China's ultimatum: smoke or be fined

[Thiebear]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25426774-13762,00.html

Officials told to smoke 250,000 packs

Fines possible if target not met

Smoking will stimulate the economy

OFFICIALS in a county in central China have been told to smoke nearly a quarter million packs of locally made cigarettes annually or risk being fined, state media reports.

The Gong'an county government in Hubei province has ordered its staff to puff their way through 230,000 packs of Hubei-produced cigarette brands a year, the Global Times said.

Departments that fail to meet their targets will be fined, according to the report.

"The regulation will boost the local economy via the cigarette tax," said Chen Nianzu, a member of the Gong'an cigarette market supervision team, according to the paper.

The measure could also be a ploy to aid local cigarette brands such as Huanghelou, which are under severe pressure from competitors in neighbouring Hunan province, according to the paper.

China has 350 million smokers, of whom a million die of smoking-related diseases every year.

More than half of all male doctors in China smoke, but the Government is now trying harder to get them to kick the habit in order to set an example for others, state media reported recently.

This is how you fix the cig tax when people stop smoking due to prices.

Brilliant

[MattFancy]

wait what? that makes no sense

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

:laugh:

Is that for real?

[Thiebear]

7$ a pack in Washington State: JUST MAKE IT ILLEGAL.

Why they attack the poor like this i will never know.

Didnt deserve its own thread...

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/44263352.html

Smokers: Latest tax hike is 'the last straw'

By ROB CARSON, The News Tribune

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) - The recession and the biggest federal cigarette tax increase in history - a 62-cents-a-pack hike April 1 - have sent Washington smokers scrambling for ways to quit.

Analysts expect the higher prices to drive cigarette consumption down by about 6.25 percent, leading to an estimated $20.9 million loss in state tax revenue and tobacco settlement money.

The price hike already has caused a boom in the stop-smoking business, and for families of smokers struggling to quit, has increased tension already stretched by the economic slump.

The federal cigarette tax rose to $1.01 a pack April 1, but many manufacturers raised prices in March in response to an expected loss in sales. A pack of premium cigarettes in Washington now costs at least $7, which adds up to more than $2,500 a year for pack-a-day smokers.

[NavyDave]

Damm I remember when a Carton was 7 dollars and people would pay to get duty free cartons for less than that.

[NavyDave]

I'm waiting on the Government to raise gas tax to 7 dollars per gallon to get people to waste money buying electric cars

[BKSkinsFan]

That would stimulate the economy, but wouldn't it also end up with a reverse effect due to all the healthcare costs? D'oh!

[LaxBuddy21]

That would stimulate the economy, but wouldn't it also end up with a reverse effect due to all the healthcare costs? D'oh!

Nah that stimulates the economy too with all the healthcare jobs it creates....

[China]

This is how I plan to dominate the world. Force all my enemies to smoke and eventually die from cancer. Then I'll take over.

[LaxBuddy21]

This is how I plan to dominate the world. Force all my enemies to smoke and eventually die from cancer. Then I'll take over.

I dunno, a country where everyone smokes might be a lot more relaxed and focused during times of war and in a country like China, it might be a good population control technique anyway.

[wysknz1]

WAAIIT a minute, they're just trying to kill em off for population control

[Larry]

I'm waiting on the Government to raise gas tax to 7 dollars per gallon to get people to waste money buying electric cars

Problem with a huge gas tax all at once is that a lot of people don't have the option to just go out and get a more efficient car right now, today. (And the market couldn't deliver them that fast even if the people wanted them.)

But, I wouldn't have a problem with the Feds passing a law that says they're gonna raise the tax 50 cents a year, every year, for the next 10 years.

That way, everybody, when they're shopping for their next car, will know that $7 gasoline is going to arrive someday, and you're still going to have whatever car you pick out. They can factor gas efficiency into their purchases, today.

[Larry]

That would stimulate the economy, but wouldn't it also end up with a reverse effect due to all the healthcare costs? D'oh!

Don't know about the economies of China.

But I understand that studies have shown that smoking actually saves the government money in the US.

Smokers do tend to eat up more medicare and medicaid than non smokers.

But they also die sooner, which means they collect less Social Security.

[kuraitengai]

WAAIIT a minute, they're just trying to kill em off for population control

its what i thought...but i dont think they are going for that since it would be thinking outside the box.

but hey, an added benefit.

[Hubbs]

Nah that stimulates the economy too with all the healthcare jobs it creates....

Creating jobs doesn't = stimulating the economy, no matter how often the federal government tries to tell you that it does. Those jobs are only good for the economy if the money used to create them wouldn't have done more if spent on something else.

In other words, if the government required that everyone pay $100 a month to "create" thousands of jobs that were nothing more than trying to set a high score on Wii Fit, that wouldn't be good for the economy. It would be bad, because everyone's $100 would have gone to other, more productive things if they weren't required to pay for a bunch of people to play Wii Fit.

[REDSKINZ-RIDEORDIE]

I dunno, a country where everyone smokes might be a lot more relaxed and focused during times of war and in a country like China, it might be a good population control technique anyway.

A better technique would be to make them smoke weed like Rick James did to that girl he had chained up in his bedroom some years back.....

[armstrong001]

Problem with a huge gas tax all at once is that a lot of people don't have the option to just go out and get a more efficient car right now, today. (And the market couldn't deliver them that fast even if the people wanted them.)

