• 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!

Should Taxes Be Raised On Citizens Who Smoke or are Obese?

Should Taxes Be Raised on Citizens Who Smoke or are Obese?

  • Yes for smokers, no for obese

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Yes for obese, no for smokers

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Yes for both

    Votes: 7 12.7%

  • No for both

    Votes: 46 83.6%
  • Total voters
    55
We should also raise taxes on women who've had abortions...............

And folks who drink too much coffee..........

Of course, when even THESE taxes aren't enough to feed the beast, we can just tax people for just being alive, since it invariably leads to their deaths...........
 
Why don't we start taxing people who want to butt their nose into how other people live their lives?
 
MarineTpartier said:
I saw this article and thought it would be a good poll. Personally, I don't see an issue with taxing smokers more especially. The article even points out that the poor smoke more than the rich.........how stupid is that? If you don't have any money, why are you doing something that is totally detrimental to your health and costs an arm and a leg? Full disclosure, I was a smoker and I dipped. I quit cold turkey in Afghanistan. By choice, not by circumstance. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. But I'm so glad I did it.
As far as obesity, it would have to be a little to technical to work. Personally, I don't accept any excuse for obesity other than a medical condition such as thyroid problems. It doesn't matter what your physical capabilities are. If you manage calories effectively, you can lose weight or at least maintain your current weight. You can call that harsh if you want and it may be. But it's true.
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense? | Fox News
Click to expand...

Obese people and smokers cost less, generally, than do healthy people over time.
The better question is, why don't we tax the healthy more?
 
ChezC3 said:
Why don't we start taxing people who want to butt their nose into how other people live their lives?
Click to expand...

I like this idea!
 
dont know about there but cigarettes and junk food is already taxed here. so no need to make any extra taxes its already done.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
I like this idea!
Click to expand...

Very kind of you to say...

I have come to believe that all this social media, this inter-weaving of everyone with everything at all times has done nothing but exacerbate what use to be generally speaking only a small town concern. That being we've turned the country into a nation of busy-bodies.
 
joko104 said:
Why?

Actually, I suspect BOTH cost LESS to taxpayers. Because they don't live as long on average.

All the "studies" on "costs" of smokers and obsese conveniently leave off all the 2 decades+ of social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps and all the rest that people who live really old cost.

ALSO... the MOST anti-smoking people are ex-smokers. There is limited benefit in quitting along the way - so some. In short, a "smokers tax" should be against ANYONE who ever smoked a cigarette, a cigar or pot in the person's lifetime.

As for obsesity, even being 20 pounds overweight is a known great health risk. Thus, anyone more than 5% over optimum weight (which tends to be very low) also then should pay the "obsesity" tax.

In short, 95% of Americans would just be taxed more. Which, of course, again, is liberal control freakish - for which they alway search for ways to exempt themselves.
Click to expand...

Obesity hasn't been shown to drastically lower life expectancy. While it greatly increases the risk for a heart attack, it paradoxically also increase the survival rate of a heart attack. What obesity does do, is drastically increase the prevalence of chronic diseases with which it is associated with. Considering that 75% of health care spending goes to chronic diseases, that is a huge amount of cost added on to the system.
 
No. We should have a pure flat tax. No deductions. No credits. No penalties. No exceptions.

Especially 'no' to this subject. What you do on your time should be your business.
 
ChezC3 said:
Very kind of you to say...

I have come to believe that all this social media, this inter-weaving of everyone with everything at all times has done nothing but exacerbate what use to be generally speaking only a small town concern. That being we've turned the country into a nation of busy-bodies.
Click to expand...

If I may... and condoned a government that wishes to interject itself into our personal lives in order to fund their gluttonous and wasteful spending on things to "protect us from ourselves"...
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
If I may... and condoned a government that wishes to interject itself into our personal lives in order to fund their gluttonous and wasteful spending on things to "protect us from ourselves"...
Click to expand...


oh, you may, you may... :)
 
MarineTpartier said:
This guarantees poor health. There is NO benefit to smoking.
Click to expand...

this isn't completely true. it does seem to have a protective effect against ulcerative colitis, a disease which often manifests in ex-smokers when they finally quit.

however, similar benefits may be achieved by chewing nicotine gum or by wearing a patch, so smoking is still not necessary.

study in mice : Nicotine suppresses ... [Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

The effect of smoking on intestinal inflamm... [J Crohns Colitis. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
 
You already have cig taxes, right?

Obesity is a more difficult one, taxes on purchased food items may correlate to level of eating, but not the exercise part.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I saw this article and thought it would be a good poll. Personally, I don't see an issue with taxing smokers more especially. The article even points out that the poor smoke more than the rich.........how stupid is that? If you don't have any money, why are you doing something that is totally detrimental to your health and costs an arm and a leg? Full disclosure, I was a smoker and I dipped. I quit cold turkey in Afghanistan. By choice, not by circumstance. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. But I'm so glad I did it.
As far as obesity, it would have to be a little to technical to work. Personally, I don't accept any excuse for obesity other than a medical condition such as thyroid problems. It doesn't matter what your physical capabilities are. If you manage calories effectively, you can lose weight or at least maintain your current weight. You can call that harsh if you want and it may be. But it's true.
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense? | Fox News
Click to expand...

