Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

I don't think 'plugging' budget holes with new taxes is a very smart decision; better to sew that hole together.  I think the US has seen 60 years of plugging budget holes with new taxes and printing, yet our debt increases inexorably.  States don't get it quite so easy, but the pattern is the same.  Organizations nearly always expand if they can.  I don't see government expansion as a certain good and taxes generally are a bad thing.

The current budget hole was caused by a record-breakingly harsh winter last year that caused a lot of lost revenue and additional expenses, combined with the existing tobacco tax generating steadily less revenue as smoking rates decline. Further, US taxes have plummeted since 2001, and the majority of the current debt comes from those tax cuts, as there was a budget SURPLUS at the end of the Clinton administration, and the deficit was going down. (It was, in fact, supposed to be GONE by 2012.)

The main issue is that politicians understand who these taxes affect and know that a sales tax doesn't get nearly as much attention as withholding. 

Bullshit. Sales taxes cause a huge debate every time they're raised, it just doesn't get nearly as much media attention because it's never at a federal level.

[Rez]

I don't understand why Bush's debt is due to policy, but Obama's is due to the weather.  Obama continued more than a few of Bush's policy decisions, especially WRT tax cuts and crony bailouts. Bush's policies are largely Obama's policies.  I'm not going to play team games with anybody here.  Our economy wasn't healthy before this winter and it's a non sequitur to blame our economic woes on the weather.

When local governments propose withholding, it is regional/national news.  Sin taxes capitalize on dismissive attitudes toward socially unacceptable behavior.  Smokers are treated as pariahs in some places.  Taxes and rules targeted against them receive broad support, because smoking is so stigmatized.

[tryrar]

...and that's a bad thing how again?

[Bauglir]

Because smokers remain actual people, and as a society we're bad at treating fairly anybody who does something that's judged "bad". At this point we've dumped more than enough shit on the people who're being victimized by the stuff - make it uneconomical to produce cigarettes, not to buy them, and subsidize quitting aids, if you want to influence rather than dictate.

[nenjin]

...and that's a bad thing how again?

Try being demonized, marginalized and then exploited. See how much you enjoy it.

[Frumple]

... to be an extent of fair, we really did need to get you folks the hell away from everything. I remember back before we started kicking smokers out of places. Most public joints were pretty freaking miserable due to the unholy hellstench. Not saying the tax-it-into-the-ground path is the right way to go, but it needed some constraints pretty badly.

[Baffler]

... to be an extent of fair, we really did need to get you folks the hell away from everything. I remember back before we started kicking smokers out of places. Most public joints were pretty freaking miserable due to the unholy hellstench. Not saying the tax-it-into-the-ground path is the right way to go, but it needed some constraints pretty badly.

This is my biggest objection to getting marijuana legalized. It smells bad, even when you aren't smoking it. And the better it is, the stronger (generally speaking) that smell gets. I don't need to be sitting on a bus, or in line behind a guy who's stinking up the whole place with the weed in his coat pocket. But that's neither here nor there.

[RedKing]

make it uneconomical to produce cigarettes, not to buy them

That's pretty much impossible in a free market society. Because the manufacturers will just pass the costs down to the consumer regardless. At least with state tobacco taxes, you're keeping that money within your state. If you extracted it at the producer level, all the money would go to a small handful of states like Virginia and North Carolina.

You know what? Forget I said anything...

But seriously, if it was extracted by taxing the producers, the price of cigs would still be as high, and they'd just move their corporate HQs out of the country to avoid the taxes. Or figure a way to transfer all their profits to an overseas subsidiary. Bulk of tobacco profits these days are international anyways, especially as Europe and the US are slowly kicking the habit, while Asia puffs away like crazy.

[nenjin]

... to be an extent of fair, we really did need to get you folks the hell away from everything. I remember back before we started kicking smokers out of places. Most public joints were pretty freaking miserable due to the unholy hellstench. Not saying the tax-it-into-the-ground path is the right way to go, but it needed some constraints pretty badly.

I'm with you there. Even when I could smoke in places, I preferred to take my habit outside away from people. Which is why I get particularly irritated when people bring up the whole "you're killing me/my children!" shit. Anti-smoking has sentiment has reached hysterical proportions for some people, and all that does is make me want to flaunt my freedom.

It smells bad, even when you aren't smoking it.

#canthandlethedank

[Frumple]

Yeah, from what I understand most of the actual opposition these days -- and, to an extent, where support for the taxation comes from -- is the burden smokers (particularly under or uninsured ones) puts on the medical system. Not so much second-hand these days, barring the occasional crazy. Mind you, I'd rather imagine complaints about the smell have increased to some degree simply because people aren't as used to it (and you seriously have to be inured to the smell of cig smoke for it to not be incredibly noticeable), but the direct secondary health risks have been managed alright, imo. At least in the public sphere... parents screwing their kids over or whathaveyou is still common enough, from what I've personally noticed.

That said, yeah, if we're going to do vice* tax we should probably do it to everything of similar nature. Throw a tax on vidya games, if similar medical costs are identified, or whatever. I'd kinda' doubt it considering it's pretty rarely video games that are actually causing medical issues (if folks are sessile enough it's causing health problems, excessive entertainment investment is a symptom, not a cause), but if it is, treat it the same way.

Does logically lead to eventual lifestyle taxes -- people having a tax burden for not exercising enough, ferex -- but... okay. If you're going to go that route, then go that route. If you've committed to making people pay for non-optimal life choices, in order to offset the burden those choices place on society, go all out. Just make sure you've got exceptions for folks that can't maintain the par...

*Which would probably be better termed as disproportionate societal burden or something like that. Users balancing the cost of the habit to folks around them (even if it's not that particular user that's contributing to the problem -- part of the smoking related taxes is so that smokers that don't get complications and die help pay for the ones that do, after all. Ideologically, anyway...), even if it's secondary costs (lower lifespan, higher medical system strain, etc.).

[smjjames]

What about virtue taxes? Just throwing a random useless thought out there, since we're talking about vices, what about the virtues.

[Frumple]

States being what they are, I think they mostly refer to those as "raises", and disregard any virtues that don't result in them. Alternately, they are their own reward and whatnot. We could totally subsidize virtuous action, though, sure. It'd be nice to have more government support for non-profits and volunteer work and whatnot.

Also we totally give tax breaks for charity already, so *shrugs*

[Bauglir]

We could simply let Congress impose a price ceiling on tobacco products. We let them do that with shit like public utilities, and while this isn't the same sort of situation as a natural monopoly, I'd say much the same compelling interest applies.

[smjjames]

Eh, they'll probably just raise the price ceiling every time that comes around, just like they raise the debt ceiling instead of actually dealing with the debt.

BTW, when is the next debt ceiling showdown coming around?

[RedKing]

Oh, it's coming. Though the budget showdown is already here. Homeland Security funding is being held hostage by the GOP, which wants to tie an amendment to the appropriations bill negating Obama's executive action on immigration.

Expect to see the whole budget held hostage as they go after Obamacare (the House held its 56th vote to repeal Obamacare the other day) and other programs. We could be on the verge of another government shutdown in a month or two. And that's even without the debt ceiling coming into play.