Thank you Obama for ****ING cigar smokers and retailers

[Bang]

Me me me me me me me I love my country so long as the problems don't affect me me me me me me me me me we're in a hell of a mess but don't expect any help to come from me me me me me me me me me me.

Let it come from someone else. I'd rather figure out who to blame for wanting help from me me me me me me me me me.

Don't want to pay it? Quit smoking.

It's really that simple.

If you can't quit, or if you feel you shouldn't have to drop a single luxury to fix this gigantic mess that every politician you ever voted for helped make, move to France where they have such lovely whine regions. Their whinerys produce fabulous world-class whine, and you'll fit right in.

Tired of hearing everyone ***** about every possible solution that comes up to these problems . No American spirit, no sense of the old pull-together-when-times-get-tough. Nothing left but selfishness. Fix it, but there better not be any personal discomfort to me.

I make less than 250K. If I want a cigar, I figure I'll pay the tax. If I don't want to pay the tax, I won't buy the cigar. And what do you know, I'm only taxed if I decide to be.

~Bang

[TimmySmith]

I don't disagree with that either... and your (generically speaking) obesity is costing me money too. Get your lard butt off that chair, bike to work, and eat something green for once in your life! Gaaaah!

but mostly seriously, I don't have much sympathy for smokers who are my generation or younger. You knew going in that smoking was bad for you. You knew that it was poisoning you and had pages worth of negative health effects. You choose to poison yourself. You pay for it. Sin taxes are fine with me.

If you want to make the same argument via diabetes and heart disease with fat... I'm all for a tax surcharge at McDonalds and Taco Bell. We eventually will share in the burden of paying for you eating cheap lard laden crap.

Congrats. You are now officially a shill for the government.

If you want government enforced diet and exercise, North Korea may be your kind of place.

[Burgold]

Nope, just a shill for personal responsibility. Bang's correct. Conservativism has just become an excuse to avoid paying the piper. You guys want incredible spending, but you don't want to pay for it. You want to dump poison down your system and you not only don't want to pay for it, but you want me to cover the long term effects your self abuse.

You don't want to pay the tax. Don't consume the product. I have paid zero taxes for tobacco in my life. I don't smoke. That's fair. I have paid thousands of dollars in medicare taxes in my life to support smokers. That's less fair.

And no, I'm not calling for government regulated diet and exercise. I merely am not disagreeing with TWA, that if you are going to choose to eat a diet of nothing but crap, you might as well be investing into the health care system that you are planning to exploit and take advantage of.

[twa]

Me me me me me me me

~Bang

:hysterical:

I just want to make sure everyone gets to share in the blessing of paying for others...I'm willing to share:D

[Burgold]

Me me me me me me me .

Oh, and I'm not much of a country music fan, but that Toby Keith song is awesome. Makes me smile every time I hear it.

... and now, back to our regularly scheduled ranting.

[SkinsHokieFan]

it's common knowledge that we achieved a multi-trillion dollar surplus under Clinton.

I am hoping this is sarcasm, the highest surplus achieved was in 2000, and that was 236 billion

[Bang]

:hysterical:

I just want to make sure everyone gets to share in the blessing of paying for others...I'm willing to share:D

We always have, though. We pay when our neighbor calls the cops, we pay when the guy in the next town over has a house fire, we pay to have litter picked up off our roads, we pay to have proper signs made so we know where we are, we pay so our kids have good libraries to use to learn, we pay to have education for every child, we pay for everything society gives us even if we never use half the services.

And we don't have any choice.

In this, we have a choice. If you want the cigar, you decide to pay. If you decide not to pay, forget the cigar. It's really entirely up to you.

~Bang

[Dictator]

You don't want to pay the tax. Don't consume the product.

This same argument can hold true for Speed Cameras people on this site seem to despise.

[twa]

And we don't have any choice.

In this, we have a choice. If you want the cigar, you decide to pay. If you decide not to pay, forget the cigar. It's really entirely up to you.

~Bang

Sounds like extortion.

Why not tax everything besides essentials equally?

That would seem the most effective way to raise funds and is equitable.

[Stew]

Congrats. You are now officially a shill for the government.

If you want government enforced diet and exercise, North Korea may be your kind of place.

