impact on alkalinity, nitrogen and base cation concentrations of streams.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB5-4D75M1X-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1318148327&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5b69fefc6cfec1f85d66f67458978045

[MajorChode]

119. More red herrings, less substance

I've already destroyed your regressive tax argument in post #117, so you can go there for more info.

Next as far as your latest red herring goes, I've forgotten more about pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers than you will probably learn in your entire life. So if you want to argue those points, pack a lunch, because unlike you, I don't need to go to google to find all my information. The eco-hysteria movement has been trying unsuccessfully for the last 40 years or so to prove the weak allegations you are trying to make. So far they have failed, just like you have failed. "been linked" means exactly shit to anyone who understands the simple principle that correlation does not equal causation. DDT was "linked" to eggshell thinning in endangered bird species also. Come to find out eggshell thinning was going on BEFORE the widespread use of DDT and is still progressing today 40 years AFTER DDT use was banned in the US. In the meantime, 20 million African kids died as a direct result of the ban and even Greenpeace and the WWF admitted it was a monumental fuck up to ban DDT. I also have other cases of eco-hysteria fuck ups based on similar junk science if you'd like to hear those. But if you actually have any real genuine causatation evidence, then feel free to offer it(I'll give you a big hint, you don't and won't). Otherwise you are simply trying to piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. Those tactics might work on someone who doesn't know shit from beans about the subject, but nobody here is buying.

Cheers!

[William Z. Foster]

123. not true

Post #117 does not destroy the regressive tax argument. You say there that it is regressive, but that it is justified for various social policy reasons.

The subject - which you say people you are arguing with "don't know shit from beans about" - is regressive taxation. You either do not understand that concept, or else are agreeing with us that this is a regressive tax as you did in post #117. If you agree that this is a regressive tax, yet support nit, then the honest thing to do would be to defend regressive taxation (if you support it) instead of arguing about smoking.

I agree with you - smoking is bad. Give that a rest. There are many social causes that we can agree upon, and I am not sure where you would rank smoking on that list. It is certainly not at the top of my list. It may be for you.

At issue here is how to effect social policy. I say that regressive taxation is always a bad method, and further say that he social causes we are promoting are more and more becoming oriented around those which can be used to justify targeting, blaming and punishing the weakest and poorest members of society. This is true in the health care debates, the immigration debates, the food policy debates, and the tobacco debates. That constitutes a pattern, and the pattern is reactionary and promotes the right wing agenda. It is the same as the "personal responsibility" and "bootstrap" mentality from the Reagan era.

How about paying people not to smoke, adjusted to their income? If it such a terrible special problem, and the tax is not for generating revenue anyway...

Would you allow people to eat what they choose to eat, even though that may affect their health? or would you like to see some controls applied there as well?

[MajorChode]

129. You should try harder not to substitute your opinions for fact

Post #117 does not destroy the regressive tax argument. You say there that it is regressive, but that it is justified for various social policy reasons.

I wouldn't even say cigarette taxes are truly regressive. They are more in line with luxury taxes because they are purely optional. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't smoke. That's the whole idea of the tax in the first place.

The subject - which you say people you are arguing with "don't know shit from beans about" - is regressive taxation. You either do not understand that concept, or else are agreeing with us that this is a regressive tax as you did in post #117. If you agree that this is a regressive tax, yet support nit, then the honest thing to do would be to defend regressive taxation (if you support it) instead of arguing about smoking.

What I claimed people didn't know "shit from beans" about had nothing to do with regressive taxation. Either you failed to comprehend what I wrote, or you are being duplicitous here.

I agree with you - smoking is bad. Give that a rest. There are many social causes that we can agree upon, and I am not sure where you would rank smoking on that list. It is certainly not at the top of my list. It may be for you.

Smoking is bad. That's the whole point you seem to be convieniently trying to dismiss. What you also miss is that not only is it bad for the smoker, it's bad for those around the smoker which again points to the public health concerns. I'm not going to give a "rest" to a perfectly valid point of argument for the tax simply because you lack the intellectual argument to counter it. It doesn't matter how many other "social causes" there are. They are separate arguments that have nothing to do with cigarette taxes and are nothing more than red herring BS. I'm not weak minded enough to get roped into red herring BS and I'm going to identify it as such every time.

At issue here is how to effect social policy. I say that regressive taxation is always a bad method, and further say that he social causes we are promoting are more and more becoming oriented around those which can be used to justify targeting, blaming and punishing the weakest and poorest members of society. This is true in the health care debates, the immigration debates, the food policy debates, and the tobacco debates. That constitutes a pattern, and the pattern is reactionary and promotes the right wing agenda. It is the same as the "personal responsibility" and "bootstrap" mentality from the Reagan era.

More red herring and emotional based BS failures. None of those arguments you offered have anything to do with any sort of substantive debate on the cigarette tax. Cigarette taxes also quite clearly cross ideological boundries, so don't even try to suggest that someone who advocates them is pushing the "right wing agenda". That's simply BS fully intended to evoke an emotional response and has no business in any sort of intelligent discussion on the subject. Nice try, but you're going to have to do one helluva lot better than that if you want to debate subjects like this with someone who is simply going to point out your fallacies.

How about paying people not to smoke, adjusted to their income? If it such a terrible special problem, and the tax is not for generating revenue anyway...

This is too much of an absurd idea to even entertain, although it is good for a chuckle. I suspect you thought this one up on your own. Should we also pay people who don't do drugs, obey traffic laws, pick up their dogs' shit, and refrain from farting in elevators? Sometimes we do pay people for certain behaviors. The earned income tax credit is an excellent example. However, those types of credits only work in narrowly defined circumstances. You can't pay the majority for NOT engaging in an undesirable practice. It would be idiotic to try.

Would you allow people to eat what they choose to eat, even though that may affect their health? or would you like to see some controls applied there as well?

Another red herring. Since this is your favorite tactic, I am going to address this last one and from here on out I'm just going to say, "red herring", fair enough? The food/obesity debate has absolutely nothing to do with cigarette taxes. Even if you could somehow worm in the public health concern, the absolute best you could ever do would still be an apples to oranges comparison. Food is mandatory. Cigarettes are not. Stuffing your face with twinkies does not cause the guy next to you cancer. Even if you could possibly argue it is an apples to apples comparison (which you can't) there still would be the pesky little 'two wrongs don't make a right' adage that most people learned before grammar school. I'm not going to entertain red herrings anymore. You would do better to stay on subject.

[Hannah Bell]

138. "regressive" = fall more heavily on those with less income. it has nothing to do with

whether a product is "optional" or not.

talk about substituting opinions for argument.

[MajorChode]

157. More strawman, less substance

Whenever you can't begin to counter someone's argument, just make shit up, eh? Par for the course with you. I never said cig taxes weren't regressive. I said they weren't truly regressive in the sense that those who don't smoke pay nothing.

Do you actually have anything that approaches a substantive argument, or are you just running off at the mouth again as usual?

Gas guzzling taxes are highly regressive also. Are you going to say those taxes are a bad idea too? Taxation is not always about revenue generation. Pretending otherwise is exactly why you end up looking like a fool here.

[William Z. Foster]

165. amazing

You went to a lot of work here. You are more motivated to criticize smoking than I am to criticize regressive taxes. That is the problem right there, and proves my point.

You say that I am throwing red herrings around. Let's inspect some of the fish you dragged in with your net.

I didn't defend smoking, nor deny that it is "bad." Nor did I "conveniently try to dismiss" that, as you claim. I said "give it a rest" because it is not something we disagree about, and is also not the topic of the thread.

I didn't say that smoking, nor taxes on tobacco, were partisan. I said that regressive taxes were.

I didn't say that people should be able to impose their smoking on others.

I didn't say that the food/obesity debate had anything to do with the debate about tobacco taxes, nor that the two were the same. I asked under what other circumstances you would be willing to impose a regressive tax - on bad eating habit for example? Food may be mandatory, but bad eating habits are not so comparing the two is not "apples and oranges."

I did not make a "two wrongs make a right" argument.

You ridicule the "pay people to quit bad things" suggestion out of hand. Yet national public policy does that for wealthy people all the time - tax breaks or other incentives for "doing the right thing," for example, a popular idea among Democrats.

[MajorChode]

169. See post #130 for your reply

nt

[Hannah Bell]

135. you haven't destroyed anything in post 117, cho-de.

and if you want to argue pesticides, herbicides & fertilizers have no health effects, but cigarettes do -- you go right ahead.

[MajorChode]

158. It's not my red herring, dear. That would be yours

Cheers!

[Hannah Bell]

211. i'm not your dear, dear.

[MajorChode]

212. Awww, don't go away mad....

dear.

Have a nice day.

[Hannah Bell]

217. so long as *you* go away, cho-de-a-ho-de.

[MajorChode]

222. Don't worry, dear. I'll always be there to expose your hypocricy

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) Massachusetts: It's the tobacco industry that has targeted the needy and the poor and the working families of this country! It's the tobacco industry that's to blame. It isn't these families. How elite and arrogant it is for those voices on the other side of the aisle to cry these crocodile tears for working families and their children; they're going to get cancer, and they don't want to pay those taxes! Those working families care about their children! They care about them no less than those that come from a socioeconomic background! How arrogant can you be! How insulting can you be to make that argument on the floor of the United States Senate!

--Sen. Edward Kennedy, May 20, 1998 on the floor of upper house of congress.

[Hannah Bell]

231. you seem to imagine i believe ted kennedy was a champion of working class interests.

too bad for your "devastating" argument that i don't. quite the opposite, in fact.



you might start by learning how to spell hypocrisy.

[uppityperson]

233. when we all know he was simply a drunk murdering tool, right?

Oh hannah, thank you for enlightening our lives!

[Hannah Bell]

235. sorry, i can't hear you because you're covered in straw.

[uppityperson]

238. Ah. You are the expert.

[Hannah Bell]

245. "you're soaking in it"

[MajorChode]

251. Actually I could give two shits for what you believe

My argument doesn't require you to agree. It speaks for itself. Your half-fast assertion that Kennedy wasn't a champion of the working class speaks volumes about just how ridiculous you really are. Better than I could myself.

Your lame ass grammar flame is just icing on the cake!

Cheers!

[Hannah Bell]

263. your argument rests on the assumption that ted kennedy was the voice of working class interests.

he wasn't.

but thanks for the further proof that all you got is ad hom.

[MajorChode]

265. Sez you, so it must be TWUE!

Got it.

[Hannah Bell]

266. i notice you haven't tried to defend the proposition that ted kennedy represents working class

interests.

[MajorChode]

267. If you claimed the moon was made out of blue cheese I wouldn't challenge that either

The entertainment value speaks for itself, dear.

Cheers!

[MajorChode]

106. Actually it doesn't even say that

To sum it up, when used according to the label directions, pesticides approved for use on golf course turf are believed to not pose a real health risk to either the workers who apply the chemicals or to others who may come into contact with the chemicals after application, including golfers.

The article goes on to allege that there isn't enough data (there never is, right?), so feel free to go ahead and make outlandish claims that playing golf causes everything from cancer to dandruff because nobody can prove you wrong.

But welcome to Hannah's hyperbole. If you dare question any of her backwards logic, she will simply bombard you with red herrings and more backwards logic.

[Hannah Bell]

147. what would it mean for a golfer to pose a health risk?

[bluestateguy]

5. I know how the poor (and anyone else too) can avoid those cigarette taxes

Quit smoking!

[Hannah Bell]

7. we'd lose 6% of our medicaid funding if everyone quit smoking. it covers about half of all births

in the state, and 1 out of 3 children, 1 out of 6 citizens, & is 23% of the state budget.

i.e. smokers pay so the rich don't have to.

[LeftyMom]

29. And how much would medicaid spending go down?

Considering how much cancer, asthma, premature births and heart disease cost to treat, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that smoking contributes to more than 6% of medicaid expenses.

[Hannah Bell]

46. you don't *know* how much they cost to treat, nor do you *know* how

much they're linked to smoking.

you do know, however, that washington state medicaid pays the cost out of half the births in the state, & 33% of children living in the state.

and that medicaid is a program for the *poor*.

everyone dies of something, & nearly everyone is ill or injured before they die. consequently, medical costs don't decline much even when people quit smoking.

it's just yuppie stupidity & self-interest to pretend they do.

meanwhile, poverty, the number 1 cause of ill health, continues to increase as taxation is lifted from the rich & passed on to the poor.

[William Z. Foster]

101. other way around

It is the other way around. People living longer "cost" more. (I object to the right wing idea that human needs "cost" something. Not attending to humans needs is what costs the most.)

You cannot say that smoking is killing people off prematurely, and then also say that smokers are "costing us" too much.

Also, location is a stronger indicator of disease than personal habits are, which strongly suggests an environmental connection to disease that is much stronger than any connection to personal habits.

What if stress is the biggest killer of all, and what if the prime cause of stress is control freak busybody authoritarian bullying? OMG, then what?

We should tax authoritarian domineering and bullying. (Another way to say we should tax the wealthy, since those are the traits that are rewarded and that lead to wealth.)

[Knight Hawk]

109. So

Then tax corn syrup loaded sodas.I heard someone on the news today say if we all reduced our weight to what it was in 1991 we would save a trillion dollars.I do not believe everything I see or hear .I do believe we are killing ourselves and costing ourselves a fortune because we cannot control what we eat ,drink and smoke.This is not rocket science .It is just plain science.

[Hannah Bell]

148. "we are killing ourselves". that must be why we live longer than ever

before in us history.

a greater proportion of the population middle-aged = a heavier population. so what?

[Knight Hawk]

162. Really?

Considering the technology we have in this country we do not rank nearly as high in life span as we could,and should,against other countries.A report,see yahoo, came out today showing our mortality is slipping against other countries .But the real test is what we are achieving against what we COULD be achieving.There are always anecdotal stories in medicine about the man who smoked a lot and ate red meat 3 times a day for 80 years and is now 100 years old(probably sitting in a wheelchair and staring at a curtain all day ,every day)but the overwhelming amount of scientific amount of evidence says if you want to live to a very old age AND be active and healthy in your old age there are certain things you need to do .Do not smoke,keep your red meat consumption down ,weight down etc.etc.I have personally done a number of things for over 35 years that has definitely benefited me in the health dept. without question.All my vital signs are excellent.I did NOT inherit good genes.

[The Straight Story]

8. So you are in favor of controlling the choices and lives of others through taxes. Tax abortion while

we are it. Because according to your logic if someone does not want to pay the tax then just don't get pregnant.

