• 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
Smeagol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great points all.
 
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...

More than half the cost of a pack of cigarettes is taxes. You know why? To offset the cost of health insurance. It's already paid for and covered; government just wants more.
 
Ikari said:
More than half the cost of a pack of cigarettes is taxes. You know why? To offset the cost of health insurance. It's already paid for and covered; government just wants more.
Click to expand...
I guess the mistake I made with this thread is not clarifying that we are talking about a fantasy world where the increased taxes would actually go towards the healthcare for the side effects of the product being bought. My bust lol.
 
Good evening, Ikari.
Government always wants more! It's what governments do. Many run for office by saying they "want to serve," but we don't learn about their CAPABILITY to serve until after they are elected. Then we see in many cases they hope to serve only themselves. As an example, they voted for sequester, but now their time is spent trying to avoid the cuts they voted for just a few months ago. :-(
I thought taxing tanning beds was off-the-wall, since it's obviously discriminatory, but I might have guessed that more was on the way.
 
The results of the poll taken above are interesting. Most people said NO to taxing either smokers or the obese! How many more people would the government have to hire to handle that tax situation? Maybe people are weary of government meddling in order to grow larger and larger?
 
polgara said:
The results of the poll taken above are interesting. Most people said NO to taxing either smokers or the obese! How many more people would the government have to hire to handle that tax situation? Maybe people are weary of government meddling in order to grow larger and larger?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's not about the taxation and more about the moralization...................just wondering...........................
 
polgara said:
The results of the poll taken above are interesting. Most people said NO to taxing either smokers or the obese! How many more people would the government have to hire to handle that tax situation? Maybe people are weary of government meddling in order to grow larger and larger?
Click to expand...

There are already new tax penalties on smokers incorporated into PPACA to the tune of thousands of $$ per year...
 
Last edited:
Bonzai said:
Maybe it's not about the taxation and more about the moralization...................just wondering...........................
Click to expand...
My question is how many of the users who voted no are also fat and/or smokers.
 
MarineTpartier said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're not.
Smokers and the obese tend to cost less over time, than do healthy people.
Diseases related to old age, cost a lot more than diseases, related to obesity and smoking.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You're not.
Smokers and the obese tend to cost less over time, than do healthy people.
Diseases related to old age, cost a lot more than diseases, related to obesity and smoking.
Click to expand...
So we should set a death date? Getting old is a way of life. Someone smoking a pack a day when they're living on the gov't dime anyway or stuffing their fat face with no remorse is not. It's irresponsible. I'll gladly pay the medical costs of a 90 year old guy who took care of himself and made it that far. No issues. I have an issue with watching a guy ride around with a disabled tag on his car smoking and stuffing his face with McDonalds. I know this seems that I am advocating for more gov't interference, and maybe I am, which is against my principles. But watching these people who would have never been on disability before the recession sucking down Marlboro's and Big Macs while they stand in line for their gov't subsidized prescription pisses me off. You know what I'm saying?
 
MarineTpartier said:
So we should set a death date? Getting old is a way of life. Someone smoking a pack a day when they're living on the gov't dime anyway or stuffing their fat face with no remorse is not. It's irresponsible. I'll gladly pay the medical costs of a 90 year old guy who took care of himself and made it that far. No issues. I have an issue with watching a guy ride around with a disabled tag on his car smoking and stuffing his face with McDonalds. I know this seems that I am advocating for more gov't interference, and maybe I am, which is against my principles. But watching these people who would have never been on disability before the recession sucking down Marlboro's and Big Macs while they stand in line for their gov't subsidized prescription pisses me off. You know what I'm saying?
Click to expand...

I understand to a degree, but these people tend to cost less.
So them smoking/overeating is going to off them faster.
 
I don't particularly like to see any product taxed at a different level than any other product but I'd much prefer that to taxing particular people at a different level simply because of their vices or physicality.

From my perspective, in western society today, many children are raised to be obese in that their parents feed them unhealthy, empty calories, simply because they're easy, with little or no preparation, and as a result children are trained from an early age to eat poorly. It's like fattening a calf for slaughter.

Smokers, on the other hand, make their own decision to pick up the habit, so I have less sympathy there.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't particularly like to see any product taxed at a different level than any other product but I'd much prefer that to taxing particular people at a different level simply because of their vices or physicality.

From my perspective, in western society today, many children are raised to be obese in that their parents feed them unhealthy, empty calories, simply because they're easy, with little or no preparation, and as a result children are trained from an early age to eat poorly. It's like fattening a calf for slaughter.

Smokers, on the other hand, make their own decision to pick up the habit, so I have less sympathy there.
Click to expand...

You were doing okay until you got to this point. Smoking is just as much a part of the environment in which a person was raised as are eating habits.

Good evening jcj...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You were doing okay until you got to this point. Smoking is just as much a part of the environment in which a person was raised as are eating habits.

Good evening jcj...
Click to expand...

Good evening V1.1 - I was raised in a family where my father smoked and my mother didn't - I and my three brothers don't smoke and never did - one brother married a smoker and she had two children neither of which smoke and both of whom shamed her into quiting. I don't believe that you can equate the need to eat and being fed as a child to being raised in a home where someone smokes - I agree both can lead to addictions, but only one case is a function of survival.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't particularly like to see any product taxed at a different level than any other product but I'd much prefer that to taxing particular people at a different level simply because of their vices or physicality.

From my perspective, in western society today, many children are raised to be obese in that their parents feed them unhealthy, empty calories, simply because they're easy, with little or no preparation, and as a result children are trained from an early age to eat poorly. It's like fattening a calf for slaughter.

Smokers, on the other hand, make their own decision to pick up the habit, so I have less sympathy there.
Click to expand...

Actually, our bodies and tastes have evolved to favor fat, salt and sugar. Those evolutionary tilts developed during an epoch of scarcity and poor survival odds.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good evening V1.1 - I was raised in a family where my father smoked and my mother didn't - I and my three brothers don't smoke and never did - one brother married a smoker and she had two children neither of which smoke and both of whom shamed her into quiting. I don't believe that you can equate the need to eat and being fed as a child to being raised in a home where someone smokes - I agree both can lead to addictions, but only one case is a function of survival.
Click to expand...

I didn't restrict my reasoning to the home environment. I has to do with the overarching environment in which a person is raised...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I didn't restrict my reasoning to the home environment. I has to do with the overarching environment where a person is raised...
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that there are environmental impacts on someone taking up smoking, such as peer pressure, etc. - the point I was trying to make is that parenting provides learned behaviors that are carried through life and what a child eats in his/her early years often sets their palate and tastes for the rest of their lives - what you learn when you're under 5-6 yrs old stays with you forever - I don't believe anyone takes up smoking or is pressured to smoke as a child.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't disagree that there are environmental impacts on someone taking up smoking, such as peer pressure, etc. - the point I was trying to make is that parenting provides learned behaviors that are carried through life and what a child eats in his/her early years often sets their palate and tastes for the rest of their lives - what you learn when you're under 5-6 yrs old stays with you forever - I don't believe anyone takes up smoking or is pressured to smoke as a child.
Click to expand...

I smoked my first when I was six...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom