Thread: No increases in taxes.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

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.

Isn't that what i just said?

Originally Posted by AetheLove

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

I dont think thats likely. The last tax imposed of 1 dollar per pack was the base for funding Obama care. With around 30 billion packs sold annually thats 30 billion a year without taking into account the other federal taxes imposed on them prior to the 1 dollar increase. As it stands right now cigarettes are one of the heaviest taxed items in the US between federal and state taxes.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

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?

In the fantasy world of complex budgets, we completely segregate everything and make each division show a rationale for revenues and outlays.

But that's not how it works, and I'm not sure it could even if we tried. In a world where there are enormous costs to governments (on top of those to private entities) as a result of smoking, it's pretty easy to make the case for taxing cigarettes. From what I can tell, and as best as anyone can currently estimate, those expenses far outweigh tax revenues.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

And lets not forget, budgets originate from Congress.

[...]

Oh please. Yes, the majority of budget authority rests with Congress (the House), but this is a political process and so budgets originate from the people who have a political chip in the game. I'd be just as happy as anyone else here to take the influence of corporate (and other) lobbying money out of the game. I'd love to see a lot more statesmanship on the part of the people involved. But it's not like the Obama administration has set some major precedent by sending budget proposals to Congress.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

steaming hot donkey poo
[...]
This President has no intention
[...]
second term President spending time campaigning... laughable.
[...]
Obama is the worst President in the history of the United States.

Ahh. I thought this thread was about cigarettes and taxes. My bad.

I'm sure Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, and Warren Harding are with you in spirit.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Originally Posted by AetheLove

In the fantasy world of complex budgets, we completely segregate everything and make each division show a rationale for revenues and outlays.

But that's not how it works, and I'm not sure it could even if we tried. In a world where there are enormous costs to governments (on top of those to private entities) as a result of smoking, it's pretty easy to make the case for taxing cigarettes. From what I can tell, and as best as anyone can currently estimate, those expenses far outweigh tax revenues.




Oh please. Yes, the majority of budget authority rests with Congress (the House), but this is a political process and so budgets originate from the people who have a political chip in the game. I'd be just as happy as anyone else here to take the influence of corporate (and other) lobbying money out of the game. I'd love to see a lot more statesmanship on the part of the people involved. But it's not like the Obama administration has set some major precedent by sending budget proposals to Congress.




Ahh. I thought this thread was about cigarettes and taxes. My bad.

I'm sure Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, and Warren Harding are with you in spirit.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Well, you 'thought'. In my first opening line, I said this wasn't about cigarettes, it was about out of control government spending. Pretty straight forward. See what I did there? And I wouldn't connect the cigarette tax to this new program unless the POTUS himself came out and said it. I'm not making this stuff up. Had he not said it, then of course, we could debate how and where tax dollars are allocated. He said it, not me.

And no, I didn't say he was out of line by creating his own budget. Please. He needed to get on that 4 years ago! Im simply saying that his budget is a political ploy to pin blame on the GOP for not working with him. The cigarette tax was just another ridiculous attempt to pay for more government spending. This budget isn't serious. At all. Sure it has some big words in it, and some even bigger numbers. But it's not, in any way, designed to cut spending. Its just more growth. But it had some technical 'wins' for the GOP, like the chain CPI. Yay! But its more smoke and mirrors. This budget won't pass a Democrat Senate, much less a Republican House. So tell me again how it's serious?

It's a joke.

I guess what I'm most interested in is how Republicans were land blasted while Bush was in office for supporting such a tool, not once, but twice. Then, when he left, they had to eat a little humble pie and admit he made a lot of really silly political calculations. But now, when another tool sits in the oval office... he can do no wrong. Why is that?

Meh.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

And what spending is wasteful and should be cut? Everyone and their mother can spout (and politicians often do!) that we need to cut "wasteful spending," but rarely if ever do they seem to have a decent answer for what should be cut. Thus, what is wasteful spending and should be cut? Without specification it just sounds like rhetoric.

I have a start but it could be modified. I know i posted this twice already but i believe you were not around for those so here you go. It wont take long for you to figure out it was to give free healthcare.



We need 2.3 trillion to cover health care costs as it stand right now. Due to that is what was spent last year on it nation wide.
Federal estimates to run a health care system 1.2 trillion. Quite possible but odds are it will cost more then that.
http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modul...und-Brief.aspx


government funding for medicare and so forth 882 billion
US Budget Breakdown for FY14 - Charts
Balance 1.418 trillion


We need a cap on what can be charged.
By having a federal health system prices can be set across the board.
That will lower the amount needed seeing as some prcedures have differences of over 15g
from one hospital to the next.Estimated saving unknown.
http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dw...ec.htmlForiegn aid economic assisstance to 150 countries out of 192.
33.9 billion
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/...es/eco-economy




United States foreign aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It makes no sense to give money to countries to buy weapons from us. Needs to redone for each country gets a vote for assisstance
and those funds need to have a breakdown of what they will be used for.


FAFSA budget cut? Possible but remain intact for now.


Cut military to a degree. Eliminate all civilian personel.
The Corps makes do on 29 billion. Its half the size of the army and 100k short of the air force and navy.
Yet their budgets are
Army 244 billion
Navy 150 billion (where the Corps gets its 29 billion)
Air Force 170.5 billion
There is no logical reason the Army and Air Force can not function on the same 150 billion.
Savings 214 billion
With that give all branches the power to shop for themselves. That will compensate for the loss in funding.


Balance 1.170 trillion


5.7 billion to TSA The job was being done before we created homeland security.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5414&type=0
900 million in grants for DOT grant program
742.5 million from DOT for transit grants
10 to 30 billion for farm subsidies
15 tp 35 billion crop insurance, marketing support, and other services to farm businesses
100 billion in auto industry subsidies
34 billion in oil industry subsidies and tax breaks


Balance 984 billion
30 billion packs of cigarettes sold anually in the US. Federally taxed at 1.01 per pack. Apply tax to health care bill like they said it was for.
30.3 billion
17.670 billion gallons of soda drank in the US. 128 ounces in a gallon taxed at 3 cents per 12 ounces.
10.66 12 ounce taxable sizes per gallon. Thats 188,362,200,000 taxable units. Said tax was to pay for healthcare.
5.65 billion
Balance 948 billion
Pell grants 17.3 billion
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/bu...ons/p-pell.pdf
165.4 billion for r&d federal funding annually. Remove 65.4 and put and end to research like how often a roach farts.


Savings 65.4 billion


Savings so far 1.434.7 Trillion. Deficite repaid in 9.75 years adding an additional 200 billion to the budget after repayment.
13.6 billion on energy subsidies