beer here has way more tax. I am fine with the tax on the harmfull things, but it the govt is going to tell you whats bad for you, why not ban it? trafic laws, you have to wear a helmet on a bike, all keeping people safe, then here this is unsafe, pay more???? makes no sense. then again most of what govts do makes no sense.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:05:03 PM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | On the first point I seriously doubt that. And I am opposed to all the extra taxes on tobbaco. If tobbaco, why not anything risky? A beer has as much tax on it as orange juice. Logic? Search me.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | on your first point, most studies here say that the tax on cigs doesnt pay all the cost of extra health care
on point 2, your right, and its oneof the dumbest laws writen that way. wonder what would happen if a 17 year old was smoking in a car alone. its against the law to smoke in a car with a minor, but ok for that minor to smoke? probably a ticket in that.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I can buy cigarettes or not. If I buy them, I pay the tax as a part of the price. And what do you mean with "keeping up with the cost"?
As for the thing with minors and cars and smoking... Every age limit is by itself discriminatory. That example just goes to show that, and it shows an example of a really stupid law.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