[w4rma]

9. Smoking will get the smoker one way or another. Taxes or cancer.

I'd rather it be taxes.

[Hannah Bell]

10. death will get everyone, & ill health will get 99%. and only a fraction of smokers

get cancer.

even for the cancer most closely linked with smoking, lung cancer, about 15% never smoked, and most smokers don't get lung cancer.

lifetime risk of getting lung cancer for male smokers is about 18%.

and most get it late in life, e.g. my father-in=law died of it, but-- he was healthy until he was in his eighties; diagnosed because of a new chest pain and died about 3 months later, at 85.

lucky he was living in japan.

my life-time non-smoking relation currently dying of colon cancer. doubt he's costing less than my father-in-law did, but he'd dying about 15 years younger.

[ima_sinnic]

12. smoking doesn't cause only cancer--try heart disease, emphysema, high blood pressure,

chronic bronchitis, stroke, hip fractures, asthma, fertility problems, cataracts --> blindness, premature aging/wrinkles, yellow teeth/bad breath, and general bad stench of smoke.

taxes too high on cigarettes? quit buying cigarettes! problem solved!

[Hannah Bell]

13. it contributes to those illnesses for some smokers, but not all smokers get them,

and not all who get them smoke.

if washington smokers quit, who's going to pay the 6% they kick in to fund half the births in the state?

most smokers are healthy until they get sick -- JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

BTW, most people with high blood pressure aren't smokers. they're just old. every one of my non-smoking cousins has high blood pressure. i, on the other hand, don't.

all my non-smoking uncles and aunts died of congestive heart failure, as did the uncle who smoked. some died younger than the smoking uncle, some died older. but they all had it, and they all died, with about the same amount of cost & pain.

funny.

[ima_sinnic]

14. whatever helps you rationalize your smoking

btw, 90% of lung cancer cases occur among smokers.

[William Z. Foster]

88. taxation

The topic is taxation, not personal habits.

[Hannah Bell]

94. depends on who you cite: cdc says otherwise:

Smoking is considered the cause of lung cancer in 90% on men, and 80% of women diagnosed with the disease. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than men who do not smoke, and female smokers are 13 times more likely to develop the disease. Even though smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer, the majority of people currently diagnosed with lung cancer do not smoke; 50% of these cancers occur in former smokers, and 15% in those who have never smoked at all.

The average age at which lung cancer is diagnosed is 71, with less than 3% of lung cancers diagnosed under the age of 45.

Sources:

American Cancer Society. Detailed Guide: Lung Cancer – Non-Small Cell. What Are the Key Statistics About Lung Cancer? Updated 10/24/08. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1x_What_Are_the_Key_Statistics_About_Lung_Cancer_15.asp

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Lung Cancer. Statistics. Updated 01/07/09. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Program of Cancer Registries. United States Cancer Statistics. 1995-2005 Cancer Incidence and Mortality Data. Accessed 04/19/09. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking and Tobacco Use. 2004 Surgeon Generals Report – The Health Consequences of Smoking. Smoking Among Adults in the United States: Cancer. Highlights. Accessed 03/01/10.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/highlights/conclusions/index.htm

Jemal, A. et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2008. 100(23):1672-94.

National Cancer Institute. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. SEER Stat Fact Sheets. Cancer: Lung and Bronchus. Accessed 04/19/09. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html

Tong, L. et al. Lung carcinoma in former smokers. Cancer. 1996. 78(5):1004010.

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/a/lungcancerstats.htm

[old mark]

15. ...not all smokers get these diseases, only those who live long enough...

My mom and MIL both died young of smoking related diseases (Heart disease and lung cancer). Both were good, smart, talented and educated people who didn't think smoking would hurt THEM...and both smoked till they died.

m

[Hannah Bell]

95. nope, even those who live to be 100 don't always get them.

and "if you live long enough" you will get "something" whether you smoke or not.

[ET Awful]

19. I see, so your position is that because of your personal anecdotal experience,

the entirety of medical study and scientific evidence proving that cigarette smoke is harmful is entirely unfounded. I see.

Do you also believe that global climate change doesn't exist and that asbestos isn't dangerous?

Tell you what, when smokers are willing to confine their smoke to a single location where no non-smoker is ever exposed to it (including their children who have higher incidences of asthma and other respiratory ailments), then we'll talk about not taxing it (of course they must also make sure that their exhalations are filters for pollutants before the non-contaminated portions thereof can be released back into the atmosphere).

Anyone who has ever worked on a computer or cleaned a car belonging to a smoker can tell you exactly how much crap they spew out. Open up a computer belonging to a smoker and without fail it will have a coating of sticky yellow glue-like residue coating the inside (yeah, the people around you breathe in the same shit). In summer, look at the inside of a smokers car and you can see rancid yellow crap coating the windshield and every other surface (once again, the people around you are breathing in the same shit).

Basically, your position boils down to thinking that taxes shouldn't apply to YOU (oddly the same argument that many right-wingers use).

[Hannah Bell]

21. washington's first ban on smoking in public: 1985, 25 years ago.

my argument boils down to: the poor pay more, the rich walk, & the yuppie libs cheer & denigrate. all about scapegoating & moral panic.

like your car doesn't spew more "toxic crap"

[ET Awful]

23. My car? Highly doubtful.

If you don't like taxes on cigarettes, quit smoking. It's not that hard a concept to wrap your brain around (then again, if you believe that the only people effected by smoking are the smoker which apparently you do based on your thread trying to calculate the tax from smokers related to the percentage of the population, etc., then the concept might escape you).

The poor don't pay more. SMOKERS pay more. That's the way it works. Personally, I'd love to see universal healthcare implemented and smack a $10 a pack tax on cigarettes. It'd make great sense.

Let's actually make things that hurt people less desirable, it makes more sense than making it easier for those who don't give a rats ass about those around them to poison everybody they exhale around.

[Hannah Bell]

28. nah, *your* car runs on air.

DID YOU KNOW? Driving an automobile is one of the most polluting things an individual can do. In Washington, gas-driven motor vehicles generated approximately 1.5 million tons of pollution in 2005. This exhaust contains many toxins. Typical automobile exhaust contains more than 20 separate chemicals that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/toxics/air.htm


Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Suspended particles, PM-10 particles less than 10 microns in size.
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons


how dishonest you folks are. like your car doesn't spew out the same stuff, only in *way* greater quantities.

hint: tobacco hasn't been indicted as a cause of climate change.

but it's so much more pleasant to demonize smokers than your own filthy habits.

[ET Awful]

42. So tell me, how many times a day does my car run in an enclosed

environment spewing toxic gasses into the lungs of everyone in the room?

Hint: Cars aren't run in enclosed environments. Additionally, for many people a car is a necessity, they need it to earn a living. Cigarettes are NEVER a necessity.

You go through such great lengths to defend something that kills the people around you merely for your own pleasure.

Driving to work isn't a habit, it's a necessity.

Your ability to create valid analogies is abysmal.

[Hannah Bell]

48. smoking in public places was banned in our state 25 years ago.

meanwhile, cars & the industries that support car culture (like oil, i.e. the recent spill) continue to spew toxins into the biosphere.

cancer incidence has not declined despite smoking being cut about 2/3 since the 60s.

heart disease incidence was declining even before the moral crusaders started their work, mostly due to reduced incidence of *poverty* = better nutrition/less infectious illness.

driving to work is only a "necessity" in the corporate-designed culture we reside in. as one who's done it, it *is* possible to live otherwise.

[ET Awful]

52. What part of cigarette smoke being the leading cause of preventable death int his country

do you not get?

Seriously.

So tell me, when you live 20 miles from your job and there is no public transportation between home and work, how exactly do you get there (especially in winter in New England)? Please explain that to me.

Your complete lack of concern for the rest of the populace is duly noted.

Once again, being able to get to work is a necessity. Being able to give yourself cancer while also poisoning those around you simply so you can smell bad and feed your addiction is not a necessity.

You can continue poisoning yourself and those around you, but you'll have to pay for it.

BTW, everyone that drives a car in most states pays a tax for it. They also pay tax on gasoline. You DID know that right?

So what was your argument again? Oh yeah, that because you smoke, taxes on cigarettes are bad.

[Hannah Bell]

53. what part of "statistics lie" don't you get?

e.g.:

April 27, 2009 -- Smoking remains the top cause of preventable
death in the U.S., followed closely by high blood pressure,
according to a new study that shows each accounted for about
one in five adult deaths in 2005..


smoking & "high blood pressure" = distinct
entities?

nearly half of deaths "caused" by one or the other?

bullshit.

#1 "cause" of death in the US = old age, old age,
old age, & its associated physical breakdown.  smoking may
influence what breaks down first, but EVERYTHING eventually
breaks down, & EVERYONE eventually breaks down.

AGE OF DEATH/RATE PER 100,000 
1-4         38.3  
5-14        22  
15-24       90.3  
25-44       177.8  
45-64       708  
over 65     5,071.4  



http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

smokers may die younger on average but they don't die MORE.

even moralizing, tofu-eating, pilates-doing yuppies don't live
forever, though they like to pretend they do.

[ET Awful]

55. LMAO . . . so is your argument that cigarette smoke is NOT hazardous to smokers and to those around

them?

WOW, you must know something that every health care professional and scientist on the planet missed.

I notice you have no substantiation of any kind. Yet, somehow, there are thousands of scientific studies and reports that show that cigarette smoke is harmful.

Once again, if you want to poison yourself and those around you, you have to pay for it. If you don't like it, quit poisoning people.

The FACT is that your cigarette smoke is hazardous to your health (which is your own, do what you want with it) and to those around you (which is NOT your own and you need to quit pretending you can continue poisoning those around you with impunity).

Unless you smoke in a self enclosed bubble that doesn't expose anyone but you to your toxins, quit bitching about paying a tax on it.

[Hannah Bell]

61. anytime someone says "so your argument is..." they're preparing to misrepresent what you said.

a rule you just confirmed.

i don't bitch about paying a tax on it. i bitch about paying taxes that = the actual price of the good, or more, while the rich skate.

i also bitch about the phoney moral panic mounted against working class behaviors, while the yuppies and the rich skate -- though their consumption & business practices = the main culprits for almost all social ills.

[ET Awful]

72. Your whole argument is nonsense and you know it.

You can pretend that you "don't bitch about paying a tax on it" but you and I both know that's exactly what you're doing.

I guarantee that if you weren't a smoker, you wouldn't give a damn about the tax.

Actually, the main culprit for almost all social ills is selfishness. Whether that selfishness takes the form of greed in thinking you need to be super rich and exploit those less wealth, or the form of "I shouldn't have to pay a tax on a poisonous product that poses a health risk to the people around me".

It all equates to the same thing. You're no different than the rich you are deriding. You are selfish and think that your selfishness is somehow different from someone elses.

[Hannah Bell]

80. yours is nonsense, but you don't know it. too bad.

[William Z. Foster]

87. questions

Is this tax, or is it not, regressive?

Do you, or do you not support regressive taxation?

[ET Awful]

136. A tax on a luxury item is NOT regressive. Period.

If it was a tax on an item required to live that poor people use at a larger proportion (say beans and rice as an example), then you might have a point.

NOBODY needs to smoke, it is a luxury. Taxing a luxury is not regressive in any way, shape or form.

[Hannah Bell]

154. any tax that falls heavier on the poor than the rich = a regressive tax. period.

[ET Awful]

156. Not if the person CHOOSES to pay that tax on a NONESSENTIAL item.

Sorry, I'm not buying into your bullshit argument.

[William Z. Foster]

175. personal choice

By your logic, anything other than the bare minimum to keep a person alive could be seen as "choice" and "nonessential" therefore fair game for punishment.

Public policy is not about personal choice. Punishment is a poor tool for effecting social change. Both of those ideas are the central core ideas of the political right wing, and should be approached by Democrats with caution.

I don't understand why people can't just say this - "smoking is bad and people should quit, but piling up more and more tax burden on the poorest people is not a good idea, and after all with all of the problems we face smoking has to be way, way down the list. Certainly no cause for hysteria. So long as people are not smoking where I am forced to be around it, it isn't hurting me. Caving in to crazed 'stone the heretics' thinking is also a bad idea, because people inclined to dominate and control others will not stop at smoking but will find more and more pretexts to control others. That is a far bigger threat to us than smokers are."

I think people have finally got a hold of something that they can use to judge, bash, persecute and punish people with impunity, and are riding that horse for all it is worth. In a social climate where so many people are casting about to find scapegoats - poor people, immigrants - and anger and hostility are reaching fever pitch, anything that gives people an opportunity to vent their spleen and persecute others is disturbing.

So many liberals over the last 40 years have embraced this "be the change you want to see" idea, the politics of personal choice and personal beliefs - the idea being that social change will be caused by the choices we make in our personal lives, in fact we even have people arguing vehemently that the ONLY way social change can happen is by personal choices. Clearly, that approach has failed mightily. Rather than rejecting that approach, people now are looking around to see who has failed to "make the right choices" and failed to create a nice little gentrified white picket fence life for themselves, failed to get with the program, and blaming them for the failures of liberalism.

Smokers, obese people, people failing to pull their own weight by buying health insurance, people failing to have their paperwork in order when they come here to work, people eating the wrong foods, driving the wrong vehicles, voting for the wrong party, making the wrong choices in their personal lives - all of these people are convenient scapegoats to blame for the abysmal failure of the modern liberalism of relatively upscale and privileged people.

[Hannah Bell]

206. there's no "argument". it's a simple statement of fact. children's toys = non-essential.

milk = non-essential. sandals = non=essential.

if they are nevertheless consumed more by the lower classes than the upper, a tax on them = a regressive tax.

[MajorChode]

269. How many threads have you started defending FICA?

It sure as hell meets your flimsy definition of a regressive tax. In fact, it's THE most regressive tax we have, and you're all for it staying that way and have said so on many occasions.

So don't hand us this horseshit about how you are against all regressive taxation. Your posting history betrays you.

Cheers!

[William Z. Foster]

63. I will say that myself

Relatively speaking, tobacco smoke is not harmful. One house fire for example produces more pollution than hundreds of people smoking for weeks. Not to mention industrial pollution, automobile exhaust, wild fires, coal fired power plants and on and on.

I think people obsess over tobacco because they are afraid to face the real problems, because it gives them a chance to feel morally superior and look down on people, and because it gives them "free shots" to express their hatred and anger - like being angry with your boss and coming home and kicking the dog.

Yeah, while the wealthy few are destroying the entire planet, let's beat up on working class smokers. cannot Democrats see that this anti-smoking hysteria is every bit as crazy as all of the things the right wingers get worked up about?

An argument can be made that stress is a bigger health risk than smoking, and that bullying busybody authoritarian people are the main source of stress in people's lives.

[ET Awful]

64. None of the other things you mentioned take place in an enclosed enviornment

Smoking, in most cases is an enclosed environment which results in concentration of the toxins.

Sorry, but taxing you for poisoning other people isn't hysteria, it's logic.

[William Z. Foster]

75. not in 30 years

It has been about 30 years since anyone has smoked near me at work, let alone in a closed environment. No smoker has ever refused to honor a request to put it out in a car, either, and even if one or two had over the years that would hardly justify the hysterical attitudes people have about this. Some restaurants and bars can get smokey, although that has become less and less of a problem, so stay out of them I guess is the solution to that.

And yes, in fact you are subjected to many toxins in enclosed environments. Every school, day care, restaurant, store, public office and work space is sprayed for pests, for example, and that is mostly unregulated and overdone. Suburbs are notoriously toxic from the materials people apply to lawns and gardens. Out-gassing from plastics in cars and from furniture and building materials is a problem. Household chemicals and paints are a huge problem. And we have not even begun to talk about all of the trashy consumer junk, disproportionately consumed by the better off people, and the massive4 environmental damage done by manufacturing and disposing of that garbage.

You are being poisoned, but not by smokers. The political right wing in both parties would have you blame smokers, obese people, WalMart shoppers, and whatever else the current craze is to use as an excuse for attacking working class people and blaming them for the nightmare in which we are all living. If we were not attacking each other, we might actually go after the real problems. And don't tell me that we can chew gum and walk at the same time, please. because blaming individuals is entirely contradictory to and inconsistent with any political program that is even vaguely to the left of the extreme right wing and the agenda of their wealthy clients and sponsors.

Things that poor people do are always to be seen as immoral, weak, dangerous and harmful and possibly illegal. Things that wealthy people do are to be seen as trendy, stylish, successful and good. That has been true throughout American history, from burn the witch to throw the immigrants out to the war on drugs to the current insanity about tobacco.

In any case, at issue here is regressive taxation, not personal habits. Why are you supporting the right wing program of imposing regressive taxes? I think that is a much bigger threat to our health than smoking ever was or could be. Stop spreading you toxic regressive taxation ideas in my space - have some consideration why don't you? Your ideas are a serious threat to the health and well-being of the public and you have no right to call for harming people in that way.

[ET Awful]

82. I see, so you have no actual studies proving that smoking is not hazardous.

Hmmm.

So please, find us an actual scientific study that says tobacco is not dangerous.

[William Z. Foster]

84. did I say that?

I don't think so.

It is a matter of relative risk. I am saying that the reaction is way out of proportion to the risk.

But the topic is regressive taxation, not smoking.

[ET Awful]

137. Since it's not a regressive tax, you have no real leg to stand on.

Luxury taxes are not regressive.

Find me a tax on a staple item that people need to survive(as I already referenced above), then talk to me.

[William Z. Foster]

255. it is a classic example

Regressive taxation is defined and explained in several places on the thread. This is in fact a regressive tax, and one of the worst kinds of regressive tax. Merely saying "no it's not!" is no logical or persuasive rebuttal.

If you want to argue that regressive taxes are OK under certain circumstances, where public health and safety demand it, that is fine. That is a legitimate argument that has merit and that I respect. I am sympathetic with that view, but I am questioning whether the potential for social good does in fact outweigh the potential for social harm in this case. If you want to argue that regressive taxes are good, that is also fine - do so honestly and openly. I disagree with that point of view, but it is also a legitimate position and I would welcome a serious debate on that topic, and no serious debate on that topic has happened on this thread, although it is the topic of the thread.

But saying that this is not a regressive tax is simply false and unsupportable.

[Hannah Bell]

97. Incidence of asthma & other respiratory problems in children has risen even as incidence of smoking

declined by 2/3 & smoking came to be banned in most public locations.

gee, i wonder why. cigarettes must be more powerful than ever.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/6/1699

Ambient (outdoor) air pollution is now recognized as an important problem, both nationally and worldwide. Our scientific understanding of the spectrum of health effects of air pollution has increased, and numerous studies are finding important health effects from air pollution at levels once considered safe.

Children and infants are among the most susceptible to many of the air pollutants. In addition to associations between air pollution and respiratory symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and asthma hospitalizations, recent studies have found links between air pollution and preterm birth, infant mortality, deficits in lung growth, and possibly, development of asthma.

This policy statement summarizes the recent literature linking ambient air pollution to adverse health outcomes in children and includes a perspective on the current regulatory process. The statement provides advice to pediatricians on how to integrate issues regarding air quality and health into patient education and children's environmental health advocacy and concludes with recommendations to the government on promotion of effective air-pollution policies to ensure protection of children's health.

[ET Awful]

139. I know this might be a tough concept for you to grasp, but ... .

The fact that OTHER pollutants have increased does NOT mean that smoking isn't hazardous. I know that might come as shock to you.

So tell me, would you take your children into a 10 x 10 room, close the doors and light up? Please explain how you justify your answer.

[Hannah Bell]

168. of course, i didn't say "smoking isn't hazardous," but straw is so much easier to argue against.

[Hannah Bell]

96. not in washington. smoking illegal in all workplaces, public & commercial facilities, government

properties, etc.

there's literally nowhere "enclosed" you can smoke but your own home. presumably if it annoys you you don't have to come to my home, not that i'd invite you anyway.

otoh, driving is legal & encouraged everywhere, & nearly every adult does it, including in "enclosed" spaces such as the earth's lower atmosphere, tunnels, under bridges, in parking garages, etc.

so why don't you quit beating your dead horse.

[ET Awful]

142. If you did invite me, I'd "politely" decline.

Your arguments are getting even more ridiculous, you KNOW that don't you?

The only dead horse is your insinuation that because people drive cars, you shouldn't be taxed on cigarettes.

[Hannah Bell]

150. you wouldn't know an insinuation if it tapped you on the shoulder, apparently.

but you do like straw. yum, yum.

[Knight Hawk]

163. Good

I like the way you think.

[mainer]

160. ... peripheral vascular disease, impotence, amputations...

You can usually tell when a 40-year-old's been a smoker. They look 10 years older than everyone else their age.

But I've seen an analysis that shows if everyone stopped smoking, the cost of Social Security would skyrocket. Because people would be living too long.

[Xenotime]

17. Its a dumb arguement. People shouldn't amoke anyway.

[Fla_Democrat]

20. I'm not sure I follow..

do only poor people smoke, or is the tax only charged to poor people on the same purchases? Like, do rich people have a special card that is swiped at the register that eliminates the tax because of their income level?

Call me crazy, (many people have, I'm use to it), but it almost seems to me that it's a tax on smoking. :think:

And I don't really see that as a bad thing. Seems the CDC don't really have a problem with it, either....

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/

Smoking and Death in the United States

The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly 1 of every 5 deaths, each year in the United States.1,2 More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.1,3

Until politicians work up the guts to ban the product, I see any attempt at discouraging it's use to be a good thing. Let's face it, if 45,000 people dying every year from lack of health insurance is an outrage, shouldn't almost 10 times that number dying from an over the counter product be a big fucking deal? :shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

110. regressive taxation

You do not understand the concept of regressive taxation, and so are missing the point of the OP.

[Fla_Democrat]

111. Voluntary tax

Voluntary tax is the point. No one is taxed for being poor, they are taxed for buying a pack of coffin nails pulling out a cancer stick sticking it in their mouths, lighting it on fire, and sucking smoke into their lungs.

So, we jack the tax up, more poor people quit smoking, since they can't afford it. Saving their lives.

More rich people smoke, since the tax is chump change to them. They die earlier.

Less rich people, more from the estate tax... shouldn't the defenders of the poor be doing back flips? :shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

112. no one said that

No one said that people were being taxed for being poor.

One more time - regressive taxes, however laudable their purpose may be, disproportionately hurt the poorest among us. What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Fla_Democrat]

120. I see tax, i see poor

Washington state chooses to tax the poor more


I believe I said, hmm, what was it, oh yea....

Call me crazy, (many people have, I'm use to it), but it almost seems to me that it's a tax on smoking. :think:

It's difficult to understand how a tax on a voluntary activity is a targeted effort to hurt an economic class. Maybe, and this is a radical idea, the poor could defeat the evil plot by, oh, I don't know, not smoking. The rich could keep smoking.. and, hell, it's in the post right above. :smoke:

[William Z. Foster]

125. of course

Regressive taxes hit the poor people hardest.

I didn't say that people are being taxed because they are poor, did I?

[Fla_Democrat]

161. You didn't start the thread

that I had replied to. You just offered to help me get a handle on it. The OP made the claim of "Washington state chooses to tax the poor more", I questioned how it was only on them. Since we both seem to agree that it isn't a tax on the poor, as stated at the onset, what's the issue? :shrug:

I believe we can agree that this is a voluntary tax. I would hope we could agree that smoking is not a necessity, or an activity relegated to only a specific class. As was pointed out in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8251281 ... it is an activity shared by rich and poor, famous and obscure, even, young and old. One point that is clear, is that no one needs to smoke to survive on a day to day basis (the reason for exempting food from taxes).

So, again, I ponder, what's the problem?

[William Z. Foster]

176. taxing the poor more

Regressive taxes do tax the poor more. Even if it were not true that smoking incidence were connected to income levels, this is still a regressive tax, and it comes in a political climate of widespread blaming of the weakest and poorest members of society for social problems - immigration, the health care debate for example - and after years of the tax burden being shifted down while people in the top brackets get a free ride.

I did not say that it was not a tax on the poor, I said that it is not a tax on people for being poor. It is however, a regressive tax, and regressive taxes disproportionately impact the poorer people. A tax that impacts the poor harder is a tax on the poor, whether or not it was explicitly intended to be that. You apparently argue that since it was not intended to hurt the poor, it is no problem that it does.

Even if wealthy people smoked more than poor people do, this would still be a regressive tax and I would still oppose it. What the tax happens to be on is entirely irrelevant. So smoking is bad and we want people to quit. Fine. Why does that have to disproportionately harm the poor smokers (or joggers, or drivers, or whatever) harder? We are not comparing smoking to not smoking here, nor smokers versus non-smokers. We are talking about a tax that impacts poor smokers harder than it does wealthy smokers.

However, from the response on this thread I think it is quite clear that the supporters of this tax are in fact interested in punishing the poor, or at the very least have no empathy whatsoever, as they spread and promote some right wing ideas - personal responsibility, personal choice, punishment as a proper tool for reforming people's behavior and causing social change.

Wealthy people are destroying the planet, tearing everything up, poisoning all of us, and we have time and energy to beat up on smokers? Does that not seem a little crazed and out of touch with reality to you?

[Hannah Bell]

208. completely batshit crazy, it is. the hysterical way they run on, you'd think it was smokers

who were tearing up the world.

but that's how the witchhunt/scapegoat mechanism works....

[Hannah Bell]

207. "a voluntary tax". lol. a tax on *any* item can thus be styled "voluntary".

after all, we don't *have* to purchase meat (one can get protein from other sources) or orange juice, or in most cases baby formula (use your own breast) or house slippers or music cd's or whatever.

but you wouldn't style special taxes on those items as "voluntary," would you?

no, you wouldn't.

[Fla_Democrat]

240. Maybe they should

You know, a tax on a pack of hot dogs, and don't forget the stand alone casings, for people that roll their own. :rofl:

I knew smokers got a little nuts, and would go to any length to get their fix... but really, the people huddled around the stoop out back, in the pouring rain, puffing away... are starting to look like the sane ones. :eyes:

[Citizen Kang]

22. boo hoo

You are being taxed an extra dollar for choosing to ingest a foul, harmful DRUG which costs society billions of dollars to treat and kills millions of people prematurely.

Excuse me while I go weep for your plight....

[Lagomorph]

24. They lost revenue after the last tax hike....

They'll lose more revenue after this one.

When the liquor control board lost part of their budget, they raised wholesale prices 32% to recover their lost revenue.

While "sin taxes" are popular, it's a stupid way to raise money.

[Thothmes]

25. Washington also added a 50 cent a gallon to beer

and have removed the exemption of sales tax from gum and candy. The beer tax is applicable only to large manufactureres. The micro brew folks are exempt.

[Sebastian Doyle]

121. Well thank Christ for that!

I never drink the Bud/Coors/Miller swill anyway. Bring on the microbrews! :beer:

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. It doesn't affect me, but it still sucks.

This state has the most regressive tax system in the country, which in turn is the least progressive tax system in the developed world.

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/wa_whopays_factsheet.pdf

The worst place in the world to be a poor person.

[Thothmes]

27. They could have just raised the sales tax to 8.5 or 9 %

to held plug the holes in their state budget. Instead they raised taxes on cigarets, gum, candy, beer and a few other items to try and cover the buget shorfalls.

[LeftyMom]

30. Your anger is misplaced. Try getting upset at the cancer companies for poisoning the poor.

[Hannah Bell]

31. you do realize tobacco corp profits are up, right?

the moral panic folks are hand in glove with the tobacco corps.

[LeftyMom]

32. Because they're making up for lost marketshare in developing countries.

Jesus, do you even read?

[Hannah Bell]

34. no, their profits are up in the us market, "lefty".

[LeftyMom]

35. Nice scare quotes. Would you like to share with the class what it is you're implying?

Thanks.

[Hannah Bell]

36. jesus, do you even read?

i'm not implying, but *stating* -- the moral panic over tobacco has increased tobacco corps profits & provided various government entities with a nice income stream, thanks to dumb yuppies who express their status anxieties via health scapegoating.

[LeftyMom]

37. That's not what I asked. What are you implying via the scare quotes on part of my screen name?

It looks like a personal attack but I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation.

[Hannah Bell]

38. "jesus, do you even read?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8236518&mesg_id=8243100

[LeftyMom]

39. My patience is not inexhaustible,

and my capacity to tolerate nonsense even less so. You have exceeded both. I am going to make use of the little button with the x on it that makes stupidity disappear, though I will miss snickering at your bullshit.

[Hannah Bell]

40. nothing was personal in this conversation until you made it so, "leftymom".

like i care about the rest of your personal attack, or your phoney "patience".