Taxes, no. However, I do support health and life insurance companies giving deep annual rebates to the insured who meet healthy living benchmarks and support community health including:

  • *non-tobacco users
    *non-obese
    *low cholesterol
    *low triglycerides
    *regular blood donors
    *organ donor registrants
    *non-alcohol users
    *regular aerobic exercisers (joggers, swimmers, bikers, active health club members, etc.) demonstrated by low heart rate
    *non-recreational drug users
    *etc.
 
Obviously, since we're CONSTANTLY told how smoking takes 10 years off of one's life, smokers should be given a LUMP SUM DISTRIBUTION of their Social Security equal to 10 years, or be given a REDUCTION in their taxes, since their dying earlier obviously makes them less of a burden to the state..........
 
Wayno said:
Obviously, since we're CONSTANTLY told how smoking takes 10 years off of one's life, smokers should be given a LUMP SUM DISTRIBUTION of their Social Security equal to 10 years, or be given a REDUCTION in their taxes, since their dying earlier obviously makes them less of a burden to the state..........
Click to expand...
Hmmm...

...or, count this as their penalty and leave them the eff alone.

(I just don't get the desire to punish people and make their lives miserable by dictating and micro-managing... and from people who usually complain the loudest regarding how our society is becoming less free.)
 
radcen said:
Hmmm...

...or, count this as their penalty and leave them the eff alone.

(I just don't get the desire to punish people and make their lives miserable by dictating and micro-managing... and from people who usually complain the loudest regarding how our society is becoming less free.)
Click to expand...


Really.........

If all these things cost people their lives, and they die sooner, it reduces pay-outs from Social Security, and the system remains solvent longer.....

I say we ENCOURAGE this bad behavior.........
 
Dont know what everyone is dissembling for. Relax...they ARE going to tax smokers more. And the obese. And the healthy. And the breathing. Hell...they are even going to tax the dead more. No one is going to escape the axe.
 
One in Five be I (21%)
Taxes are already in place and rather high for the smoker; these people are so stupid and mindless that more taxes would NOT work.
On the obese....the fatties....increase the sugar tax....even the so-called diet drinks are dangerous...
We promoted smoking during the previous century...and are still reaping the negative results.
Our society laughs with and at the fat, and the clown....both are sad, truth be known...
I can see why 75% say NO to taxes.....but are they right ?
Neither group should be "punished", they suffer enough as it is..
Another approach is ???
 
VanceMack said:
Dont know what everyone is dissembling for. Relax...they ARE going to tax smokers more. And the obese. And the healthy. And the breathing. Hell...they are even going to tax the dead more. No one is going to escape the axe.
Click to expand...

And if we can get decent medical care, its worth it.
Right now, our health care is anything but, unless thousands of dollars are waved in front of faces....and even then this is not effective.
 
earthworm said:
And if we can get decent medical care, its worth it.
Right now, our health care is anything but, unless thousands of dollars are waved in front of faces....and even then this is not effective.
Click to expand...
Considering the medicare/medicaid abuses, SS abuses, and the general state of the federal government, you should be taxed extra for thinking this is somehow going to get 'better'. And heres the real pisser...if people cut back their excess to things they can AFFORD and werent taxed out the ass for any and everything under the sun, they could do what people USED to do...get their own insurance.
 
I voted no because the government always becomes dependent upon the funds. And what happens when the citizens follow the script of the social engineering and quit, get thinner? Vital social programs that were funded by those increased taxes either get cut or taxes raised for everyone.

Good example here in Oregon. They used a percentage increase in gas taxes to fund schools, all the while making great hay that folks should drive less, conserve more. Well, the people did, and because they did there was less income from the gas taxes all around. Every program dependent upon gas taxes sufferred.
 
clownboy said:
I voted no because the government always becomes dependent upon the funds. And what happens when the citizens follow the script of the social engineering and quit, get thinner? Vital social programs that were funded by those increased taxes either get cut or taxes raised for everyone.

Good example here in Oregon. They used a percentage increase in gas taxes to fund schools, all the while making great hay that folks should drive less, conserve more. Well, the people did, and because they did there was less income from the gas taxes all around. Every program dependent upon gas taxes sufferred.
Click to expand...
Meh. Exact same thing happens in private and pseudo-private industry.

Example: We're constantly encouraged to conserve energy in our homes, so we do, then we get a rate hike because revenue wasn't as high as wanted.
 
Absoultely, we should raise taxes on those who are too fat - or too skinny (anorexia is no joke),

those who engage in risky behavior (like smoking, bungee-jumping or walking at night in proximity to an Irish pub) - or don't get out enough and fail to enjoy life (they are probably depressed, and will require medical help at some point).

We should tax the hell out of drinkers - and out of tee-totalers as well (hello? ever heard about the health benefits of red wine?).

Coffee addicts should be taxed mercilessly (anyone who had ever been yelled at by an overcoffeinated boss will surely agree) - but so should be the irresponsible individuals who avoid coffee, with its well-known anti-cancer and liver-protection effects.

I mean, come ON! All these people do or don't do all these things, and I have to pay their medical bills later?

That's just not fair!

Shouldn't my taxes pay instead for all the other things I had never approved - like bombing some desert I cannot find on the map, or bailing out some well-connected bank that does something I cannot begin to understand, or supporting a Ponzi scheme of a pension fund that is untouchable because they have promised it to themselves?!
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
Why don't we start taxing people who want to butt their nose into how other people live their lives?
Click to expand...

Why don't we stop paying for irresponsible people's mistakes and medical care? I think you would find more of them than your suggested group of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom