• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Passes 2009 SCHIP Bill

Children being educated benefits society as a whole.

How does children being healthy benefit society as a whole? The idea that some childless smoker has to pay for someone who makes $50,000 a year kids' doctor's check ups is outrageous.

Now would be a good time to write a book about growing your own tobacco.
 
I could see public funding for public healthcare... but to target smokers... I honestly don't effing get it.
 
danarhea said:
That's right. You heard it correctly. The Federal government is about to put a 61 cent tax on each pack of cigarettes in order to pay for the SCHIP program. Taxes will also be levied on cigars, smokeless tobacco, and all other tobacco products. This means that, if you are a smoker, or if you chew, the government is going to take more money out of your pocket and give it to someone else.

Now Bush had his problems (a whole crapload of them), but at least he vetoed this theft of money from taxpayers last year after Congress passed it. But there is a new moneygrubber in town, and his name is Obama.

Article is here.

An excellent editorial about what SCHIP means for smokers is here.

The Senate is taking up the bill right now, and if you are against the Federal government redistributing YOUR money to others, now is the time to let your Senator know that a vote for this bill means one less vote for him when he comes up for reelection.
Click to expand...

And I am supposed to feel sorry for people who put cancer sticks in their mouth and subject those around them, INCLUDING children, to the poison they emit?

NOT!
 
Ikari said:
No, if they want to fund it, they should levy the tax to everyone. Not target specific socially demonized groups to pay for other groups of people. If you're all for SCHIP, then you should be all for bucking up the money yourself to pay for it.
Click to expand...

So, are you then against ALL excise taxes?

No more gasoline taxes?
No more rooms/meals taxes?

Etc.....
 
ludahai said:
And I am supposed to feel sorry for people who put cancer sticks in their mouth and subject those around them, INCLUDING children, to the poison they emit?

NOT!
Click to expand...

I suppose we should tax those who CHOOSE to buy soda in order to fund SCHIP instead. Don't bother consenting to it though, it doesnt matter.

How about we tax fast food as well?
 
Middleground said:
That's pretty much how I see it, too. Plus, hitting the pocketbook of smokers will likely reduce the amount of smokers, so it's all in the benefit of health.

Here in Canada, smokes are almost $10.00 a pack. A lot of that is tax money that goes into our universal healthcare system.
Click to expand...

Taiwan just doubled cigarette taxes and passed stringent new anti-smoking regulations. It is already starting to have an effect. I know several business owners who have already reported INCREASED business because the majority of people who are non-smokers now feel they can take their families to areas they had reservations about before - even though two of those businesses had already banned smoking on their premisis.
 
ludahai said:
Taiwan just doubled cigarette taxes and passed stringent new anti-smoking regulations. It is already starting to have an effect. I know several business owners who have already reported INCREASED business because the majority of people who are non-smokers now feel they can take their families to areas they had reservations about before - even though two of those businesses had already banned smoking on their premisis.
Click to expand...

In washington they placed a ban on smoking in resteraunts, bars, and lounges. 4 pubs and 2 small resteraunts shut down for lack of business.
 
Shewter said:
I suppose we should tax those who CHOOSE to buy soda in order to fund SCHIP instead. Don't bother consenting to it though, it doesnt matter.

How about we tax fast food as well?
Click to expand...

Fine. Except that neither soda nor fast food emits a poison that those around the consumer also intake as well.
 
ludahai said:
Fine. Except that neither soda nor fast food emits a poison that those around the consumer also intake as well.
Click to expand...

I've still yet to see anyone be harmed by 2nd hand smoke.

:2wave:

And obviously you've never experienced a McDonalds fart. :mrgreen:
 
americanwoman said:
So what happens when they grow up so healthy they don't smoke and there is no money left to fund the very program that made them so healthy? :2razz:
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. It is one thing to tax something under the guise of discouraging usage and it is another thing to fund a program(especially one with increasing cost) with a shrinking revenue source. Because as soon as tobacco stops producing the desired revenue needed they are going to find something else to increases taxes on.
 
danarhea said:
That's right. You heard it correctly. The Federal government is about to put a 61 cent tax on each pack of cigarettes in order to pay for the SCHIP program. Taxes will also be levied on cigars, smokeless tobacco, and all other tobacco products. This means that, if you are a smoker, or if you chew, the government is going to take more money out of your pocket and give it to someone else.

Now Bush had his problems (a whole crapload of them), but at least he vetoed this theft of money from taxpayers last year after Congress passed it. But there is a new moneygrubber in town, and his name is Obama.
Click to expand...

My first thought is YAY!! Kids need health care and SCHIP has been a good program. IMO, it needs to be funded.

The idea of the government targeting smokers gives me pause because I'm not sure of their motives. The article wasn't clear.

If smokers are being targeted because government is viewing smoking as punishable, then yes, I do have a problem with that reasoning. I'm not keen on the government deciding my morality. That was one of my biggest issues with the Bush administration.

Right now I'm going to stick with "YAY" because SCHIP is needed so badly.

I am going to make some calls to try to find out what the reasoning was behind it.
 
jamesrage said:
My sentiments exactly. It is one thing to tax something under the guise of discouraging usage and it is another thing to fund a program(especially one with increasing cost) with a shrinking revenue source. Because as soon as tobacco stops producing the desired revenue needed they are going to find something else to increases taxes on.
Click to expand...

Then good? If a large majority of the country's children one day grow up under a specific standard, then their respective children will probably not need the program that their parents went through.

And I'm all for taxing smokers, personally. Should one group have to suffer for no apparent reason? No, but there is a reason here and I'd consider it payback since smokers put pollutants into the air that we all breathe in, not just them. There's second-hand AND third-hand smoke that are quite dangerous and lowers life expectancy. Why should they be taxed for something that doesn't benefit them? Why should I have to breathe their polluted air?
 
danarhea said:
Because it takes money from one group of citizens and gives it to another. That is clearly a form of Socialism.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what taxing people in general does?
 
Shewter said:
In washington they placed a ban on smoking in resteraunts, bars, and lounges. 4 pubs and 2 small resteraunts shut down for lack of business.
Click to expand...

Is that number of businesses that closed supposed to be "high"?
 
aps said:
Is that number of businesses that closed supposed to be "high"?
Click to expand...

That's funny, because I have two friends who own restaurants and they tell me business is UP since the recent ban on smoking in restaurant and other public spaces took effect in Taiwan a little more than two weeks ago.
 
I, personally, would be more likely to go to a restaurant that didn't have smoking than one that did. Although it takes forever to get that stench out of the walls, floor, etc. I don't even see why smokers want to be in an environment like that. It's not like breathing smoke in that manner is enjoyable for anyone. I'm sure if smokers wanted to be "breathing smoke" they'd be puffing their own ciggs, not leeching off people's leftover waste smoke.
 
sazerac said:
Children being educated benefits society as a whole.

How does children being healthy benefit society as a whole? The idea that some childless smoker has to pay for someone who makes $50,000 a year kids' doctor's check ups is outrageous.

Now would be a good time to write a book about growing your own tobacco.
Click to expand...

Stopping education money from being wasted? For example you can have a smart kid, but because he doesn't get the health care he needs he will be sick for two years. This means both that he can't concentrate in class but also miss a lot of lessons. That means he will be far behind the other kids and don't get in to college even if he has the brains for it.

If a child doesn't get proper health care it can also increase the risk that his illness becomes chronic. This means that he will hard time with a regular job and making a carrier then he grows up because of the illness. This means that education he has gotten isn't used efficiently.
 
ludahai said:
That's funny, because I have two friends who own restaurants and they tell me business is UP since the recent ban on smoking in restaurant and other public spaces took effect in Taiwan a little more than two weeks ago.
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

To summarize, numerous studies using objective measures of economic activity have been done over the past 10+ years looking at the impact of local, state, or national smoke-free policies on restaurants, bars, and tourism. From small towns such as West Lake Hills, Texas,52 to large cities like New York,38,53,54 in states as diverse as Arkansas,55 Oregon,56 and Texas,57 the vast majority of studies find that there is no negative economic impact of clean indoor air policies, with many finding that there may be some positive effects on local businesses (see Scollo and Lal58 for a comprehensive review of studies published through mid-2005). While the early evidence is mixed on the impact on gaming establishments, the recent expansion of smoke-free policies to cover these venues will provide new natural experiments for researchers to examine.

The Economic Impact of Clean Indoor Air Laws -- Eriksen and Chaloupka 57 (6): 367 -- CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
Click to expand...

This article provides footnotes on the various studies that have been conducted addressing the economic impact of smoke-free air laws. It's very interesting.
 
ludahai said:
So, are you then against ALL excise taxes?

No more gasoline taxes?
No more rooms/meals taxes?

Etc.....
Click to expand...

For the most part, it depends on what the taxes go to fund. Say gas tax goes to roads and bridges and such, that's mostly going to be appropriate (assuming the tax isn't too high). Taxing smokers to pay for child's health care...no, that's no where close to appropriate.
 
aps said:
That doesn't surprise me in the least.



This article provides footnotes on the various studies that have been conducted addressing the economic impact of smoke-free air laws. It's very interesting.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's worth infringing upon private property rights. Most restaurants were headed in the no-smoking direction anyway, so they would have done it themselves. And bars should definitely be able to set their own rules. There wasn't really a problem before and now we've authorized government to act against property rights. It's not something to feel good about, it's merely further destruction of the Republic.
 
Ikari said:
For the most part, it depends on what the taxes go to fund. Say gas tax goes to roads and bridges and such, that's mostly going to be appropriate (assuming the tax isn't too high). Taxing smokers to pay for child's health care...no, that's no where close to appropriate.
Click to expand...

So, what do you think the rooms/meals tax in NH pays for?
 
I have no idea what that is or what it pays for, but it sounds fishy.

If I had to guess, I'd say it sounds like a tax on people visiting NH and staying in motels and such. If it pays for public parks and such...it would almost seem justifiable. But State parks should be paid by the citizens of the State, not outsiders. But as I said, not really sure what the tax is or what it pays for. It would be a little suspect if it really was something meant to tax only visitors to the State.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I have no idea what that is or what it pays for, but it sounds fishy.

If I had to guess, I'd say it sounds like a tax on people visiting NH and staying in motels and such. If it pays for public parks and such...it would almost seem justifiable. But State parks should be paid by the citizens of the State, not outsiders. But as I said, not really sure what the tax is or what it pays for. It would be a little suspect if it really was something meant to tax only visitors to the State.
Click to expand...

It is put in the general fund. NH has no state income or sales tax due to constitutional prohibition.

As for NHs parks, A LOT of out-of-staters use NH parks. Tourism is a large industry in NH. Why SHOULDN'T out of staters contribute to paying for their upkeep?
 
With all this talk of the post office shutting down for a day due to mismanagment and the economy. We should expect the same level of service from government in healthcare.


Careful. Sometimes we get excactly what we ask for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom