No increases in taxes.

**Hocus Pocus** · 04-11-13, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Celebrate the tens of billions in health care expenses that won't have to be paid for in the future?

Æ

No no, we need people to smoke . Average life expectancy is already to high. As of social security isn't drowning already. Overpopulation is a beyotch.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

**deathgodusmc** · 04-11-13, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

They don't produce the same carcinogenic affects.

In the absence of a conclusive study i would say your wrong but from what i have read its actually more harmful. However like i said there hasn't been a conclusive study for me to say either way with confidence.

**SmokenScion** · 04-11-13, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

In the absence of a conclusive study i would say your wrong but from what i have read its actually more harmful. However like i said there hasn't been a conclusive study for me to say either way with confidence.

There aren't any studies that say anything, so all those places you read "more Harmful" are scare tactics by big Gov't wasting your tax dollars.

**AetheLove** · 04-11-13, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You wish.

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

You really think eliminating cigarettes will save tens of billions? As if everyone will magically be healthy and not get seriously ill from something else if everyone stopped smoking. Come on now, you know better than that.

Even still, again, that's not even the point. This tax is doing what the cigarette companies have been demonized for, but somehow our government gets a pass on it?

I totally pulled that number from out of my butt. I was being facetious, but I was also trying to nod towards a real point. There is certainly a broad and long-term social cost to smoking, and those costs would be saved if we smoked less.

Still, you're right to call me on it. Having one asshole be sarcastic shouldn't derail a serious thread, and I have no cause to think that Festus' question was anything less than genuine.

Shall we look up some estimates of the health care and lost productivity costs due to tobacco smoking?

Lots of people have looked into this issue. I'm sure you can use a search engine as well as I can. No search engine that I know of can weed out the links to obvious propaganda and leave us only links which deserve consideration - so I guess we'll all have to trust each other on that.

The CDC:

CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use

This is an overview (a brief summary) of a lot of research (both public and private). Links are included. In 2002 their estimates were that each pack sold costs the US $3.45 in medical expenses and $3.73 in lost productivity. At that time, people bought about 22 billion packs a year.

Let's just include medical expenses: $3.45 x 22 billion =

$75.9 Billion

Wow. I'm starting to feel pretty good about my "tens of billions" estimate. Add in lost productivity, and I'm totally low-balling it.

It's possible the CDC is low-balling it too. In 2004, health economists at Duke found that the total costs were about $40 per pack. The blurb is here:

Smoking's Real Cost Reaches $40 Per Pack Over Lifetime, Duke Study Concludes | Duke Today

If you want to read the papers you'll need access to journals (or you can buy their book).

I'm not the only one in this thread using sarcasm and also maybe making a point. "But we need people to die sooner! Ha ha." say a few. Well, right you are! Having people die sooner absolutely brings benefits to the balance sheet of government programs. The NBER looked into that:

The Social Security Cost of Smoking

The study is a little old (1987), but this quote from the abstract is relevant:

We then calculate expected Social Security taxes and benefits for each group, using median earnings as a base. We find that smoking costs men about $20,000 and women about $10,000 in expected net benefits. The implication of this for the system as a whole is that the prevalence of smoking has a direct effect on the financial viability of the system; every decrease in the number of smokers in society increases the system's liability. Changes in smoking behavior should be recognized as affecting the system.

Another way of saying that smoking costs men about $20,000 is "Every man who smokes SAVES Social Security about $20,000!"

WOO!

Of course, these are economists. They don't say "woo".

They say something more like; "We've worked hard to get a good estimate of one aspect of this larger picture. If we only consider the effect on the social security budget then it turns out that if people die sooner Social Security pays them less (duh). The people who make estimates of Social Security outlays in future years should take into consideration changes in smoking rates. In the larger picture, our estimate of "savings" due to dying early from having smoked are much smaller than credible estimates of other costs to the government - not to mention families and non-government social costs."

Cheers,

AetheLove

**deathgodusmc** · 04-11-13, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

I totally pulled that number from out of my butt. I was being facetious,
Cheers,

AetheLove

We know you were.

**Ranger10** · 04-11-13, 03:05 PM

This issue isn't about smoking, it's about out of control government spending. Obama just happens to want to levy a tax on cigarettes, because no one but smokers are going to complain about it. Those who don't smoke want it gone, too. Like DG said, if this tax somehow magically forces all smokers to quit smoking because of money, then in order to pay for yet another large, unrealistic, super expensive and useless government program, they'll have to find something else to tax.

Next it'll be coke, as mentioned before, because too much sugar is bad for you. They it'll be cheeseburgers, because they cause obesity. Then it'll be pizza, Pop Rocks, candy canes, and Nerds. So what happens when we tax EVERYTHING that some doctor, in some lab, determines is bad for you just to pay for another government program?

I mean, if eliminating poor food choices was the goal that would be one thing. Or, rather taxing those foods because we know the money will be used later down the road to treat those very same people is another interesting idea. But its not doing that.

Democrats have never met a regulation they didn't like. They've never seen an issue that a new program won't fix. Bigger and bigger the government grows, and to fund it, more and more taxes are needed. First we bleed the wealthy dry. Regulation after regulation is put in place to make sure all their money is funneled back to the government. When they are bled enough (which will only happen until the wealthy Democrats feel the pinch), we'll ask every middle class American to shoulder the financial burden by playing VAT's on certain goods, or taxing items we think are a public health concern. More and more and more you pay. They tax your earned income. They tax your spending. They tax your life, and then, when you die, they tax that too.

And what benefit have you really gotten?

Congratulations Democrats, you have successfully employed the whole country. We all work for the government now. Everything we buy, everything we sell. All used to fund program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program after program.

But hey, at least there are no more poor people! Then again, there are no more rich people. Actually... come to think of it, there's no more America, either.

Good job on that.

**AetheLove** · 04-11-13, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

This issue isn't about smoking, it's about out of control government spending. Obama just happens to want to levy a tax on cigarettes, because no one but smokers are going to complain about it. Those who don't smoke want it gone, too. Like DG said, if this tax somehow magically forces all smokers to quit smoking because of money, then in order to pay for yet another large, unrealistic, super expensive and useless government program, they'll have to find something else to tax.

I agree that government spending is a real issue that should be included in the discussion (generally, not just in our little forum).

If the smoking-related costs to government are greater than the tax receipts from smoking, then how is everyone quitting not a win-win?

Æ

**Ranger10** · 04-11-13, 03:33 PM

Well, I personally would love to see everyone quit smoking. But this is a free country, and penalizing people by taxing them for choosing to do something the rest of us might not agree with sets the kind of precedent I mentioned above. It's a slippery slope to tax everything we don't like.

But in this case, it smacks of Obama looking for some source of revenue no one will complain about (or rather, no one the majority cares about). Think of it this way... Obama's brand new, shiny program requires X amount of money to run. I think it's some preschool program or something. He's opting to take that money from a tax on smoking. But what happens if this new tax sees a 8% reduction in cigarette purchases? Is the program going to shrink by 8% also? I would bet my life it won't. That means, money will have to come from somewhere else to make up for that price change.

Look, you and I both know the Obama budget is a joke. Everyone knows it. Even the liberals are calling him out on the index changes (chain CPI) to Social Security. This thing is so hopelessly dead in the water it's laughable. And the worse part about it is that he knows it. He's doing it to gain political points to show that he was willing to go against his own party to work with the GOP, even though he knows its such a laughable budget that they'll dismiss it. Then he can show himself as the Great Compromiser, while the GOP are obstructionist. This is a 2014 political gambit. If the Dems can control both the Senate and the House, then Obama will use his last two years to push anything and everything his little pea sized brain can come up with.

This tax, and everything else in that budget, are just there to make sure the GOP will denounce it.

