One Tax I can fully support

[Archaea]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298663,00.html

Now whether that source of funding is sufficient for aggressive government intervention is unknown to me. But anything attacking smoking gets a thumbs up from me.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'm with you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I'm with you.

The article disturbs me though; it makes the argument, but the poor smoke more so it hits them disproportionately. In the minds of some people, anything that hits the poor is bad, even if the reason poor are more effected is due to their bad decisions, such as deciding to smoke.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The article disturbs me though; it makes the argument, but the poor smoke more so it hits them disproportionately. In the minds of some people, anything that hits the poor is bad, even if the reason poor are more effected is due to their bad decisions, such as deciding to smoke.

It doesn't disturb me, as if it's true that the poor smoke more, then they ought to pay for it. Instead of spending money on tobacco, spend it on fruits and vegetables for their kids for better health.

[YOhio]

I'm surprised that two of the more conservative posters here are supporting increased government intervention into the private lives of U.S. citizens. Especially when it's used as rationale to fund a socialized medicine scheme.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I'm surprised that two of the more conservative posters here are supporting increased government intervention into the private lives of U.S. citizens. Especially when it's used as rationale to fund a socialized medicine scheme.

You ignored my caveat that I was uncertain as to the viability of using it as a funding mechanism, especially in light of the question whether true elasticity of sin taxes exist. And once trapped, other funding mechanisms will be employed. However, using this sin tax to fund public projects, if reliable, doesn't offend me.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I'm surprised that two of the more conservative posters here are supporting increased government intervention into the private lives of U.S. citizens. Especially when it's used as rationale to fund a socialized medicine scheme.

I've always been consistent in my comments that I don't want my taxes raised.

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You ignored my caveat that I was uncertain as to the viability of using it as a funding mechanism, especially in light of the question whether true elasticity of sin taxes exist. And once trapped, other funding mechanisms will be employed. However, using this sin tax to fund public projects, if reliable, doesn't offend me.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I've always been consistent in my comments that I don't want my taxes raised.

If you two wise conservatives see the light on this one, I'm left to wonder why Dubya is going to use a rare veto on it.

Let's see if this sin tax works and allows for more kids be able to go to the Dr and maybe hiking up the price on the poison sticks will get more people to quit

to hell with the scum who side with big tobacco