[dionysus]

184. nicely played

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Hannah Bell]

209. if you're a yuppie

[ismnotwasm]

33. Hmm

Tobacco has an interesting history. A nutrient sucking plant that leaves soil devastation in it's wake (at least with the poor farming techniques back in the day)It takes and doesn't give back.

A potent vasoconstrictor that causes or contributes or makes worse more conditions than 'cancer' although it's implicated in several cancers.

I've always found it interesting that we have so many nicotinic receptors. Same thing with pot's cannaboid receptors, not to compare the two. I indulge in neither, but I'd rather legalize pot and let the tobacco industry rot.

But I take your meaning. If we have to have so-called 'sin' taxes, I'd rather the money go back to the poor in some productive way. Barring that, lets not pretend it's for the greater good, unless it really is.

[William Z. Foster]

41. well done

Thank you. the OP is clear and powerful, and your responses to others are very strong, as well.

Every key component of the right wing agenda is promoted by the anti-smoking zealotry - "personal responsibility," regressive taxes, contempt for the less fortunate, punishment as the only model for dealing with social problems and issues.

Tobacco use fell out of favor a few years back with the upper class, and their small army of sycophants and wannabes and water-carriers, and so many of them are self-described liberals and progressives. Once the upper class decides that some habit is out of fashion, then it becomes an excuse to abuse and punish poor people and working people, justified by all sorts of high-faluting crap about morality, health and whatever else they can dream up.

It is amazing to watch how easily liberals and progressives can be brought to support the right wing agenda. It is happening in every area - immigration, health care, education. I talked with Representative Stupak the other day, and he said "it isn't fair that people don't have insurance, because then if they get into an accident the rest of us have to pay for their care. They need to pull their own weight and not be a burden." Then he talked about people's bad personal habits, like being overweight, and how we needed to solve that since those bad habits are the cause of the health care crisis. Now, does that have anything to do with solving the problem of people not having access to medical care? It is the opposite, it is the right wing program. Not only are we not going to give poor people access to health care, but we are going to blame and punish them and see them as a burden!

It is all out war on the working class, and so many liberals and progressives are joining in and supporting and defending that assault on the working people.

In this war to the death between the haves and the have nots, why are so many Democrats fighting on the side of the haves? if nothing else, it is politically stupid since it gives the Republicans the opportunity to run around posing as populists and friends to the little people.


On edit - Are we watching the Democratic party being transformed into the party of the haves?

[ipaint]

43. After watching it for thirty years the transformation is complete. nt

[hayu_lol]

44. Thanks Hannah...I guess that we smokers will just have to suffer...

in silence and pay to support programs that do nothing for us. How many of these argumentative individuals are just champing at the bit to get pot legalized? Smoke is smoke...if cigs are so bad, then so is pot.

When did we all gang up on this group and that group as we are doing today.

[ima_sinnic]

45. who said anything about making tobacco illegal?

when pot is legalized, it will be taxed--in fact, that is one of the main arguments in favor of legalizing it--for states to raise revenues, and for money to quit bleeding out to drug cartels and costs of incarceration for a victimless "crime."

what "programs" are smokers paying for that do nothing for them? I guess people are just tired of the extra health care costs caused by smokers as well as the litter of cigarette butts (it was found that a giant proportion of street cleaners' trash amounted to cigarette butts--not to mention, walk anywhere and try NOT to find them--it seems that smokers also have the nasty habit of throwing their butts everywhere), fires started by careless smokers (again costing towns and cities for fire service, not to mention the lives that have been lost, of smokers, their relatives or people in their houses, and firefighters), and air pollution that hurts other people.

by the way, I smoked tobacco for more than 30 years and quit about 14 years ago. It was a crappy habit that was ruining my health and making me look idiotic. It took several tries over a few years before I could succeed, so don't think I'm completely unsympathetic. It's just one of those things you have to go through if you want to quit--if you don't want to quit, though, don't whine about others who are turned off by it and couldn't care less about your "pain and suffering."

[William Z. Foster]

60. the trash heap that America has become

The entire country is desecrated and polluted, the infrastructure is crumbling, we have concentrations of pharmaceutical products being found in public water supplies, and you obsess over cigarette butts? Good grief. Some perspective and proportion is in order here.

Arguing this line of "those poor people are costing us money with their bad habits" lends powerful support to the right wing agenda.

[ima_sinnic]

76. I'm not "obsessed," but butts are a major environmental problem:

cigarette butts are small, granted, but they are ubiquitous and do not break down for 12 or even more years because of the type of acetate in the filters. As they break down, they release a plastic powder that goes into the soil, then into the primary decomposers such as worms and insects, hence into the food web and water supply--eventually reaching humans, who are well laden with the stuff by now I am sure, everywhere in the world.

They are the most littered item, there are billions of them. Educate yourself: http://www.cigarettelitter.org/

So, yeah, blah blah blah about the "right wing agenda." I heartily agree that things people do that have an impact on others and the planet should be taxed. The cost has gotten too high for people to live without regard for the impact of their actions and behavior. I've always lived by the philosophy, "what if everybody did that?" What if everybody in the world who had a car drove a Hummer? Mindlessly sucking a limited resource until it's drained--how smart is that? Petro products should be taxed heavily for the same reason. With cigarettes, there is a cost in human and environmental health--shouldn't those causing it pay that cost?

[William Z. Foster]

79. LOL

Do you have any idea how much manufactured consumer trash is pouring into the environment? I am opposed to all of it. The solution is to regulate industry, not obsess over people's personal habits. Good grief are we going to have the Prius versus Hummer debate as well now?

So are you denying that the "personal responsibility" theme promotes a right wing political agenda?

Personal choice, consumerism, personal values and personal beliefs and the like are fine, but they are no substitute for political solutions to public social issues and problems. Leave that moralizing stuff about improving human beings to religion. It has no place in politics.

Just imagine what could happen if even a fraction of the effort and thought being put into this "they are making bad choices" nonsense were put into organizing and resisting, and fighting back against those who are waging all-out war against the working people. But that sort of solidarity and collective action is precluded so long as the left is controlled by people who see social problems as being caused personal failings (always the personal failings of others) and the solution to social problems being to improve human beings (and always it is the poor people that people want to reform) and punish those who won't get with the program - and that is the core of the right wing agenda right there.

The attitude you are expressing here is relatively new in the political left, starting about 1970, as people abandoned organizing for "activism" - self-expression, self-actualization, personal choices and alternative lifestyles, "speaking truth to power" rather than battling against power, "being the change" rather than changing things so that working people have some chance at being anything other than poor, and "making the right choices" rather than fighting for working people to have ANY choices. Now you, and far too many Democrats, want to go further and punish poor people for "making the wrong choices." Since that happened the political right wing has gained more and more power and the working class has slid farther and farther down. It has led to many Democrats, progressives and liberals and even socialists to be taking the side if the haves rather than the have nots. This has weakened and crippled us in the battle with the right wing.

[ima_sinnic]

89. I take it you're a smoker (nt)

[William Z. Foster]

91. you would think that, yes

Since you think that this thread is about smoking, no doubt in your imagination there can only be two positions - pro-smoking (which could only be because a person was a smoker) and anti-smoking.

I think that accusing people of being smokers and arguing against this regressive tax for that reason means that you have lost the argument. No wealthy people would have that complaint, would they, since it would not be a burden on them. Ergo, it is not about smoking, it is about poor people smoking. Do this many Democrats truly not understand the concept of regressive taxation, or has in fact, as I suspect, their control freak obsessive fixation on the issue of smoking caused them to suspend all critical thinking on the topic of the thread?

The thread is about regressive taxation. I take it that you think people should be punished for "making the wrong choices," and that this is the appropriate and effective way to tackle social problems.

[ima_sinnic]

133. I already said what I thought: you make the mess & create the health problems, you pay

the only people with "something to lose" are the ones paying the extra tax.
if you're poor and feel "burdened," :nopity:
smoking is a choice that has consequences for other people, for the environment, and for society.

[ima_sinnic]

144. oh, and pointed out above (which you conveniently ignore), it is not "regressive," because

it is a tax on a luxury item. Luxuries are things that people can live without.

and continually beating the strawman drum of "right-wing agenda" and "class war" doesn't really do it either, nor does your feigned outrage at the idea of "personal responsibility," as though just b/c the right wing uses "personal responsibility" to denigrate the idea of welfare and social services, ALL personal responsibility should be scorned. So nobody should take any responsibility whatsoever for their own actions and behavior?

[Hannah Bell]

149. "regressive" has nothing to do with whether the item(s) taxed are something people can

"live without".

it has to do with whether the tax falls heavier on the poor than the rich.


"So nobody should take any responsibility whatsoever for their own actions and behavior?"

lol. let's start with wall street & the murderer george w. bush.

[ima_sinnic]

159. what do wall st. & gwb have to do with whether people should take responsibility for their habits?

nice try at deflection/distraction.

the tax is on SMOKERS. If "the poor" choose to smoke, then they need to pay the tax. You are simply exploiting "the poor" to rationalize why poor widdle you shouldn't have to pay a tax on something that creates public expense.

don't want to pay the tax? don't buy cigarettes! problem solved!

[William Z. Foster]

178. wrong

The tax falls disproportionately on poor smokers as opposed to wealthy smokers. That is a regressive tax, and no matter how noble the cause, should be opposed by all Democrats upon that basis.

Regressive taxes, and blaming social problems on individuals for "making the wrong choices" are foundation stones of the right wing program and agenda. We should not be assisting them in promoting those ideas, no matter how much we hate smokers or smoking, or people targeted by whatever the next scare campaign to come down the pike may be. Obese people and soda drinkers seem to be in the cross hairs now, along with immigrants, of course.

The tax falls disproportionately on poor smokers as compared to wealthy smokers. Obviously. That is the problem - regressive taxation, not your or my personal feelings about smoking or smokers, not whether we are or are not smokers, not whether smoking is good or bad.

If I had a choice between eliminating all smokers, or eliminating all talk about "taking personal responsibility for their habits," I would prefer we keep the smoking and eliminate the "personal responsibility" social and political poison. That political and social poison - spiritual poison - kills far more people with much more certainty than smoking ever could, and certainly makes everyone's life much more miserable and unworkable. I think that the personal responsibility ideas are a far graver threat to public health and well-being than smokers could ever be.

[inna]

246. Exactly. Thank you!

:applause:

[uppityperson]

247. Allowing people to operate without consequences is also rw agenda.

If you do something, there are consequences. Some, like you, seem to be saying that you want to "eliminate the personal responsibility". That "personal responsibility...kills far more people with much more certainty than smoking ever could". Being personally responsible for how you take care of yourself is a "far graver threat to public health and well-being than smokers could ever be. " Are you SERIOUS? Seriously?

"The tax falls disproportionately on poor smokers as compared to wealthy smokers. Obviously. That is the problem - regressive taxation,".

Are you saying that the poorer you are, the less sales tax on things you should pay as it seems ALL taxes, from food to gas to cigs to services, fall disproportionately on poor people than wealthier?

[William Z. Foster]

248. good point

I don't want to eliminate personal responsibility. Escape from personal responsibility for the wealthiest people - in the form of a government granted set of special privileges and immunities: corporate charters - results in activities that dominate every aspect of our lives and control our future.

I am saying that the "personal responsibility" argument is used against poor individuals most commonly, as an excuse for punishing and persecuting people, and virtually never used against the wealthier people.

Lack of taking personal responsibility is enshrined into law when it comes to wealthy people, their fortunes are built on government granted immunity from personal responsibility for anything they do.

I didn't say that personal responsibility is a threat, did I? You left the key part of that sentence out. I didn't say that "taking care of yourself" is a threat to the public, did I? You butchered that sentence as well, so that it says something quite different then what I said.

I explained regressive taxation several times, and yes I would say that the poorer you are, the less sales tax on things you should pay. Sales tax is another example of regressive taxation. I am opposed to regressive taxation. What is your stand on that issue?

When wealthy people do things - no matter what - there are no consequences of any import. No matter what working people do, it seems there are always consequences imposed upon us, and "personal responsibility" is often the excuse for imposing penalties and restrictions on us.

I hope I cleared up any confusion you have about this. I think it mostly depends upon who people identify with - the wealthy few, or the suffering many. Many people are not even aware that they do in fact identify with the wealthy few, since we have been trained our entire lives to do that.

[uppityperson]

250. In general, the more $ you have, the more you can get away with, very true

Using personal responsibility as an excuse "oh you're just poor because you didn't try", etc, is a pile of hooey.

[William Z. Foster]

257. thanks uppityperson

That is my main point. Thank you for hearing it and considering it.

I could be wrong, and perhaps this issue is not yet another case of "using personal responsibility as an excuse 'oh you're just poor because you didn't try,' etc," as you say, but that is my position on it.

In addition, regressive taxation is in my view a burning issue of vital importance, yet it is rarely discussed. This thread is an opportunity to talk about that.

[Hannah Bell]

98. +100

[inna]

51. +1

Great post.

[leftstreet]

54. +1000000000000000

OMG Welcome to DU!

:applause:

[inna]

99. LOL, I felt exactly the same way....

I was just being more reserved in my comment...

:thumbsup:

:toast:

[leftstreet]

128. ...

Yep, what a breath of fresh air!

:toast:

[Codeine]

47. That's not taxing the poor, that's taxing the stupid.

If they don't want to pay that tax they can stop smoking. :shrug:

[Ikonoklast]

49. I say tax tobacco at 1000%.

Want to kill yourself, cheaply?

Grow your own.


And the OP sobbing about "The Poor" is disingenuous bull.

[bighart]

50. What statistics is our assertaion of it being bull based on?

All research I have ever seen shows smoking is statistically higher in lower income brackets.

[Lucian]

68. Exactly.

It's as easy as that.

[William Z. Foster]

86. you completely miss the point

This is about non-smokers advocating a regressive tax, not to mention the right wing "personal responsibility" propaganda.

Are you saying here that you would support punishing those with lower intelligence with regressive taxes? That is even more disturbing. How can that be reconciled with anything that could even remotely be called liberal or progressive? Or are you saying that people are poor because they are stupid?

Let's tax the smart people. They seem to be the source of most of the problems to me, and many of them are so insufferably arrogant and annoying, too.

[Hannah Bell]

103. +100 again.

[upi402]

56. Regressive, as per typical

Even Bill Gates Sr says WA needs an indexed income tax. But he's a very cool guy who I admire greatly.

[cascadiance]

196. Yeah, it's easier for neighboring Oregon to tax the wealthy more with "opposite" taxes...

where we have no sales tax and income tax and they have the opposite.

Prop 66 and 67 will help us keep our state budget in balance more than Washington and not stick it to the poor as much.

[The Straight Story]

57. Progressives seem to love taxing 'sins' - guess we have puritans on our side as well (nt)

[ET Awful]

58. Find a sin that doesn't pose a threat to others.

If a corporation spews toxic smoke into the air, you'd expect them to be fined for it.

If an individual spews toxic smoke into an enclosed environment, you think they should be exempt.

I get it now.

[The Straight Story]

59. So if I smoke at home, I am hurting you. Wow, did not know that. How about cars?

Lets raise all sorts of taxes, cause them poor people need to pay more.

[ET Awful]

66. Little hint for you -

If you smoke at home, you expose your children to smoke. You are poisoning your children.

If you want to use the moronic "poor people smoke more" argument, then you also have to use the "poor people usually have more children" argument. That means more children being poisoned by their parents smoke.

If you want to poison people you will pay for it.

[The Straight Story]

74. Does the same go for cars, electric usage, etc? (nt)

[ET Awful]

81. You ARE aware that you pay taxes every year on cars and on every gallon of gas right?

You DID know that didn't you?

[William Z. Foster]

90. also regressive

Those taxes are also regressive. Sure you want to go there?

[ET Awful]

143. Really, how can a tax based on a percentage of the value of an item

be regressive?

If you drive a $100,000 automobile, you are taxed a percentage of the value of the automobile.

If you drive a $5,000 automobile that you bought used at the lot around the corner, you are taxed on the value of that automobile.

That's not regressive, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[William Z. Foster]

177. as I suspected

You apparently do not understand what regressive taxation means, as you describe a regressive tax and then ask how it could be regressive, yet you are arguing away against those of us opposing regressive taxation. You should at least understand it before you attack those who are criticizing it.

In some states food is not subject to sales tax. That is because it is a regressive tax. It has nothing to with whether a person buys caviar or noodles. 10% on a pound of caviar for a wealthy person has much less impact than 10% on a box of noodles does on a poor person.

Likewise, a 10% tax on a $5,000 vehicle has a much greater impact on a poor person than a 10% tax on a $100,000 vehicle has on a wealthy person.

The right wingers always want to say that if everyone pays the same percentage, then it is "fair." Why do they do that? why do they want to promotes those ideas? Because regressive taxation is a benefit for the wealthy. You are taking the same position.

I don't understand how we are supposed to beat the right wingers when we don't even understand their positions, program and agenda, and worse yet help them promote their programs and agenda. The argument against this regressive tax should not even be controversial among Democrats. It amazes me that it is.

[Overseas]

197. Thank you for the clear explanation of regressive taxation.

There's so much casual talk about "fair" flat taxes sometimes, without consideration about the difference in economic hardship between 10% of my income and 10% of O'Reilly's. People just look at how many more dollars he would pay. Then toss in a cheery comment about how this would be done with no more loopholes. Woo hoo.

[Hannah Bell]

210. unfortunately, the poster he responded to has no interest in understanding what regressive

taxation is, only in defending the rationality of his/her hostility toward smokers.

[Overseas]

254. Yet I was still glad to hear the case made so clearly.

Because there is so much of that right wing insidious argument being introduced everywhere.

And instances like smoking are tough. Real visible consequences of the nasty stinky habit.

And then there's all that junk food. Also appealing to the poor-- calories per $ -- those high cal junk foods come out above the less subsidized fruit and veg.

But yeah, I do see more poor folks smoking. If you don't want to go the obese route, then you buy those cigruts. And you also see the addiction jugglers who keep all compulsions in rotation. Semi-obese smokers.

And for me the elephant in the living room with regard to the obesity epidemic in the USA is the thousands of eat now and feel good now ads on our teevees. I've seen sincere obesity panel discussions interrupted by ads for tasty junk foods. Yet none on the panel discuss that insidious bombardment of You Deserve It stuff.

There's a Screw You I Don't Smoke component too-- like, leave me alone about the enticingly chemicalized fast foods-- I don't smoke. Yet each path to excess is fraught with danger.

And meanwhile, we don't have national health insurance. Perhaps if the govt paid for healthcare, we'd have more sensible subsidies. And would fill school lunches with veggie delights, to get our people attuned to the fun of the quick stir fry.

But corporations are in control here. They dictate what we will crave. They boost the nicotine content of the "natural" cigarettes, I'm told. They test and re-test the addictive flavor profiles of fast foods. We are well and truly hooked.

And we've got a billion plus dollar diabetes coping industry ready to serve us.

And Lipitor. Revising cholesterol limits downward when their product brought about the decrease below 200-- gotta go for under 150 now.

Seems like the supplement industry is the next roll down. Used to be elite stuff. Extra vitamins. But now that desperate John Q. Public is trying them, we need to lump them in with steroids so we can get the stuff "properly regulated"-- a.k.a. remove our cheaper vitamin C so we'll have to sign up for that Lipitor stuff. It particularly galls me to see congressional reps trying to regulate the supplement industry before they give us Medicare for All. I feel like "aw, come on guys. Leave us our little vitamin pills at least." Even if we don't know how much is the placebo effect-- leave us our placebos until you get us better national health care already.

But oh, caramba, I have strayed.

Regressive taxation. Trapping the poor into comforting addictions with advertising bombardment and then taxing them for falling for that billion dollar enticement.

[PBS Poll-435]

198. My state does not have an Ad valorem tax on autos.

And you being unable to accept that poorer people spend a greater percentage of their non-committed (disposable) income on tobacco products is astonishing.

[Hannah Bell]

100. do the taxes = more than the base price of the car or the gallon of gas?

combined state & federal taxes on gas are nowhere near that.

Together Federal and State excise taxes on fuel account for an average cost of approximately 62 cents per gallon. Rates include Federal excise taxes 18.4 cpg for gasoline and 24.4 cpg for diesel. cpg = cents per gallon

http://www.washingtongasprices.com/Tax_Info.aspx


And we rarely see "drivers" as a class being demonized for their "bad choices" which "kill children" & "stink" & indicates consumers are "stupid" & "impinges on *my* freedom to breathe clean air" & all the rest of the scapegoating bullshit.

"driving" murders about 44K per year outright, with more permanently disabled or temporarily hospitalized.


Traffic Accidents Cause Most Fatal Child Injuries

The World Health Organization statistics cite traffic accidents as the cause of most fatal child injuries, according to National Public Radio. According to NPR, the top five causes of unintentional injury are:


Road crashes: Kill 260,000 children a year and injure about 10 million. They are the leading cause of death among youths ages 10 to 19, and a leading cause of child disability.

http://www.tomkileylaw.com/library/traffic-accidents-cause-most-fatal-child-injuries.cfm


where's the scorn for parents who put their children in harm's way by *driving*?

[taterguy]

62. Cats are a threat to songbirds

How much should they be taxed?

And where can people smoke anymore that's a threat to others?

It's been outlawed in most public enclosed spaces in the country, even North Carolina.

And yes, what about cars? Are they sinful?

[Hannah Bell]

105. which is why massey coal has thus far not had to pay the millions in fines levied

against it over multiple years, even as its violations of basic practices murder people outright.

which is why after the exxon valdez spill (1989), exxon just kept challenging the damages award for over 20 years to get it whittled away by judges & inflation:


In the case of Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages.

The punitive damages amount was equal to a single year's profit by Exxon at that time.

Exxon appealed the ruling, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge, Russel Holland, to reduce the punitive damages.

On December 6, 2002, the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion...

Exxon appealed again...

After more appeals...on January 27, 2006, the damages award was cut to $2.5 billion on December 22, 2006...

Exxon appealed again. On May 23, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied ExxonMobil's request for a third hearing and let stand its ruling that Exxon owes $2.5 billion in punitive damages.

Exxon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.<16>

On February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 90 minutes. Justice Samuel Alito, who at the time, owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case.<17> In a decision issued June 25, 2008, Justice David Souter issued the judgment of the court, vacating the $2.5 billion award and remanding the case back to a lower court, finding that the damages were excessive with respect to maritime common law...



Yep, the "liberal" Souter made that call.


You were saying?

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

[Lucian]

65. How does targeting smokers equate to targeting the poor?

And I see no problems with taxing the fuck out of cigarettes. If you don't want to pay the taxes on them, then quit smoking.

[ET Awful]

67. It doesn't. Only a smoker will take such an asinine position and attempt to

convince anyone that it's a legitimate argument.

[Lucian]

69. It makes no sense to equate the two.

Sometimes I wonder about certain posters.

[ET Awful]

73. I also find it funny that they'll spew all kinds of nonsense that defies

all medical and scientific consensus regarding the effects of smoke and second hand smoke and provide no legitimate scientific basis for their position.

Yet, somehow I get the feeling, that these same people would ridicule climate change deniers for doing exactly the same thing.

[Hannah Bell]

107. I find it funny that I can't distinguish the arguments of lifestyle liberals from

those of libertarians anymore.

and that all these arguments originate from the think tanks of the far-right super-rich.

like lemmings...to the slaughter...

[William Z. Foster]

126. there is no difference

That is the problem. In both cases, they are all for "freedom" when it involves things they like to do, and all for Draconian punishments for others.

In defense of the people arguing here, I really think they do not see what you are saying, cannot understand it. They have so internalized the right wing "personal responsibility" idea that they aren't even aware of it.

We are talking to the "winners" here. The people who emulate the behavior and thinking of those whom they see as the successful people, so of course they carry water for the ruling class without even realizing that they are.

At one time, cocaine was popular with the upper class, and so of course also popular with the same gang of "practical" and "realistic" striving "middle class" people. Once working class people and poor people discovered cocaine, it fell out of fashion with the strivers and trend setters, and then overnight it became "dangerous!" and "unhealthy!" and "a public menace!" and laws were passed, police were dispatched, poor people were harassed and imprisoned.

You can tell by the language people are using here that this is just more of the same - an attack on poor people and working people by the upscale yuppies, wannabes and sycophants, with the poor people to be seen as "stupid" and "dirty" and "dangerous" and "unhealthy." Smoking is just the latest pretext for all of that.

For some people, being liberal is mostly a matter of establishing themselves as personally superior to the unwashed masses, and little else.

[Hannah Bell]

152. same with cigarettes; started as a habit of the rich & moved down the social scale.

same with weight as well; when the poor were thin & the rich were fat, no stigma.

the rich lived longer then, too.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Z. Foster]

183. hardly

Opposition to regressive taxes belongs in freeperville? Bu what stretch of the imagination? Opposition to liberals taking right wing positions belongs in freepervile? Again, by what stretch of the imagination.

Please show me where any right winger has ever taken a position against regressive taxation, or against liberals taking right wing "personal responsibility" positions. They would all agree with your points - "if you can't afford it too bad" and "those people need to take personal responsibility and have only themselves to blame."

It is the "let them eat cake" political doctrine. THAT doctrine is freepervile, not opposition to it.

[MajorChode]

186. Not hardly. Your words, not mine

For some people, being liberal is mostly a matter of establishing themselves as personally superior to the unwashed masses, and little else.

Cheers!

[William Z. Foster]

190. correct

What is wrong with that statement? It may be wrong, you may disagree with it, but that does not make it "freeperville."

For some people, being liberal is mostly a matter of establishing themselves as personally superior to the unwashed masses, and little else.

Should that not be of interest to any and all who wish to see the Democratic party succeed, and the right wing fail? Can there be any doubt that leadership in the party and the liberal and progressive organizations and labor unions at all levels has become alienated and disaffected from the general public, from the rank and file, has become more gentrified, has become more and more representative of the interests of the haves rather than the have nots? That may well be the most significant political phenomenon of our time. Why should one small faction of relatively upscale and conservative people control the direction of the party and the entire left? Why should we not speak against that?

[MajorChode]

213. I reject your liberal elite meme

Trying to paint someone as a liberal elite because they support cig taxes is nothing short of comical, but that's what I truly love about those who insist on perpetuating losing arguments. All you have to do is give them an open forum and pull their chain now and again and they will demonstrate why their assertions are laughable. Assuming you actually believe in liberal or progressive ideology to begin with (which I'm not convinced), it's very revealing how you'll throw those alleged principles to the wind once you are personally affected.

If supporting cig taxes makes me a liberal elite, I'll gladly fall into the good company of liberal elites like Patty Murray, Dianne Feinstein, Jack Reed, and Teddy Kennedy, just to name a few.

Please do keep up the good work, though. The entertainment value alone is well worth it.

Cheers!

[William Z. Foster]

215. whatever

I didn't say anything about any "liberal elite." I said that for some - for some - being a liberal is mostly a matter of being able to feel superior to others. I also had that all political groups and both parties have to one extent or another been captured by those who would promote the interests of the better-off few. Would you deny that?

Define "liberal or progressive ideology" for me. I defend the working people from the bullies, the bosses, the managers, the investors, the landlords, the owners, and the wealthy few - at all times and on all things. If that is somehow incompatible with your notions of "liberal or progressive ideology" than we are not on the same side. So be it. No cause for insinuations that I am somehow a traitor to the team. I would say that those defending regressive taxes are the ones working against the team, unless of course the team is no longer the home for the defenders of the working class. Again, if that is the case, or soon to become the case, so be it. I stand where I have always stood for the last 4 decades. The only thing that has changed is that we now have people who call themselves Democrats, but who defend things such as regressive taxation and then treat those of us adhering to the traditional positions of the Democratic party as though we were the traitors to the cause.

[MajorChode]

220. Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining

Your arguments are EXACTLY the same ones used by Republicans and those who favored corporate interests over public interests. If you want to pretend the reverse is true, more power to you. I'll simply point out the factual historical record and show how comically full of shit you are. Or better yet, I'll let Ted Kennedy do it for me...

...
Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, a leading anti-smoking lawmaker, asked hundreds of youths at the rally: "Do you want to be targeted by the tobacco industry for addiction?"
"No!" the young people roared.
The cry inside the Senate was nearly as loud at times. Conservative senators led by Republican John Ashcroft of Missouri spent four hours trying to stem the bill's momentum.
"This is a massive tax increase, this is a massive expansion of government, this is an affront to the effort of families to provide for themselves," Ashcroft said.
But a group of mainly Democratic senators tried in vain to set an even higher tax than McCain's levy of $1.10 a pack, already 4 1/2 times the current federal excise tax of 24 cents.
Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts noted that those opposing the higher tax increase -- on the grounds that relatively poor people pay most cigarette taxes -- were the same senators who resisted his successful effort last year to increase the minimum wage.
"How elitist and arrogant it is for those voices on the other side to cry these crocodile tears about working families!" Kennedy thundered.
...

http://www.forces.org/articles/files/rally2.htm

Game, set, match.

Have a nice day.

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MajorChode]

224. Oh yes, we all know how Ted Kennedy fought so hard for "corporate interests"

You funny, dear.

Have a nice day.

[William Z. Foster]

237. no doubt

No doubt that Republicans defended the interests of the tobacco industry. So what? No one here is defending the tobacco industry. Of course the Republicans are hypocrites on this. When Democrats are in office, Republicans suddenly become anti-war. Does that mean that none of us can be opposed to war anymore, lest we be on the same side as the Republicans? Does an anti-war position become illegitimate at that point? If not, then why does a position opposed to regressive taxation become illegitimate?

Again, the topic is not tobacco, nor smoking, nor is any one defending smoking. No doubt Teddy was against tobacco addiction. So am I. So what? Teddy may well have been so opposed to tobacco addiction, that he thought the cause justified a regressive tax. That is fine. I would disagree with him about that.

[MajorChode]

252. I realize this is hard for you, but do try to stay in focus here

This is NOT a discussion about regressive taxation in general as much as you and Hanna wish it were. It's about the justification of cig taxes which has been part of the Democratic party's platform for at least a decade. That justification has been well received by the Democratic party's constituency. I don't really care what you agree with or disagree with. I just take exception to your implication that those who support cig taxes do so out of a sense of "superiority" to the "unwashed masses".

[William Z. Foster]

253. understood

I understand that you do not think that this discussion is about regressive taxation, or perhaps you do not want it to be. The OP said it was, right from the title. The OP defended and explained that position. I have explained what regressive taxation is, how this is a regressive tax, and why we should all as Democrats oppose regressive taxation.

What if this thread had been about an exorbitant increase in hunting license fees, such that working people were burdened and wealthy people were not? (Those sort of increases for fees and licenses are in fact happening.) My arguments, and the OP's arguments would be identical to what they are here. What would your position be? Or would that all depend upon whether you were for or against hunting? Would you turn that thread into an argument pro and con about hunting? Are regressive taxes OK with you when they are imposed on things or people you do not like, but not OK when imposed on things or people you do like? Or are regressive taxes, in your view, always a good thing? Or would you claim that the issue of regressive taxation is not important and we should never be debating it?

Let's say that you are anti-hunting just as you are anti-smoking. What would you say then to a regressive and burdensome tax on things you do like, but that others do not? Or are we to imagine that there is nothing that you do that causes any impact on others, any social consequences, and danger or risk? Perhaps you are a perfect person, but I will tell you this - it is a hell of a lot easier being a perfect person, or treated by the law as though you were, when you have a lot of money. Should we ignore that pervasive and significant fact?

You are free to start a thread about how smoking is bad. There are plenty of those, and no one here is arguing that smoking is good, However, the topic of this thread is regressive taxation. The fact that Democrats have supported or do support regressive taxes in some cases does not change that, nor is it an argument in favor of regressive taxation to say "Democrats are opposed to smoking." So what? The people arguing here against regressive taxation are also opposed to smoking. That is not what is at issue. Perhaps the Democratic politicians would fight harder against regressive taxation and for progressive taxation were it not for the fact that people within the party, such as yourself, were fighting in support of regressive taxation. In any case, how could we ever get the Democratic party to wholeheartedly and unequivocally oppose regressive taxation if the arguments against it are not even to be heard or considered, as you would have it?

It is still not clear if you are promoting regressive taxation - if you are that is fine, and you are free to make your case - or are in fact merely obsessed with smoking. If it is the second, let's consider other ways to solve that problem. I have suggested other approaches, and you have ridiculed and dismissed those. That leads me to believe that you do not really care about smoking or any public hazards related to that, but do in fact seek to punish people, are promoting the punishment model for solving social problems, and do in fact support regressive taxation,. Otherwise, would you not be willing to consider other approaches that were more aligned with the traditional stance of the party on the side of the working class and the less fortunate?

[MajorChode]

256. If you did understand, you wouldn't sound like a broken record

Hanna = OP. Her half-fast point was that cig taxes = regressive taxation, regressive taxation = evil, therefore cig taxes = evil.

This is nothing more than associative logic which is no logic at all. Another example would be, God is love, love is blind, therefore God is Ray Charles.

It's simply a ridiculous attempt to reduce the argument to the lowest denomiator and ignore the bigger picture. The truly funny part is Hanna is not at all opposed to regressive taxation in all forms. She absolutely loves FICA which is one of the most regressive taxes we have.

Cheers!

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muffin1]

174. + 1,000,000

Technically, I am replying to this post, but consider this a "BRAVO" for all of your posts on this thread.

Welcome to DU.

[William Z. Foster]

259. thank you

Thank you muffin1.

The subject of regressive taxation is so important, and so very rarely discussed, and this was a good chance to talk about it. Regressive taxation is just killing the people below $35,000 or so in annual income, which is close to half of the people now, and also seriously impacts those below $70,000 annual income, which covers just about all of us. So few benefit from regressive taxation - the upper 10% - and so many suffer so terribly from it. This also has the negative political effect of turning working people against government and public programs and into the arms of the Republicans. The reason that the right wing "no more taxes" mantra works with people, is because it IS true that working people, especially the bottom 50%, are being destroyed by regressive taxes.

Then we also have the problem of so many liberals and progressives now speaking for the haves and who are so tone deaf to the cries of the working poor. That does not bode well for the future success of the Democratic party, since so many people now see the face of liberalism as bullying, callous, arrogant, self-righteous and domineering. We are putting our worst foot forward too often, as the few among us who are bullying, controlling, and domineering try to speak for all of us, and alienate the general public.

Better-off people can afford health insurance and use prescription drugs for managing stress and mood, which is what poor people use tobacco for. Smoking also alleviates hunger pains, and more and more people are struggling to get adequate food. The argument that people use - that smoking hurts others - is also true of pharmaceutical use, as higher and higher concentrations of those drugs are now showing up in public water supplies. The incidence of mood-altering prescription drug use among suburban professional and white collar people is much higher than the incidence of smoking among poor people and blue collar people, and an argument can be made that use of those drugs is a greater social hazard than smoking is. But since people with college degrees and good incomes are prescribing and taking those drugs, they are therefore "good," while smoking is "bad."

That means that we have a double standard, with one set of rules applied on those on one side of the divide and another set of rules to the other, and the divide is between the haves and the have nots. If poor people are doing something, it is not fashionable and is then seen as dirty, stupid, harmful, and dangerous. If better off people are doing something, it is by definition in fashion and so the risks are understated and the benefits exaggerated.

[ET Awful]

140. So you think that cigrette taxes are an idea created by far-right super-rich

think tanks?

Really?

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

You actually think that a tax on a public health hazard that is constantly fought by the far-right super-rich tobacco companies is part of a right-wing conspiracy to create regressive taxes??????

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So tell me, if you're so opposed to far-right super-rich people, why do you want to support them by buying the products they produce and market (while lying to the public for years about their health affects and having been proven that their entire reason for existence is to get people like you addicted to their product so they can keep selling it)?

Why are you so willing to shovel your money into the pockets of companies who knowingly produced a product that would KILL YOU while hiding that fact for decades and suing their own ex-employees to keep the information silent?

If your concern was with something benefiting the "far-right super-rich), you would be finding ways to NOT give them money (like not buying cigarettes for instance). Your concern is with paying a tax you don't want to pay, nothing more.

[Hannah Bell]

153. when someone says "so you think..." what follows is generally a misrepresentation of

"what you think".

[ET Awful]

155. No when people say "so you think" what follows is generally

a summary of what you've said with the facade removed.

Quit pretending you give a rats ass about anything but the fact that YOU have to pay a tax on something you CHOOSE to do.

[William Z. Foster]

93. opposition to regressive taxation is asinine?

And only smokers are opposed to regressive taxation?

Opposition to regressive taxation is not "a legitimate argument?"

Are those your arguments? "People who live in glass houses..." comes to mind.

[Obamanaut]

70. I think this sums it up nicely. +1 nt

[William Z. Foster]

102. all regressive taxes target the poor

That is what a regressive tax is.

Pretty elementary concept. Surprising how many people on this thread seem to be failing to understand it - Democrats, no less, when regressive taxation has been a key part of the Republican agenda for so long.

[MajorChode]

171. Fail

Luxury taxes are highly regressive and don't target the poor.

Gas guzzler taxes are highly regressive and don't target the poor.

Once again you flaunt your false dichotomy failure, which is that if one is against regressive taxes in principle they MUST be against all regressive taxation. You are no closer to convincing anyone of that failed argument than when you started, and trying to paint those who support cigarette taxes as RW is simply pathetic.

[William Z. Foster]

188. funny

Yes, and the poor pay no taxes on mansions and yachts.

I don't favor gas guzzler or luxury taxes, by the way. The carrot and stick approach to controlling public behavior in the hope of thereby effecting desirable social outcomes is inherently authoritarian and anti-Democratic.

Taxes on things that only the wealthy can afford - how is that regressive? Regressive taxation requires a tax that applies to both wealthy and poor, and that impacts the poor harder. It describes a relative relationship between the two. If there are not two, there is no relationship between them. We could say that the relationship in your examples is this: no tax on the poor, and some tax on the wealthy. That is a legitimate way to look at it, but when we do look at it that way it becomes quite clear that it is not "regressive taxation," as I explain in the next paragraph.

I suppose we could say that taxes on luxury items if regressive against the rich, but that then strips of the concept of any meaning. When the rich are taxed in ways or at rates that the poor are not, that is what we call "progressive taxation." When the poor are taxed in ways and at the rate that the wealthy people are, or more, that is what we call "regressive taxation."

I have no hope or intention of convincing you, and agree that I am not at all close to accomplishing that. "as for convincing "people" - I have absolute confidence in that, as 90% of the people I explain this to offline understand it and agree. We have the relative handful of people who refuse to understand this represented online in disproportionate numbers, which would explain the effect you are anticipating and predicting.

[MajorChode]

189. Sorry, you can't have it both ways

I point out that cig taxes aren't truly regressive because they don't impact all poor people, or even most of them. You reject that definition, yet now you don't want to include luxury taxes and gas guzzler taxes for the exact same reason. Now you simply want to invent your own definition (I'm not sure who you are calling "we". Perhaps you have a mouse in your pocket).

If there's any dispute on the definition, I'll defer to Webster:
Main Entry: re·gres·sive
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈgre-siv\
Function: adjective
Date: 1634
1 : tending to regress or produce regression
2 : being, characterized by, or developing in the course of an evolutionary process involving increasing simplification of bodily structure
3 : decreasing in rate as the base increases <a regressive tax>(emphasis added)

I don't have any hope of convincing you either, but I will call bullshit when it's warranted.

Cheers!

[William Z. Foster]

191. regressive taxation

There should be no confusion about this, and should be no controversy.

The following definitions of "regressive taxation" come mostly from business and financial agency sources, and can hardly be considered to be biased in favor of progressive taxation.

Regressive taxation - good for the wealthy, bad for the working class. The investors themselves are all quote clear about that, and even grant my position more respect than you do. Regressive taxation "free more funds for investment" - as all welfare for the wealthy does. But even the investor class is willing to admit that "a regressive tax is often considered socially and politically unacceptable." They grant legitimacy to my position, which you do not.

As Democrats, I would hope that we would all consider regressive taxation as "socially and politically unacceptable. Otherwise, why be Democrats? The investment class already has a party, the Republicans, representing them and fighting for regressive taxation. They don't need two parties fighting for their interests.

"A tax that has a rate that declines as the amount to be taxed increases. In terms of income, federal and state taxation of cigarettes is regressive because low-income smokers pay a higher rate of taxation in terms of their income than high-income smokers do. A system of regressive taxation tends to free more funds for investment because high-income individuals tend to save a greater portion of their income. However, a regressive tax is often considered socially and politically unacceptable."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/business/regressive-tax

"Taxation that takes a larger percentage of a lower-income and a smaller percentage of a higher income. For example, a tax on the basic necessities (which form a larger percentage of the expenditure of the lower income population) is a regressive tax. See also progressive tax."

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/regressive-tax.html

"A tax burden that falls more heavily on those with low income. Contrast with progressive tax and proportional tax. Sales taxes are regressive taxes if imposed on all sales, because the straight percentage imposed on all sales takes away a higher percentage of a low income household's available income.Some states attempt to lessen the regressive effect of sales taxes by exempting purchases of food and medicine."

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/regressive+taxation

"A tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people."

http://www.investorwords.com/4138/regressive_tax.html

"A tax on income in which the proportion of tax paid relative to income decreases as income increases."

http://economics.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-regressivetax.htm

[tammywammy]

124. +1

tammywammy - current smoker

[Lorien]

221. +1. Anything that encourages "the poor" or anyone else to stop giving their cash and lives

and the lives of their loved ones to those greedy GOP funding death merchants is a GOOD thing in my opinion! Those fuckers killed my grandparents (one a smoker, one a non-smoker who still died of a smoking related illness); they don't deserve a dime from ANYONE.

[zorahopkins]

71. Less Money For Lottery TIckets

Does your independent neighborhood corner store operator also sell lottery tickets?

I bet (no pun intended) that sales of lottery tickets will decline when the price of cigarettes goes up.

Sad, really.

[4 t 4]

78. their before the grace of god go I (and I am an Agnostic)

for all of you that are arguing about the actual smoke and health problems that really isn't even the point is it? It's about targeting specific groups of people that participate in certain rituals. Who doesn't have some type of addiction? How will you feel if they come for you. We need a little more empathy from everyone about many matters in this world. Walk in another man's shoes for just a second. You fuckers.

[Obamanaut]

85. their what. nt

[Hannah Bell]

104. yes, my independent corner store sells lottery tickets. your point is?

unfortunately, poor people don't have spare thousands to play the stock market, so they do the declasse, scapegoated thing & play the numbers --

no bucks with which to imitate their "betters."

you know, the ones shipping their jobs to china & crashing the whole economy by making foolish, unproductive bets.

sad, really.

[William Z. Foster]

116. another regressive tax

The lottery is another regressive tax, and your example shows why taxing the poor people can never be "sound tax policy" since there is not any more revenue there to grab. Meanwhile, the wealthy get a free ride, and people obsess over whether or not people are - OMG!!!! - smoking, and what the best way might be to force them to "make better choices" - all for their own good, of course. It is insane, truly insane.