But, I wouldn't have a problem with the Feds passing a law that says they're gonna raise the tax 50 cents a year, every year, for the next 10 years.

That way, everybody, when they're shopping for their next car, will know that $7 gasoline is going to arrive someday, and you're still going to have whatever car you pick out. They can factor gas efficiency into their purchases, today.

The gas tax is supposed to be for infrastructure improvements, not steering purchasing habits.

I don't see any cars getting 80-100 mpg that are going to offset the additional cost of this $7/gallon gasoline. Certainly the newest hybrids can't even compare to early 90's results in fuel economy (see Geo Metro XFI and Honda Civil VX). And people who can't afford to go out and buy a car today - or even this year - also aren't necessarily going to be buying new anyways. They'll be buying this year's new cars in five years.

Even if car companies magically produce cars getting the kind of gas mileage required to offset these taxes (and are safe enough that people are going to want to buy them), only "the rich" are going to be able to afford them. Not everyone else. Everyone else will just have to "deal" with the new taxes.

And even if this forces poor people who are driving 70's and 80's era cars to get more modern vehicles, and increasing their gas mileage, who is going to buy their old cars from them? They'll be selling them at a loss if they can even sell them, because NOBODY is going to buy these cars. Just like when SUV's were almost being given away last year, every person who is stuck with what they can afford (older, less fuel efficient cars) is going to be shafted by that kind of rate hike.

Then of course you will also be driving operating costs up for businesses that rely on trucks. But at least some people will be driving shiny new Priuses...

On the topic at hand: Forcing people to buy products that have no productive value to them for the sake of propping up a business is exactly what I'd expect from a country such as China. Of course, it looks like we're heading in the same direction.:doh:

[deejaydana]

That would stimulate the economy, but wouldn't it also end up with a reverse effect due to all the healthcare costs? D'oh!

It's no more illogical and unviable then switching from crude oil to ethanol.

[LaxBuddy21]

Creating jobs doesn't = stimulating the economy, no matter how often the federal government tries to tell you that it does. Those jobs are only good for the economy if the money used to create them wouldn't have done more if spent on something else.

In other words, if the government required that everyone pay $100 a month to "create" thousands of jobs that were nothing more than trying to set a high score on Wii Fit, that wouldn't be good for the economy. It would be bad, because everyone's $100 would have gone to other, more productive things if they weren't required to pay for a bunch of people to play Wii Fit.

That is just flat out wrong. Spending money on creating jobs for people is ALWAYS good for the economy. The difference is whether or not the job is self sustaining because the company is profitable. If we are paying people to set a high score on Wii Fit then those people can support themselves and their families and in turn will support other job growth because of the demand for goods and services. The problem is there is no profit for a company that pays people to set high scores.

[armstrong001]

That is just flat out wrong. Spending money on creating jobs for people is ALWAYS good for the economy.

The difference is whether or not the job is self sustaining because the company is profitable. If we are paying people to set a high score on Wii Fit then those people can support themselves and their families and in turn will support other job growth because of the demand for goods and services. The problem is there is no profit for a company that pays people to set high scores.

So which is it? Is the act of "creating" jobs ALWAYS good, or only when the jobs are productive?

[zoony]

7$ a pack in Washington State: JUST MAKE IT ILLEGAL.

Why they attack the poor like this i will never know.

I don't think it's fair to call it a tax on the poor or even the uneducated. 1- it is voluntary and 2- there is nobody out there rich or poor who is not aware of the dangers of smoking.

It would be like calling a tax on liquor 'a tax on the Irish-Americans'

[Thiebear]

I don't think it's fair to call it a tax on the poor or even the uneducated. 1- it is voluntary and 2- there is nobody out there rich or poor who is not aware of the dangers of smoking.

It would be like calling a tax on liquor 'a tax on the Irish-Americans'

All studies have shown that the poor smoke WAY more, and in most cases with cigs its NOT voluntary. I quit 6 years ago after 40 attempts.

Thats my two cents on the lottery/cigs: Tax on the poor.

[zoony]

All studies have shown that the poor smoke WAY more, and in most cases with cigs its NOT voluntary. I quit 6 years ago after 40 attempts.

Thats my two cents on the lottery/cigs: Tax on the poor.

Well it is absolutely voluntary- we're in control over our own actions. But that might be getting into another subject entirely.

That said, I think you have to be very careful with that kind of logic. It can get you into trouble on other issues in a hurry

[Hubbs]

That is just flat out wrong.

You do realize that there are different schools of macroeconomic thought, right?

Spending money on creating jobs for people is ALWAYS good for the economy. The difference is whether or not the job is self sustaining because the company is profitable. If we are paying people to set a high score on Wii Fit then those people can support themselves and their families and in turn will support other job growth because of the demand for goods and services. The problem is there is no profit for a company that pays people to set high scores.

So Communism failed because...?

[Prosperity]

I saw some right wing hack bloggers calling the tax increase on cigs Obama's broken promise (promise to not raise taxes on poor people). Of course, smoking cigs doesn't cause someone to be poor, and being poor doesn't cause someone to smoke cigs, so I those two groups are not the same. It's unfair to say that just because income and cig smoking are inversely related that it's a tax on the poor. I mean, if most poor people smoked I think that would be a stronger case, but the fact that most smokers are poor doesn't mean most poor people are smokers.