The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on February 05, 2009, 06:43:17 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4986003
Oh 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.
-
Tax "THAT" dudes nasty, unhealthy habits to pay for mexican kids healthcare, NOT MINE.......DUmmies.
-
The cat-in-hat primitive should be happy he's paying more in taxes. That means more money for the gov't to take care of him from cradle to grave. I really don't understand why he's fussing.
Why is it that libs vote in individuals whose sole purpose in office is to tell them how to live their life, and then when they do tell them how to live their life they complain about it?
.
-
DUmmies don't like such "sin" taxes as what are applied to booze and smokes because they have to pay them, not out of any opposition to taxation in general.
-
If you don't smoke you're not paying for children's healthcare and that makes you unpatriotic.
Light-up for America's children you Obama haters!!!
-
It's ****ed up. I'm going to have to pay for some f'n kid's healthcare, that I did NOT produce, with something I do legally. Sin taxes are f'n unconstitutional as hell, IMO. "Uniform". That's the term used when determining taxes that the fed can levy. ....and no, a sin tax isn't ****ing uniform.
-
The DUmmies were all for SCHIP when Bush was in office. Now they don't like it.
Make up your damn mind.
-
Maybe they should raise all taxes by 2000%
just to be fair?
-
It's ****ed up. I'm going to have to pay for some f'n kid's healthcare, that I did NOT produce, with something I do legally. Sin taxes are f'n unconstitutional as hell, IMO. "Uniform". That's the term used when determining taxes that the fed can levy. ....and no, a sin tax isn't ****ing uniform.
Liberals always try to twist the meaning of the "general welfare" clause in the Bill of Rights to support their damn social programs. Welfare stops being general and becomes "specific" when it is provided unfairly and arbitrarily for one group and not another. All the federal programs of the last 70 years are questionable, at best, and unconstitutional at their worst.
-
Why is it that libs vote in individuals whose sole purpose in office is to tell them how to live their life, and then when they do tell them how to live their life they complain about it?
.
Several reasons, actually.
1) They are Teh Stoopid.
2) They feel as they should be doing the "telling how to live one's life," not the one listening to the screed. That's for eeeeeeevil Rethuglikkkans, don't 'cha know? :whatever:
-
Several reasons, actually.
1) They are Teh Stoopid.
2) They feel as they should be doing the "telling how to live one's life," not the one listening to the screed. That's for eeeeeeevil Rethuglikkkans, don't 'cha know? :whatever:
3) Liberalism truly is a mental disorder retardation.
-
DUmmie asks, Why was alcohol not given it's share of the "sin tax" burden?.......because, while only a few politicians may smoke, they all drink.
-
DUmmie asks, Why was alcohol not given it's share of the "sin tax" burden?.......because, while only a few politicians may smoke, they all drink.
Hi5!
-
And to think, our founding fathers overthrew an opressive government for taxes on tea.................
-
And to think, our founding fathers overthrew an opressive government for taxes on tea.................
I think tea was just the last straw. The Stamp Act probably pissed people off more. The Brits were trying to fund their homeland budget off the backs of the colonists. That would be like Congress taxing everyone in Puerto Rico and Guam to pay for our stimulus package.
I also notice Lisa supporting lowering taxes on food that everyone needs.... Since when are staple foods taxed anywhere in the US? Or does she consider MacDonalds a staple?
-
I also notice Lisa supporting lowering taxes on food that everyone needs.... Since when are staple foods taxed anywhere in the US? Or does she consider MacDonalds a staple?
In South Dakota, all food is taxed, including groceries.
It's a pretty high sales tax, but on the flip side of the coin, all other taxes in South Dakota are pretty low, and so it balances out.
What intrigued me about Lisa's comment was that she suggested the necessities of life be taxed at all (although at a lower rate).
What's up with that?
Some of us think the necessities of life shouldn't be taxed, even if minimally.
-
All so-called targeted taxes are a hit on someone. It's all a matter of who's ox is getting gored.
-
In South Dakota, all food is taxed, including groceries.
It's a pretty high sales tax, but on the flip side of the coin, all other taxes in South Dakota are pretty low, and so it balances out.
What intrigued me about Lisa's comment was that she suggested the necessities of life be taxed at all (although at a lower rate).
What's up with that?
Some of us think the necessities of life shouldn't be taxed, even if minimally.
I'm afraid I was a little unclear on that point on the thread. I also agree that the necessities of life shouldn't be taxed (even though, as you say, many of them are here in SD), but, in arguing with the jerk OP, it didn't come out right.
You are correct about the taxes here in SD, although you'd never know it by all the moaning and groaning and complaining. We don't even have a state income tax, which is one reason why sales taxes are higher than in a lot of other places. I like to point the complainers to my former state of OH, where there's a state income tax, the cost of living is much higher than it is here, unemployment is far higher (8, 9, 10, even 11 percent in some areas as opposed to three percent here statewide-hubby and I may both be out of work right now but it'll be easier to find something here than back in OH). And many of the complainers would be nothing and nowhere without the federal farm and ranch subsidies they receive courtesy of the very taxes they scream about. This state would be nothing without the federal money it receives.
BTW, where are y'all hidin' the Shout Box?????? :cheersmate:
-
.....hubby and I may both be out of work right now but it'll be easier to find something here than back in OH).
And many of the complainers would be nothing and nowhere without the federal farm and ranch subsidies they receive courtesy of the very taxes they scream about. This state would be nothing without the federal money it receives.