A similar vicious and inhumane line of thinking has been surfacing in the health care discussions among Democrats as well - the idea that the health care crisis is caused by people eating fact food and being obese or something, or drinking too much soda pop. Likewise, we see the same hateful attitudes in the immigration discussions. The poorest and weakest, those with the least power, those who are the least responsible for the nightmarish social conditions we are facing, are the ones being targeted and attacked, and Democrats - Democrats!- blandly discuss the best way of "dealing" with "them." It is really disgusting to read.

Notice how little attention is placed on the trends, fashions, and habits of the more well-to-do people, and what the social and political implications of their behavior might be. But if poor people are doing something, then all Hell breaks loose and people become absolutely obsessed with attacking those people and looking for ways to bully and control and punish them.

[Greyhound]

77. Hannah, I swear they stalk you.

:rofl:
I guess it's just an indication of no life to live, sad really.
:kick: & R

[ET Awful]

83. So people who respond to a post in the most read forum on DU are "stalkers"?

What a load of horse plop.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

166. You are only allowed to respond to posters you agree with apparently.

Otherwise this is called "stalking"

[Greyhound]

167. No, sheeple that have adopted a religious-like compulsion to overdramatize,

over-react, and generally freak out over a non-issue that the rest of the world laughs at us for, stalk her (and anybody else that mentions it as well)
:rofl:

[liberal_at_heart]

115. My soda habit has helped our teachers keep their jobs

Because of levies passed by voters and the added tax on cigarettes, soda, and beer my kids' school district did not have to lay any teachers off this year. I drink alot of soda so I guess my addiction is helping my school district which I don't mind at all. My husband is trying to drink less soda for health reasons and that is fine. I don't tell him he has to drink soda just so our school district can keep teachers but I love my soda and don't plan on giving it up, so I don't mind helping out our teachers. If people are truly concerned about money or health they will give it up. My father in law gave up cigarettes both for health and financial reasons. My mother in law who is unemployed and who we are helping financially has not given it up but has reduced the number of packs of cigarettes she smokes a day.

[marlakay]

131. I live in WA and asked someone yesterday about that

it was our cashier at Safeway she was talking about cigarettes being expensive. We don't smoke so I asked her how much do you pay for a pack and she said about $6 but it was going up a dollar. I thought it was some federal tax but from reading this it looks like state. My husband asked her how far will you go before you quit? Will you pay $10? and she said if it gets over $10 she will quit.

I guess the reason I have always been for the taxes is because I hoped it would force people to quit and its so bad for you. But I agree things for the rich need to be taxed also.

[ima_sinnic]

145. lol--the price at which people will quit keeps going up--I remember when it was $2 (nt)

[Desertrose]

132. Smoking is a choice.

At some point along the way you chose to light that first cigarette. You continue that choice everytime you light up.
It is a sad fact that they are so addicting, but that first one - that was a choice.


Not sure the tax is the best way to handle raising revenue...but you can choose to quit smoking and paying that tax.


Just saying.

[Imagevision]

134. Wasn't that what Obama said he was going to do...? or was it the wealthy?

[Lagomorph]

172. The real kicker is...

...we have laws in Washington that prohibit inequitable taxes. You tax everyone, or no one. That's why "user fees" are replacing tax funding for many of our state administrative costs. You don't have to smoke, or drink, or hike, or swim, or ride on a bike path, or climb the mountains or....$$$ ka-ching $$$.

[Obamanaut]

141. If one doesn't like, or can't afford, the tax - don't buy the product. nt

[William Z. Foster]

180. that is the Republican position

If that is your position, that is fine. But is is that position that some of us are arguing against, we are not arguing about smoking pro or con. We are saying that regressive taxation - and the general "you made your bed now lie in it" and "they have no one to blame but themselves" Reagan era bootstrap mentality and thinking - is a greater threat to public welfare than smoking is.

What if we took the things you like to do - about some of which perhaps a case could be made that you are in someone else's opinion endangering your life or health, or creating an expense or hazard for the public, since after all there is no such thing as any activity that caries no risk - put an exorbitant tax on those things and then tell you "hey if you don't like it or can't afford it, don't do it!" We will tell you that those things are voluntary - that could be said about almost everything, and even things that are necessities are being priced and taxed to where they are out of reach for more and more people: heat, food, shelter - and that so therefore tough luck and too bad for you.

[MajorChode]

187. There you go again

You keep slinging horseshit about this being a "Republican position". You'd think after almost 200 posts in this thread and you and Hanna being the only ones on your looney side of this argument you'd realize it's not a "Republican position". I guess some people only see what they want to see.

Cheers!

[William Z. Foster]

192. according to the Republicans

According to the Republicans, you are agreeing with them. (shrug)

Again, in case you missed it above, here is what financial advisers and investors and investment counselors (that is whom the Republicans represent and fight for, you know) think regressive taxation is, and why they think it is a good thing. It frees up investment capital (by not taxing the wealthy) and then of course we are all to hope that wins by the investment class will somehow someday trickle down to the rest of us.

The difference between the advocacy of regressive taxation by Republicans, and your advocacy for it, is that they are being straightforward about it and not trying to present it as something other than what it is, nor trying to confuse us about what the concept is or the words mean. They are also quite clear and honest about just whom benefits from regressive taxation.

The following definitions of "regressive taxation" come mostly from business and financial agency sources, and can hardly be considered to be biased in favor of progressive taxation.

Regressive taxation - good for the wealthy, bad for the working class. The investors themselves are all quote clear about that, and even grant my position more respect than you do. Regressive taxation "free more funds for investment" - as all welfare for the wealthy does. But even the investor class is willing to admit that "a regressive tax is often considered socially and politically unacceptable." They grant legitimacy to my position, which you do not.

As Democrats, I would hope that we would all consider regressive taxation as "socially and politically unacceptable. Otherwise, why be Democrats? The investment class already has a party, the Republicans, representing them and fighting for regressive taxation. They don't need two parties fighting for their interests.

"A tax that has a rate that declines as the amount to be taxed increases. In terms of income, federal and state taxation of cigarettes is regressive because low-income smokers pay a higher rate of taxation in terms of their income than high-income smokers do. A system of regressive taxation tends to free more funds for investment because high-income individuals tend to save a greater portion of their income. However, a regressive tax is often considered socially and politically unacceptable."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/business/regressive-tax

"Taxation that takes a larger percentage of a lower-income and a smaller percentage of a higher income. For example, a tax on the basic necessities (which form a larger percentage of the expenditure of the lower income population) is a regressive tax. See also progressive tax."

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/regressive-tax.html

"A tax burden that falls more heavily on those with low income. Contrast with progressive tax and proportional tax. Sales taxes are regressive taxes if imposed on all sales, because the straight percentage imposed on all sales takes away a higher percentage of a low income household's available income.Some states attempt to lessen the regressive effect of sales taxes by exempting purchases of food and medicine."

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/regressive+taxation

"A tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people."

http://www.investorwords.com/4138/regressive_tax.html

"A tax on income in which the proportion of tax paid relative to income decreases as income increases."

http://economics.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-regressivetax.htm

[MajorChode]

195. I got bored after the first sentence

...and didn't read the rest.

Obviously you want to live in a fantasy land and pretend this is something it's not. I suspect, as is also the case with Hanna, that your motives are self serving and you could really give two shits about any of the BS you sling. If you had the stones to admit as much, I might have had at least a small amount of respect for what you say. As it is now I'm simply bored with your thinly veiled BS accusations of wingnuttery repeated ad nauseum, as if your crock loses some of it's smell the more times you repeat it.

Have a nice day.

[Obamanaut]

200. +1 nt

[ima_sinnic]

203. + 1 million for your efforts

apparently if you agree that the extra costs created by smokers should be paid by smokers, you're a republican.

[William Z. Foster]

216. no response, then?

I take it that you cannot refute the points I made.

I am not making any "thinly veiled BS accusations of wingnuttery" I am saying flat out that support for regressive taxation is support for the Republican program. You have not been able to counter that, and instead fall back on the "how dare you call me Republican??" line of defense. I didn't call you a Republican or anything else. I pointed out that your argument is in perfect alignment with the Republican party view of this.

How could my motive possibly be self-serving? What could I stand to gain personally?

I can't imagine what those colonists were all worked up about. If they didn't like the tax on tea - well, hey why didn't they just stop drinking tea? Or perhaps in our dumbed down world of sound bytes and advertising slogans and brand names and personal choice, of mindless team loyalties and simple-minded politics, we can't use that example anymore because some nutcase racists are running around calling themselves tea baggers. And the colonists complaints about the stamp tax - if they couldn't afford that, then too bad - after all, writing pamphlets and circulars and newsletters was voluntary and not essential.

[Obamanaut]

199. Actually, it is the prudent position - the position that would be

be nice for congress to take when preparing a budget. Rather than increasing taxes to support increased spending, why not reduce spending instead.

We do this at our house, and have done so for years. And it works well.

[William Z. Foster]

261. sure

If we think that the problem is that the government is spending too much.

Let's see, giveaways, tax breaks and welfare to the corporations and the wealthy, and the Pentagon budget are all off the table - we could never get bipartisan support for any of that. I know! Let's further dismantle the public infrastructure, privatize everything, and impose regressive taxes to keep government barely functioning. We don't want to offend the right wingers nor their wealthy bosses, nor lose any swing voters who (in the absence of any strong position coming from us) are swayed by the right wing media. If everything falls to rack and ruin, well by God at least we balanced that budget! Those who say we balanced it on the backs of the poor should quit their whining.

Sounds like the "prudent position" to me. Why have we been voting Democratic all these years, since the Republicans have been taking that "prudent position" all along?

[Obamanaut]

264. You are correct. It is better to keep on the way we are going. It is

working well, and has been for quite some time.

:sarcasm:

This November, I think I'll vote for all incumbents - many of whom have been lining their pockets for more than 20 years but must be doing a good job because we've kept them so long.

More :sarcasm:

[William Z. Foster]

268. hmmm

You did realize I was being sarcastic I hope.

[Lorien]

227. Bullshit. That's the repug position on NECESSITIES like HEALTH CARE

Smoking is a GOP endorsed LUXURY-and a fucking sick one at that. Repugs WANT you to smoke; Big Tobacco funds their campaigns, as does Big Pharma and the for profit health care system. If you smoke you're an ally of the GOP. Your $$ goes directly to them-and they, in turn, do what they can to keep you dependent on Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. It's a racket and any smoker is just their tool.

[uppityperson]

229. +++1 nt

[William Z. Foster]

260. by your logic, then...

The GOP relentlessly and reliably supports and defends the interests of the owners in every industry. By your logic, then, every single thing you buy or use makes you an "ally of the GOP." Most of the same corporations that fund the GOP also fund the Democratic party, by the way.

For the GOP, every single thing you have beyond what you need for bare survival is a "luxury." We don't want to contribute to spreading that notion, do we?

Speaking of Big Pharma, poor people use tobacco for stress and mood management, better-off people use pharmaceutical products. In both cases people are being gouged, of course. Actually, in all things we are all being gouged. I don't think you can argue that the poor people's habit there is the greater threat to public well being and health than the various habits of the better-of and wealthy people. Public water supplies are becoming contaminated with dangerous concentrations of pharmaceutical products, for example. I worry more about that than I do "second hand smoke." I worry about the smoke coming from coal fired power plants more than I do some poor tobacco smoker. Don't you? How about we work on eliminating the causes of the stress - insecure housing, lack of food, lack of access to health care, environmental degradation, job loss, poor wages - rather than further stressing out the people at the bottom? We can "chew gum and walk at the same time" you might say. I haven't seen that yet. We stand around chewing gum, never walking into the battle at all, and then claim that we getting somewhere by doing that. Taxing smokers is chewing gum, and calling it walking somewhere.

Once we are no longer living in this nightmarish Hell, with millions struggling desperately to survive, then maybe we can get back to beating people up and punishing them for their personal habits that we object to, and back to using the right wing programs like regressive taxation and right wing "personal responsibility" themes to promote our very limited, short-sighted and largely irrelevant agenda about what individual people should or should not be doing to cope with this Hell we are living in.

[mainer]

164. At $6 a pack, two packs a day = $4,000 a year...

If the poor are spending that much a year per person on cigarettes, then they've got bigger things to worry about than taxes.

And if it's a married couple, together they're throwing away $8,000 a year. Just think if they invested that $8,000 on something else? Say, their retirement? If they're smoking it away, why are they complaining about taxes?

[Hannah Bell]

226. possibly because the taxes are half or more of the price of the good?

which is why you can now denigrate them not only for being unhealthy & stinky, but also irresponsible with money.

win-win all around. the state gets lots of money from the powerless & undefended & the yuppies gets a bigger target for their status-anxiety hostility.

[SidDithers]

173. Perhaps "the poor" should quit smoking...nt

Sid

[William Z. Foster]

185. perhaps

The wealthy should stop doing a lot of things - much more dangerous things, much more anti-social things, much greater threats to public safety and welfare. But let's obsess over smokers. We can feel all self-righteous, we can vent our spleens, and it is so easy and risk free. Actual social change might require something of us. Much easier and more fun to kick the dog than to confront the boss.

Smoke free feudalism. I can't wait.

[MrSlayer]

179. Order them online, tax free.

From Russia. $20 for a carton of Marlboro.

http://www.cheap-cigarettes-sale.com/marlboro/

[uppityperson]

181. Fail. They chose to tax smokers more and good for them.

You aren't taxed because you are poor but because you smoke. If poorer people chose to smoke, they will pay more for that privilege, just like those yuppies you make fun of.

"Taxing the poor" would be putting a tax in place for something that "the poor" need to live, not a luxury.

[William Z. Foster]

193. not true

You are re-defining regressive taxation to support your argument.

It has nothing to do with choices, nothing to do with smoking. Traditionally, Republicans favor regressive taxation and Democrats oppose it, no matter how noble the cause may be that people are using to justify it.

Regressive taxes - no matter what they are on - benefit the investor class, the Republicans' constituency, and hurt the working class, the Democrats' constituency. At least, that has how it has been traditionally, perhaps it is changing and no longer true. Increasingly over the years, and more so in the last 2 years than ever before, core principles and ideals of the party are under vigorous and relentless assault from within, and more and more people who call themselves Democrats argue the traditional Republican side on many issues. It could be that the Democratic party is in fact becoming the conservative party. Certainly, when people calling themselves Democrats are not interested in, or are even hostile and antagonistic to basic principles that the political left and the party always stood for, something is changing.

