[gondramB]

I can make an argument that , if taxes need to be collected, it makes sense to target those products that cost society (and the government) money.

Like entrance fees for federal parks that are expensive to maintain.

And taxes on cigarettes that cost us a great deal of money for health insurance and lost productivity.

[microgood]

And taxes on cigarettes that cost us a great deal of money for health insurance and lost productivity.

This is not true. If you look at how much more smokers pay in taxes than other people, they pay way more than any offset in their costs.

In addition, they tend to die earlier saving both Medicare and Social Security costs. What they usually die of is the same thing that overweight people or people who do not exercise do, heart or cardiovascular related illnesses.

In addition, more people die from obesity than smoking related illnesses and most cancer is genetic so people with cancer who have children greatly affect the cost of health care for all of us. It is just easy to pick on smokers because they are a minority.

It is also very regressive in that it affects the lower incomes way more than anyone else. Ironically, it is a lie which the liberals have been promoting and now it looks like the the Republicans are doing it.

Government officials are similar to crack addicts in that they will do or say anything to get their fix. One thing you can count on with government: everything they say is a lie. Everything.

[woofer]

I can make an argument that , if taxes need to be collected, it makes sense to target those products that cost society (and the government) money.

Just remember how all that lottery money the state(s) were gonna get and how it was gonna be for "education" and how that would lower your tax bill.

Every one of those states that presented that argument kept the part about lottery revenue going to the education fund, put neglected to actually lower your taxes.

Expect the same to happen with this. It won't lower your taxes one thin dime.

It's just another thinly disguised tax increase aimed at a group that's politically OK to attack.

[uncbob]

And taxes on cigarettes that cost us a great deal of money for health insurance and lost productivity.

Nah smokers die earlier thus saving social security while those that lead the good life live longer and deplete social security and medicare longer

By your logic tax the hell out of fast foor restaurants and candy etc etc

[diogenes ghost]

Nothing conservative about this tax you support, so I guess you would put it under "reactionary", hence a negative doctrine?

[drt1]

"I can make an argument that , if taxes need to be collected, it makes sense to target those products that cost society (and the government) money."

Yeah. Those are known as User Fees and, if carried to a logical outcome, these proposed tobacco taxes should go towards defraying the costs to Smokers arising from their consumption of the taxed commodity. Instead these greedy Pols will use it to buy more influence with their chosen recipients of Pork and other discretionary favors. A corrupt practice if you ask me but what else is new in the era of Big Gov't?

[ChildOfThe60s]

I can make an argument that , if taxes need to be collected, it makes sense to target those products that cost society (and the government) money.

You can say it, but it is a hollow argument. And a slope so steep and slippery that there is literally no limit to the things you could apply that "reasoning" to.

The purpose of the guberment is to provide for the domestic security of the nation, and a limited, defined set of necessities. It is NOT the job, the duty, the prerogative, or the guberment's business to tax based on someone's idea of what is good for everyone one else. Taxes are to be assesed to fund the subjects I have mentioned. That's all.

[SCALEMAN]

I can make an argument that , if taxes need to be collected, it makes sense to target those products that cost society (and the government) money. Like entrance fees for federal parks that are expensive to maintain. And taxes on cigarettes that cost us a great deal of money for health insurance and lost productivity.

Thats the same BS they rammed down our throats when they sued the tobacco companies. None of the money went to my healthcare and no 'cessation' clinics were started. All of the money went to general revenue.

This is just another revenue grab and they will use people like you to do it.

[tacticalogic]

I can make an argument that , if taxes need to be collected, it makes sense to target those products that cost society (and the government) money.

Yes you can. And you can eventually end up with government involved in every aspect of your life determining what taxes to levy on you in pursuit of a perfectly equitable society, as determined by politicians and the special interest groups they represent.

[Mears]

Baloney!

[elkfersupper]

I can make an argument that , if taxes need to be collected, it makes sense to target those products that cost society (and the government) money.

What products cost society (and the government) money?

[CSM]

"And taxes on cigarettes that cost us a great deal of money for health insurance and lost productivity."

Please offer actual proof of this assertion. In reality, this is the logic that lead the the MSA with most of the states, now that money is being used in the general funds or for just plain vote buying. If the costs you describe truly existed, then the money would be being spent on these items now. Since the costs still "exist" after the MSA, then the states must not be using that revenue on these costs. Therefore, they must not be a legitimate liability to the states.