Nobody is enforcing what you eat. Its your choice. If these taxes were imposed, the salad the ground turkey, the steak and the fish would all still be free from that tax, you would have to make a life choice to eat that way. The fruits wouldnt be taxed either so you would still be able to snack!

Fast food, fat foods, plastic wrapping, tobacco, alcohol, all luxuries that do no good other then self indulgence to the buyer... which is ok if they are willing to pay for the negative effects that purchasing the product produces.

The choice is still yours.

[Burgold]

This same argument can hold true for Speed Cameras people on this site seem to despise.

Actually a fair argument (darn you for that). I oppose Speed Cameras mainly because you can't face your accuser and that seems contrary to our legal system. But when caught (and guilty) I pay the fine without challenging it. I did break the law after all.

[Thiebear]

Wait. I thought conservatives preferred consumption taxes and sin taxes over income and corporate taxes, because people had the freedom to choose whether or not to incur them. Was I mistaken in that? :whoknows:

Fast food, fat foods, plastic wrapping, tobacco, alcohol, all luxuries that do no good other then self indulgence to the buyer... which is ok if they are willing to pay for the negative effects that purchasing the product produces.

The choice is still yours.

I have no issues with a "Tax" on items.

Its the randomness that bothers me... 7000% on this product, 2% on that. If you have an "in" with a congressman you might be saved.

You want to do a 10% across the board minus (food/Clothing/housing/cars under 20k/medicine) fine.

Be fair about it.

[Burgold]

Fairness does not mean equal.

[Dictator]

Fairness does not mean equal.

I'm saving this one

[TimmySmith]

Nobody is enforcing what you eat. Its your choice. If these taxes were imposed, the salad the ground turkey, the steak and the fish would all still be free from that tax, you would have to make a life choice to eat that way. The fruits wouldnt be taxed either so you would still be able to snack!

Fast food, fat foods, plastic wrapping, tobacco, alcohol, all luxuries that do no good other then self indulgence to the buyer... which is ok if they are willing to pay for the negative effects that purchasing the product produces.

The choice is still yours.

Sorry, shill, I don't agree. It's an easy argument, of course, to say "hey, tax em, if they want their twinkies." But what are you really saying is basically saying we are trying to extort money for being unhealthy. And I do not agree that the government should be enforcing a healthy lifestyle. Promoting, yes.

I guess what it boils down to is I do not agree with new taxes to pay for the government's already bloated budget and deficit, and you do. I do not care how they are presented. Why should Americans have to pay more for anything, perhaps it's the government's turn to pay for it's unhealthy spending habit.

[Forehead]

I'll tell you what, you vote for me, I'll do it. I love this country and its ideals enough to be a one term-er who does real lasting good rather than pandering to get re-elected.

You do realize that by eliminating DHS, you're also eliminating all the organizations that now fall under DHS, like Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Are you saying you would prefer this country have a completely open border where anyone can get in/out as they please?

Yep, I'm not voting for you.

[Thiebear]

Fairness does not mean equal.

but you would agree a 1$ to 25$ increase in taxes on a pound of product is the government basically ending the company without making it illegal.

[Burgold]

Fairness does not mean equal.

I'm saving this one

lol. Fair enough.

It's true though.

[twa]

Fairness does not mean equal.

What happened to equal under the law?

Tax law is law

Where's Larry?...I know he's got my back here;)

[Mark The Homer]

... He tells me that everyone's FAVORITE friggin president has added anywhere from a dollar to 2 dollars tax PER STICK to his cigars. Want the Links?

Yes please.

Disclaimer: I'm new to the thread and have only read the first and last page - so if I missed something, crucify me.

Here's the thing -

Let's say you smoke 7 cigars a week. Then the feds add a $1.50 tax on each cigar.

You say screw that, and you cut down to 3 cigars a week. I don't know what the feds were getting per stick before, but they may or may not be increasing their tax revenue by such a high mark up in this particular case.

But one thing we know for sure, the neighborhood cigar shop is going to suffer in this example, and the feds are going to suffer by having less profit (income) to tax. If enough consumers respond the same way, the cigar shop owner may even be forced out of business.

Point is, there's a fine line between what is a good productive tax and what is not.

[Dictator]

Yes please.

Disclaimer: I'm new to the thread and have only read the first and last page - so if I missed something, crucify me.

Here's the thing -

Let's say you smoke 7 cigars a week. Then the feds add a $1.50 tax on each cigar.