BTW, where are y'all hidin' the Shout Box?????? :cheersmate:
Well now, I'm glad that you and your worst half are going to stick it out in South Dakota for a while; I hope it pleases God that you're employed, and very well so, in a short time.
You know I mean that.
As for South Dakota and all its subsidies, that's generally true of all the underpopulated Great Plains states; there's more land out here than people to own it. That also explains high property taxes; there aren't many people, and so it's more lucrative to tax property rather than people.
We're in the shout box all the time, and in fact were there the last time you came here, talking about you. I was hoping your ears would burn, your radar would function, and that you'd come up. But alas you never came up.
However, all things said, it's good to see you again.
-
I think tea was just the last straw. The Stamp Act probably pissed people off more. The Brits were trying to fund their homeland budget off the backs of the colonists. That would be like Congress taxing everyone in Puerto Rico and Guam to pay for our stimulus package.
I also notice Lisa supporting lowering taxes on food that everyone needs.... Since when are staple foods taxed anywhere in the US? Or does she consider MacDonalds a staple?
All food is taxed in Kansas. If your income is low enough, you can get a refund from the state when you file your state income taxes. Coming from Nebraska, where food is not taxed, that really bugged me at first...but all the other taxes are lower here, so I think we pay a little bit less than the total in Nebraska.
-
Well now, I'm glad that you and your worst half are going to stick it out in South Dakota for a while; I hope it pleases God that you're employed, and very well so, in a short time.
You know I mean that.
As for South Dakota and all its subsidies, that's generally true of all the underpopulated Great Plains states; there's more land out here than people to own it. That also explains high property taxes; there aren't many people, and so it's more lucrative to tax property rather than people.
We're in the shout box all the time, and in fact were there the last time you came here, talking about you. I was hoping your ears would burn, your radar would function, and that you'd come up. But alas you never came up.
However, all things said, it's good to see you again.
That is definitely true about the property taxes and I understand where people are coming from in that respect. Just because you have a lot of land doesn't mean you automatically have a lot of money. There have been a lot of proposals to change the system; however, with each proposal, someone's ox would be gored and their complains stall any further attempts on that proposal. The problem is also that the East River legislators have more power than the West River ones, and the West River side is where most of the agricultural land is and ER legislators have little understanding of agricultural needs and the heavier burden the current property tax system puts on them.
I finally did find the SB just now; I was used to it coming up automatically.
-
All food is taxed in Kansas. If your income is low enough, you can get a refund from the state when you file your state income taxes. Coming from Nebraska, where food is not taxed, that really bugged me at first...but all the other taxes are lower here, so I think we pay a little bit less than the total in Nebraska.
We have a 6% food tax, an 8% prepared-food tax, and a 2% restaurant (the eat-in tax) on top of our 9.25% sales tax. And if you're visiting from out of town and have to take a crap after eating all that food, the state city has also imposed a new hotel tax on your room.
-
companies that produce food are taxed, stores that sell food are taxed. Those taxes are incorporated into the price of food.
-
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?
horrendously expensive 20 years ago ?
20 years ago you could walk into a Stop n' Go, buy a six-pack and a pack of smokes, pay with a 5 dollar bill
and get back change. Here in Texas anyway.
-
horrendously expensive 20 years ago ?
20 years ago you could walk into a Stop n' Go, buy a six-pack and a pack of smokes, pay with a 5 dollar bill
and get back change. Here in Texas anyway.
There was a piece in yesterday's New York Post how, in Manhattan, a pack of smokes will set you back an official portrait of Alexander Hamilton. One pack.
-
There was a piece in yesterday's New York Post how, in Manhattan, a pack of smokes will set you back an official portrait of Alexander Hamilton. One pack.
Yep and about 80% of that is taxes. Right now in Texas about 70% of the price of a pack of smokes is taxes.
-
horrendously expensive 20 years ago ?
20 years ago you could walk into a Stop n' Go, buy a six-pack and a pack of smokes, pay with a 5 dollar bill
and get back change. Here in Texas anyway.
LOL, well, I guess it was different in Ohio; they were more expensive than that (although certainly cheaper than they are today, no question). Then again, when you're a broke college student, EVERYTHING seems horrendously expensive. I guess it's all in the perspective.
-
Maybe they should raise all taxes by 2000%
just to be fair?
Take a tax poll - those who don't pay 2000% increase in taxes are NOT patriotic by their co-fuhrer biden's mark. Just like the fuhrer's cabinet picks.
-
horrendously expensive 20 years ago ?
20 years ago you could walk into a Stop n' Go, buy a six-pack and a pack of smokes, pay with a 5 dollar bill
and get back change. Here in Texas anyway.
When I was in my teens, you could buy them from a vending machine for 50 cents a pack.
-
Yep and about 80% of that is taxes. Right now in Texas about 70% of the price of a pack of smokes is taxes.
Our esteemed colleague NateRiver posted somewhere here about the taxes on things; the total taxes, not just the obvious ones, and apparently 81% of the cost of cigarettes is in taxes, the other 19% in raw materials and labor.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,22047.0.html
edited to include link; it's very illuminating
-
LOL, well, I guess it was different in Ohio; they were more expensive than that (although certainly cheaper than they are today, no question). Then again, when you're a broke college student, EVERYTHING seems horrendously expensive. I guess it's all in the perspective.
Correct, 20 years ago I was in the 2nd year of the job I have now. Back then I was working 9 departing flights in an 8 hour
shift making $6.50 an hour. Today I work around 60 flights a shift, and the paycheck has gone up quite a bit too. :-)