**AetheLove** · 04-11-13, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Well, I personally would love to see everyone quit smoking. But this is a free country, and penalizing people by taxing them for choosing to do something the rest of us might not agree with sets the kind of precedent I mentioned above. It's a slippery slope to tax everything we don't like.

Is charging higher health insurance rates to smokers "penalizing" them?

The rationale to tax tobacco is that the costs are real.

This is the same as charging registration and licensing fees to use public roads - it's part of how we pay back into the system that created them in the first place.

Now I don't know which of us would be the first to say that anyone who believes the story is only that simple is living in a fantasy world. Obviously there are bureaucratic forces in the DMV that would try to perpetuate the system either way. You see a similar effect in state lotteries that only got instituted by saying that all proceeds would fund education, and then quietly moved monies into the general fund 3 years later (I'm looking at you, New York, and I know you're not the only one).

But none of that means the costs of building and maintaining public roads aren't real, or that fees for usage aren't a reasonable way to go about paying for some of it.

Regarding the other issue you raise, President Obama's proposed budget, I disagree that it's a joke. I guess that to some degree it's a bargaining position - but how is that different from any other budget ever proposed?

If you want to call the whole thing laughable, then go ahead. Does that make every separate part of it also laughable?

Cheers,

AetheLove

**Ranger10** · 04-11-13, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Is charging higher health insurance rates to smokers "penalizing" them?

The rationale to tax tobacco is that the costs are real.

This is the same as charging registration and licensing fees to use public roads - it's part of how we pay back into the system that created them in the first place.

Now I don't know which of us would be the first to say that anyone who believes the story is only that simple is living in a fantasy world. Obviously there are bureaucratic forces in the DMV that would try to perpetuate the system either way. You see a similar effect in state lotteries that only got instituted by saying that all proceeds would fund education, and then quietly moved monies into the general fund 3 years later (I'm looking at you, New York, and I know you're not the only one).

But none of that means the costs of building and maintaining public roads aren't real, or that fees for usage aren't a reasonable way to go about paying for some of it.

Regarding the other issue you raise, President Obama's proposed budget, I disagree that it's a joke. I guess that to some degree it's a bargaining position - but how is that different from any other budget ever proposed?

If you want to call the whole thing laughable, then go ahead. Does that make every separate part of it also laughable?

Cheers,

AetheLove

If the issue of the cigarette tax was imposed purely based on cigarette related issues, then that's a whole other debate. It would be like saying, this toll road is only paid for by people who use it, or to ask smokers to pay higher insurance premiums to cover the additional costs associated specifically with smoking. But its not. This is a tax on smokers to ask them to pay for something completely unrelated to smoking. It would be like saying, we're going to impose a tax on Tic Tacs to pay for studying monarch butterfly's. Is it reasonable to expect people who only want minty fresh breath to pay for the study of butterfly's so that the rest of us don't have to experience a tax hike?

And lets not forget, budgets originate from Congress. The President only submits a budget to Congress to show them what the administration needs. And yes, this budget is laughable. Even the liberal Democrats can't support the minuscule changes in Social Security imposed by the President. This is a calculated move to blame the GOP as the party that can't be pleased.

Its like handing you a plate full of steaming hot donkey poo, and when you refuse to eat it, saying, "I offered him food, he declined. Look at how picky he's being." The Republicans caved in December to a tax increase on the idea that the spending cuts would come. Where are they? The sequester was the only "cut" in Federal spending, and it wasn't even a real cut! It was a slower spending RATE, not a true cut. And it was Obama's idea!

If this were a Republican President, every Democrat within a hundred miles would be up in arms complaining. So where are the real cuts that were promised in December? Its no wonder the GOP are sitting there, saying we did our part, time to honor your part. This President has no intention. His only goal right now is to win enough points so they the GOP loses control of the house in 2014. That's why he's out campaigning on issues like gun control which aren't even in the top 10 issues Americans think is a problem (maybe top 8). A sitting, second term President spending time campaigning... laughable.

Obama is the worst President in the history of the United States.