Whomever gains control of the Democratic party will be the ones to define what it stands for and chart its course and define the terms and positions. That is the way it works. So perhaps the party is, or soon will be, taking the side of the investor class on many of these issues. But for the time being, until that transition has been completed and is acknowledged and out in the open, I think it is completely legitimate for a few of us to continue to fight for the traditional positions of the party - opposition to regressive taxes under any guise being one of those. If we have no choice but to be Democrats, as the lesser of two evils and because the only alternative - the Republicans - is unacceptable, then those of us promoting the same old principles, ideals and positions as we always have over the decades as Democrats have every right to continue to advance those positions and defend them.

At least the Republicans make an honest and straightforward argument in defense of regressive taxation. It goes like this:

"Regressive taxes, like taxes on tobacco, lessen the tax burden on the successful and wealthier people and investors, which frees up more capital for investment in new businesses and productivity. This creates more jobs, and prosperity, and that will then trickle down to all classes."

I don't agree with that. I oppose them. But at least they are making an honest argument. At least most Republicans will grant legitimacy to the opposite point of view, unlike the regressive tax promoters on this thread.

[uppityperson]

194. The tax you pay on a pack of cigs has "nothing to do with choices,nothing to do with smoking"?

Oh. Kay. Not sure where to start but wtf? Yes. Taxes on cigs have to do with smoking. And they have to do with choices. If you didn't smoke, you wouldn't be buying cigs and hence wouldn't have to be paying taxes.

Your "subtle" attempts at insults are rather humorous.

[Hannah Bell]

218. it's a regressive tax. what don't you get? just because you don't like

the "choice" (right-wing mantra) doesn't mean diddley.

[uppityperson]

225. Ah. At least you now see smoking is a choice. Haven't called me rw recently, thought you didn't love

me anymore. "choice" is a right wing mantra? Huh, how about that.

Chose to smoke, pay the tax. Don't chose, don't pay. Just because you can't understand that basic fact (though you seem to be getting there) doesn't mean your insults mean diddley.

[Hannah Bell]

230. "scare quote" yep, "choice" = right-wing mantra, glad you're catching on.

[uppityperson]

232. Maybe you shouldn't have used them then? Just a thought

if you are going to call me right wing for copy/pasting what you wrote ("choice"), maybe you should look at yourself?

:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

242. a fine point, i know, but -- i didn't call *you* right-wing.

for starters.

[dionysus]

182. comrade bell, you're such a TRIP.

webcam spying and lucky strikes for everyone!!11!!1!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[B Calm]

201. Maybe you should try smoking the e cigarette. . .

[rsmith6621]

202. Just REMEMBER YOU WERE NOT BORN WITH A CAMEL IN YOUR MOUTH

...this is plain and simple a USER TAX......You CHOOSE to SMOKE.

[William Z. Foster]

244. right

And people were not born with the mentality in their brain that leads to scapegoating and punishing people as the only method to consider for solving social issues and problems, either. They CHOOSE to spread that poisonous and dangerous anti-social thinking, it took years of brainwashing by the Reagan bootstrap crowd to implant those ideas into their heads.

You were not born with a computer in front of you either, and a case can easily be made that using a computer is voluntary and not a necessity, and that the manufacture and disposal of computers is a far greater environmental hazard than tobacco is, so let's put a $10,000 flat tax a year on computer use - we can use that money to clean up the environment. Then let's argue that it isn't a regressive tax.

Oh, so what you choose to do - regardless of the environmental hazard - is OK, but what others choose to do it not? here is an idea - tax computer use - hey if you can't afford it, well then too bad - don't use the computer! Problem solved! - and then use that money to pay for treatment programs to help smokers quit! Are people here who are so worked up about smoking willing to put their money where their mouth is? Probably not, because this is about scapegoating and persecuting people, not about protecting anyone's health or well being. This is happening in a social climate of escalating persecution and targeting of scapegoats. That makes it an important issue, since the dangers from this growing public mood are far, far greater than the dangers from tobacco could ever be.

Notice that no one is denying that people are being scapegoated and persecuted - not merely on this issue, but in the debates on every social policy issue - rather they are vehemently arguing that "those people" SHOULD be made into scapegoats and persecuted, and that anyone saying otherwise is also a legitimate target for attack. That is a witch hunt mentality, and once it is out of the box it is very viticulture to contain or control. It is already spreading into the debate about dozens of issues, and is making rational and intellectual thinking and discussion on those issues more and more difficult.

[panzerfaust]

205. Yes and No

The tax is regressive (the poor pay proportionally more than the rich) which is a continuation of the course that Washington state has been on since replacing the value-based with the flat-rate car licensing fee. The days of the USA being a union of "47 States and the Soviet of Washington" being long gone.

On the good side, this is being done to decrease the overall amount of smoking and this has been shown to work in other countries. Australia is going to be enacting a dramatic increase in tobacco tax this month (I believe) for precisely the same reason.

Smoking is not a sin, and it is not only slow suicide, but has been shown to harm those around the smoker. Even the Parisian Cafes have accepted this, and do not allow smoking inside.

[ipaint]

214. Non-smoker here. All regressive taxes are right wing.

Always have been always will be. It's not surprising that this conservative and punishing ideology has infected the democratic party considering the sharp right turn the party has taken in the last 30 years.

Reagan is re-born and he is us (well some of us).

[Ikonoklast]

228. Love to see all the nicotine addicts in this thread so concerned over 'the poor'

and 'regressive taxation'.

What a red herring.

If 'the poor' find a voluntary behavior too expensive to continue, then they will cease doing it.



Just like everyone else.

[William Z. Foster]

234. false assumptions

No one has defended smoking, and not all of the people criticizing regressive taxation are smokers, I happen to know. In any case, what difference would it make if they were? The arguments stand on their own merits. Are you saying that if a person were a smoker they can no longer argue against regressive taxation? That makes no sense.

Regressive taxation has been more than adequately explained.

[Ikonoklast]

236. Explain to me why it is a bad thing, in this instance.

If regressive taxation makes smoking a thing of the past, I am all for it.

[William Z. Foster]

239. thanks

That is honest, and I am not unsympathetic to your position.

It is not so much in this instance as it is in this time that I am especially opposed to any regressive taxation. The reasons for that are the dire emergency working people are already in, the general climate of blaming the least among us for social ills which is contaminating and corrupting every policy debate from immigration to health care to education, and the boost that it gives to the right wing politically.

I think that the fear and hatred is getting out of hand and that we could be facing some very dangerous consequences from that. That danger - at this time - is so far greater than a relatively small minority of people continuing to smoke, that it is a very bad trade off. The public is losing its mind, people are in a frenzy of anger and frustration and casting around for scapegoats and willing to accept all sorts of bizarre political policies and government actions. Very dangerous times.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and your position is honest and reasonable. However, I think we are facing a political and social emergency of massive proportions, and that it is a matter of life and death that we oppose privatization, regressive taxation, increased police powers, further erosion of the Bill of Rights, scapegoating of any group on any pretext, and the placing of any more burdens of any kind whatsoever on working people.

We are teetering on the brink of unimaginable social and political horrors - social collapse and upheaval, police state tyranny, widespread poverty and suffering on an unprecedented scale. Once this crisis has been faced and has passed, then we can worry about straightening out people's individual personal behavior. For the time being, I think it is vital that we stand against the current and speak out.

If ever a case could be made justifying a regressive tax, no doubt tobacco use would be a prime candidate for that. However, people should know the dangers, no what it is they are advocating, and be tolerant and r4epsectful of the position opposing regressive taxation, instead, we have a frenzy of attacks and insults, which only indicates to me that the public is in fact losing their minds and getting out of control in an emotional maelstrom of looking for scapegoats and advocating punishments and draconian measures.

Has anyone said "yes I understand what regressive taxation is, and the dangers of that" and then made a reasoned and calm argument justifying it in this case? No. Has anyone been willing to explore other approaches to solving this social and public health issue? No. Instead, no contrary opinions are even tolerated, and the people advocating them are being dismissed as addicts and then attacked and insulted. That is in keeping with the general public mood of anger and hostility, of emotion over reason, of bullying and hatred. Scary times.




On edit - I can't help but notice that some of the same people arguing so frenetically in defense of regressive taxation here, are also arguing in a similar vein on other topics - scapegoating of the most vulnerable among us, aggressive calls for draconian actions and the application of the punishment model to solve social problems, the same appeals to emotion, the same fear tactics, the same "personal responsibility" theme, etc. The debates on immigration, education, public food policy, and health care are being corrupted and perverted by the same mentality, the same cleverly worded insinuations that social problems are the fault of the most vulnerable and least powerful among us - they are eating the wrong things, they are a burden on the system because they don't have insurance (a key Democratic party representative from the health care fiasco told me this in person the other day - "poor people are a burden on all of us and are not pulling their weight and when they show up in the emergency room we all have to pay for that" is seen by him as an important part of the heath care bill - that is, forcing all to buy insurance, with some assistance for those who can't afford it: maybe, sort of, depending, we will do our best to help them), people are smoking, people are doing this wrong people are doing that wrong and "we can't afford that anymore!!" We hear things such as "obesity if the number one whatever, and is the biggest cost in health care, and that is causing the problems!! We can't afford their bad choices anymore!!"

So this is not really about smoking. Smoking is merely a convenient tool to use to promote scapegoating and authoritarianism and some very hateful and intolerant ideas and to justify bullying and persecution.

There is a very poisonous atmosphere brewing among the public that can lead to some very dangerous places. I think we need to stand against that, in whatever guise it comes.

[ima_sinnic]

241. please explain why nonsmokers should pay the extra costs incurred by smokers

--costs in terms of public health, environmental degradation caused by farming of tobacco, manufacture and transportation of cigarettes, manufacture of packaging, litter of packaging and butts, and fires--losses to real estate as well as lives and forests.

and I couldn't care less about your obsession with "regressive taxation" (which this is not). It seems you make a point of cruising this thread--do you have any other interests besides trying to make the ridiculous case that smokers shouldn't be taxed?

[William Z. Foster]

243. I don't

The things you cite are true of every industry, every product, to one extent or another. We all pay the extra costs incurred by consumerism. There is nothing special or unique about tobacco.

You may not agree with my position on regressive taxation, but I have adequately supported and explained it and made the case. No need for merely continuing to dismiss it as a "ridiculous case" - the moist extreme right wing pro-regressive taxation people at least are willing to understand and respect the anti-regressive taxation position. It is odd that Democrats (!) refuse to do that.

This "we can't afford to pay for those (lazy people, immoral people, losers, people without insurance, people in under0funded schools, those making the wrong choices, people who 'bought more home than they could afford,' obese people, 'illegals,' and them and them and them!" idea absolutely represents an anti-humanist right wing bootstrap mentality, with calls for punishment and persecution, which calls for increased surveillance and control over people, increased government policing power, with a shifting of the tax burden down onto the most vulnerable people, and it is reaching a fever pitch and is very dangerous. It is a vastly greater threat to all of us than any smoker could ever be. When a population goes half insane like this, crazed by fear, suspicion and hatred, the outcome can never be good. It does not matter whom you are scapegoating, or for whatever supposedly noble purpose, the fact that you are scapegoating contributes to the dangerous anti-social climate.

No need for insults and attacks. If you have a case to make that refutes what I have posted, simply make it. Another poster said that yes, it is a regressive tax, but feels that in this one case it is justified. I respect that. I disagree, but they have a legitimate case. Right wingers think that regressive taxes are always good, because that frees up investment capital which will lead to prosperity for all. I disagree, I would hope that all Democrats would disagree, but at least they present their case honestly. Republican party politicians will oppose anything Democrats do, and use it to rally the mob. They have become expert at posing as populists, when it suits their partisan political purposes. No surprise there. We don't need to then feel compelled to take the opposite position from whatever idiocy happens to be coming from them at any given moment. We give them credibility and validity and power when we do that. They defended big tobacco, so therefore we must tax smokers to some extreme degree, and then go half berserk over it? That is insane. It is like being angry with the boss, but feeling powerless to fight back, or not capable of thinking the situation through rationally, so then kicking the dog when you get home. Crazy.

[William Z. Foster]

249. confusion about taxation among Democrats

The reason why we have do many various regressive taxes, and why this tax burden is growing, is to make up for progressive income taxes on the wealthy few and taxes on corporations. The Republicans have worked hard to bring this about, because it protects the fortunes of the wealthiest few while generating (barely) enough revenue to keep things running so that the public does not rebel.

A sales tax is regressive. A sales tax of let's say 5% on all purchases has a much more dramatic effect on a person with a $30,000 annual income then it does on a person with a $3,000,000 annual income. Taxes on things such as food or tobacco or alcohol are the worst, the most regressive, since not only do poor people pay a tax at the same rate as the wealthy, they pay a tax that is the same in actual dollars.

Republicans argue in a relatively straightforward and honest way to defend regressive taxes. They will say that if the wealthiest are relieved of tax burdens, they will invest more that this will lead to more productivity and prosperity, and that this will trickle down to the rest of us. They say that taxes on the wealthy punish initiative, and imply that those who are poor or struggling should suffer, because they are presumed to be less motivated or talented and we should reward talent and motivation. They claim that it is the wealthy investors, and not the workers, who are responsible for any prosperity. They claim that we have a level playing field, that any could become a billionaire if they have the right stuff, and that people with the right stuff are the moist important people and deserve more than the rest of us. I would assume that everyone here sees the flaws in that line of reasoning, and opposed that agenda, or else they would not be Democrats.

Many Democrats now, though, are arguing in support of right wing positions such as privatization and regressive taxation, yet are not consistent or straightforward about it. On this thread we have many who refuse to even address or acknowledge that this is an issue of regressive taxation, and instead are arguing about smoking - is it good or bad? In this way, Democrats are being lured into supporting the right wing program and have a way to keep this truth from themselves and from each other. This illogical approach, and the confusion and deception going on around it,is the very thing that divides and weakens us as Democrats and makes us so unable to aggressively take on the right wing and consistently beat them. The republicans now what they are advocating and fighting for - whatever helps the wealthy few. yet we are confused and divided and dispersed in response.

We cannot successfully fight the right wing if we do not even understand their agenda, and then inadvertently help them advance it.

[joe black]

258. I'd rather have that then Dino Rossi.

Scumbag that he is.

[uppityperson]

262. ++++++++++++1

[TK421]

270. If that kind of tax hits PA then I guess that would be a sign that I should stop

can barely afford it now anyway