http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4986003Oh my.
This is a v-e-r-y b-i-g bonfire, just simply enormous.
catnhatnh (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-05-09 11:36 AM
Original message
What a 2,158% tax increase means to my SS Disability...
There is no typo in my thread title and this is a fact-not some alarmist rant. I am a smoker. All smokers have been targeted by SCHIP to take an unfair hit. Manufactured cigarette taxes rise by 156% on April 1st. Who else has been targeted for such a hit? Why was alcohol not given it's share of the "sin tax" burden?
But for the poorest of us it is much worse.
Pushed by always rising costs of living, 2 years ago I turned to RYO (roll your own) for my habit. While cartons of cigarettes soared to over $40 per carton, I found that by purchasing pounds of loose tobacco and rolling my own I could reduce my cost to a more reasonable figure of $13-14 dollars per carton (tobacco at $19 per pound and paper tubes at $4 per 200). Of course I also had to buy a rolling machine ($45) and invest 1/2 hour a day to rolling...
Here are the SCHIP increases: Cigarettes were .39 per pack and rose .61 to $1.00 per pack-156% increase. By itself it reeks of unfairness. But loose tobacco- tax was $1.09 per pound, April 1st $23.53-A 2,158% increase...
Now let's look at absolute terms...A pound of tobacco makes about 2 cartons. A more affluent smoker who buys manufactured cigarettes will pay .61 more per pack. Less affluent RYO folks-A whopping $1.12 per pack!
My cost increase per year-$538.76.
You may not like smoking. I am myself happy to see millions more children insured. What it MEANS to me is making choices. 3.5% of my net annual income disappeared. I'll eat a little more poorly and do without a couple more "extras" and maybe even cut back on my smoking some.
But if "sharing the burdens" means doing this to the lowest income people while others "share the burden" by collecting "just" $500k, then something is seriously wrong.
The primitive comments are predictable, and then one runs into our esteemed colleague Lisa:
liberalhistorian (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-05-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
121. Exactly. I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of smokers crying poor.
Aside from all of the health hazards which it does no good to tell them anyway, and aside from the damage second-hand smoke does to so many people and not just those with respiratory problems, cigarettes are horrendously expensive. They were when I smoked before quitting twenty years ago, but they're far worse now. Why is it that those who cry poor always seem to have enough money for cigarettes?
catnhatnh (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-05-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #121
176. Why is it that those who use "Liberal" in their name...
Always seem to support using taxes to screw legal behaviors they don't approve of rather than working to ban the product that allows the behavior? Because I checked and I haven't found posts by you arguing for the outright banning of the sales and distribution of tobacco. Why have you never argued for lower tobacco taxes since you find them "horrendously expensive"? Why don't you address why a tax on me should increase 20 fold.
The nutty Ph.D. from Florida, the lying Lorien primitive:
Lorien (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-05-09 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #176
191. Her name isn't "LibertarianHistorian" so I see no hypocrisy here
smoking is an expensive and dangerous choice, not a necessity. I may really enjoy VanGogh Vodka but I'm not going to complain that it costs $32 a bottle and is therefore too expensive for me to drink daily. You can choose to pay the tax by buying cigarettes (which are in no way essential to your life-it's just a habit you enjoy, like my enjoyment of vodka once a year), OR you can choose not to pay the tax by not buying cigarettes. Personally I'm all for "luxury" taxes if they make essentials that everyone NEEDS more affordable.
liberalhistorian (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-05-09 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #176
216. I support lower taxes on items that are truly needed, such as certain food items, etc., but not for health-damaging items that are not needed that people choose to damage their health with, thereby increasing costs for the rest of us.
liberalhistorian (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-05-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #201
215. Look, I'm an ex-smoker, I know full well just how addicting it is and how hard it is to quit, believe me. I have little patience with those who've NEVER smoked who think it's just a matter of "just quitting", which it isn't. But I also know that it CAN BE DONE. It may take several tries (it took three times before I quit for good nineteen years ago), but it CAN be done. It is not a necessity or a need.
Somewhere in all this yelling-and-screaming, this primitive fracas, the bobbling primitive shows up:
bobbolink (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-05-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
203. "Why didn't they tax the fat in food? Everyone has to eat." WHY are you so tied to regressive taxes
???????????
THAT'S the real question.
What the hell has happened to "progressives" when all they can think of is regressive taxes???
REGRESSIVE TAXES ALWAYS HURT POOR PEOPLE MORE.
Why cannot any of you understand that?????????
The bobbling primitive smokes, by the way.
Our esteemed colleague Lisa makes the mistake of alleging toll taxes on roadways are not "voluntary" (i.e., one has no choice but to pay them) while tobacco taxes are voluntary, after which:
DrCory (434 posts) Thu Feb-05-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #160
210. A Necessity?
"I live in a very rural, isolated area where you MUST drive cars, there are no busses or taxis or anything like that."
Or a choice? Don't tell me you CANNOT relocate to an urban center where mass transit does exist.
As they say, where there's a will, there's a way.
liberalhistorian (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-05-09 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #210
218. LOL
Damn, some of you people are really hilarious.
Man, that's a big bonfire. Even if one quoted only the Primitives of Prominence, it'd still be too long to quote here.