Posted on 11/12/2007 7:28:40 AM PST by Invisigoth
How would you feel about a $9.589 billion tax increase? Wait. It’s a cigarette tax increase.
Oh. Well, you say. That’s different.
That’s what the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate are counting on you to think. Not all Americans are reflexively opposed to tax increases, but among those who are, opposition tends to be far less ferocious when you are convinced you will not be the one paying.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
Forget smokers sitting in the back of the bus (Rosa Parks). Smokers are not even allowed on a bus.
It appears times have changed considerably in the last 60+ years when 70% of the population smoked.
“1. I believe the statement I made. Smoking is stupid. If that offends you, too bad.”
I’m not offended. I think this article is stupid so same to ya.
I’m not in agreement with you because you seem to think if were not “economically destructive” it would be OK to single out a small segment of the population, the less desirables, to levy taxes against to support government programs for a larger segment.
“2. Rhetorical technique. If I get bogged down trying to defend smoking, I lose the argument, and that’s not the point I really care about anyway. So I concede that point, taking that issue away from the other side, and get to the real issue which is the economic destructiveness of the tax.”
There’s no reason here to defend the act of smoking. Nobody is suggesting you should. If your opinion on the matter of tax is accurate, there would be no need to defend or admonish the act of smoking, yet you spend damn near half an article doing so.
“The problem with cigarette tax is not that it’s unfair.”
Again, I am calling BS on that. The unfairness IS a major problem.
How about this jewel?
“I have little sympathy for the argument that cigarette taxes unfairly target smokers. Smokers unfairly target themselves by smoking. I would say they should just stop doing it, thus avoiding the tax, but they can’t because they’re addicted to nicotine.”
You know, I just unfairly target myself for taxes by making and spending too much money. Were I not addicted to this extra cash, I would just quit my job and go on welfare to avoid the taxes. That seems to be the type behavior you are suggesting
I take you are perfectly OK with government regulating a free people’s behavior through taxation, if it’s not “economically destructive”.
How about: Any politician who votes to increase taxes on tobacco will be forced to smoke.
Writers can’t afford thin skins; smoking is an individual choice, not a group sport or a political movement or an evaluation of the order of the universe.
When you tax smokers as a group, criticize them as a group and then label them all as stupid because you think that making harmful choices are creating harm to all, then you are not allowing for those individuals to be measured in turn.
During the Manhattan Project, it was noted that the majority of the scientists on board were smokers and they guzzled coffee, stayed up until weird hours of the night and partied like drunken sailors from time to time; now, that’s stupid.
You’re right. Writers can’t afford thin skins. Then we would be like smokers!
I am criticizing a form of behavior. I find it stupid. I am also criticizing the notion that this stupidity justifies taxing it.
Then you fell into a deep hole by devoting a large part of your column to insulting and denigrating this same group, to your discredit.
It was an unappealing and unnecessary piling on, and only fuels incivility.
There is pure genius in this idea! Genius!
Well, part of my argument is that it’s not a good idea to levy a specific tax on a particular behavior just because it is stupid.
Making that argument requires me to establish that the behavior in question is, indeed, stupid.
Smoking is your choice. No argument. But have to expect you’re going to be criticized for it. It comes with the territory. If you think that somehow violates your rights, you’re no different from an atheist who doesn’t want to look at a nativity scene becaus it offends him.
Life in the big city. Make your choices, be prepared to take the heat.
My problems with his article aside, you are a good man for coming here and discussing it with us. Shows character, for what it’s worth.
The "territory" has been created by money-hungry grant junkies and bureaucracies. The feeding frenzy that's ensued has been cheered and encouraged by tranforming the idea of "individuals who happen to smoke" into "smokers." It's a dehumanizing process, and ultimately does as much damage to the attackers as it does to the attacked.
If you think that somehow violates your rights, you’re no different from an atheist who doesn’t want to look at a nativity scene becaus it offends him.
Where did you get the idea that I felt my rights were violated? Disagreeing with what you say hardly translates into my shrieking about my rights being violated.
Life in the big city. Make your choices, be prepared to take the heat.
Good grief. You are full of yourself, aren't you?
Thank you very much. I appreciate your saying that.
What especially dislike is the utter hypocrisy in declaring these increased cigarette taxes are for “health” reasons. If one is to believe that second hand smoke alone is killing babies in their beds and filling up our hospitals than anything less than seeking a total ban on smoking would be unthinkable. Yet no one dare go this route because of the billions of dollars in easy to get tax revenue cigarettes generate for both state and federal coffers. Cigarette taxes are the ultimate death tax.
And when people stop eating cheeseburgers, they'll tax something else.
The real problem here is that government is addicted to OUR money.
A liberal thinks he can win the game.
Triple that. I get a kick out of these ba$tards that try their best to write an article or column fair to smokers, but their rabid hatred is so great, they just can’t manage to do it. I’d rather they just kept their mouths shut.
Just about anyone in the media is a biased scumbag, you should know that by now, Madame.
Well it is a consumption tax, that is only paid by those who choose to voluntarily partake....I'm for it.
And that includes most of Fox news. I keep telling everyone, other than John Gibson, Shepard Smith (doesn’t like smoking, but hates the anti’s hypocrisy), they hate us too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.