You say screw that, and you cut down to 3 cigars a week. I don't know what the feds were getting per stick before, but they may or may not be increasing their tax revenue by such a high mark up in this particular case.

But one thing we know for sure, the neighborhood cigar shop is going to suffer in this example, and the feds are going to suffer by having less profit (income) to tax. If enough consumers respond the same way, the cigar shop owner may even be forced out of business.

Point is, there's a fine line between what is a good productive tax and what is not.

which is exactly what the State of MD has been experiencing since they raised cig taxes last year.

[Burgold]

but you would agree a 1$ to 25$ increase in taxes on a pound of product is the government basically ending the company without making it illegal.

Again, it's relative... how many 100's of millions of tax payer bucks are going to be spent today on smoking related health needs. Moving forward, how many billions in hospitals, nursing homes, drugs, etc will be required of us. Is that 24 dollars generating profit or just trying to break even with the cost that smokers burden society with?

Again, I don't have a lot of sympathy for smokers who are inflicting themselves. Smoking is a want not a need. If you choose not to use (or make a living via selling) tobacco based products this tax has no effect on you.

See, where I'm evil in this case is... I don't actually care if the cigar shops go out of business. I would actually prefer if customers reduce or stop smoking. Now, if we suddenly have an underground cartel of people buying their cigs from Mexico or Canada the way we do with pharmaceuticals... well then, we'll have another different interesting conversation.

[Bang]

Sorry, shill, I don't agree. It's an easy argument, of course, to say "hey, tax em, if they want their twinkies." But what are you really saying is basically saying we are trying to extort money for being unhealthy. And I do not agree that the government should be enforcing a healthy lifestyle. Promoting, yes.

I guess what it boils down to is I do not agree with new taxes to pay for the government's already bloated budget and deficit, and you do. I do not care how they are presented. Why should Americans have to pay more for anything, perhaps it's the government's turn to pay for it's unhealthy spending habit.

And where will the government get this money to pay for this 'unhealthy spending'?

The government is us, how is that not obvious anymore?

You'd rather, by your own words, allow this huge deficit pay for itself.

All the complaining at the Tea Parties about kids being born into all this debt, and you still won't sacrifice anything to keep that from happening to your next generations? You just want to magically wish it all away by saying "the gov't should pay for it's own unhealthy spending'. What exactly does that mean, anyway? How does it do that? Where will it generate the money to do that? Should they just print more?

And you have a very distorted view of the word "enforcing".

Enforcing healthy eating is to FORCE it,, ie: arrest anyone possessing transfat. Fine people over their calorie quota. Force people to exercise under penalty of law, or tax every pound they are over the optimum weight for their height. That is enforcement.

Taxing a Twinkie still leaves it up to personal choice. Isn't that what you value above all? The freedom to decide for yourself if you'd like to be taxed with that Twinkie?

~Bang

[Burgold]

What happened to equal under the law?

Tax law is law

Where's Larry?...I know he's got my back here;)

That's just silliness. We tax everything differently. Different countries pay different import taxes. Different products are taxed differently. Different income levels are taxed differently. There is not one uniform tax burden... hotel taxes are much greater than grocery taxes... gasoline taxes are different than cigarette taxes.

This is just hogwash... which I'm sure is taxed differently than car wash.

[stevenaa]

OK then, why don't you answer the question: Who's taxes would you raise to pay for the $6 trillion in debt incurred by the Republicans you voted for and the policies you advocated for years on this message board?

The Democrats you voted in are expanding spending and further increasing the debt. How is that more responsible than what the previous administration did in digging this hole? It's one thing to start from zero debt and decide you can handle some (stoopid thing to do, though). It's entirely another thing to get yourself over extended and then somehow rationalize further spending. How is that more responsible than what the previous administration did in digging this hole?

Our debt needs to be payed down. I said Our debt because it isn't the Republicans or Democrats debt, it's the American peoples debt. How about we start by creating a budget that can be satisfied by the current "income" the fed receives. This budget should include a defined amount to be used to pay down the debt.

This administration is simply continuing down the same path of the last in regards to fiscal responsibility, so it's time to shelve that argument. At this point it matters little who got us here. What matters is who is going to put aside political ideology and do what is in this Nations best interest. We can't take care of our own if our financial house is in shambles.