Do you agree with raising tobbaco prices? (239)
rwantin: I'm okay with it. I should not be smoking anyway...
Heyyyyyyyyy look whose back...Good to see ya Rob.....
Hugz_n_Kissez: Heyyyyyyyyy look whose back...Good to see ya Rob.....
Shhhhh.
Indyfella: I agree with him. Republicans got booted for not getting government under control.
I agree and somebody has to do it...It's the same here just a buch of BS until the public gets fed up and then nest idiot gets into power...by the way we get cig and booze taxes about once a year here and it sucks....they call it sin taxes.....
Hugz_n_Kissez: Heyyyyyyyyy look whose back...Good to see ya Rob.....
Cycle must have broke down...and no place to go.
Welcome back Robert
Indyfella: Cycle must have broke down...and no place to go.Welcome back Robert
Yeah, down to just one right now. Tough times, these.
Good to see you Indy.
Seeing if I remember how all this works...
Hugz_n_Kissez: I agree and somebody has to do it...It's the same here just a buch of BS until the public gets fed up and then nest idiot gets into power...by the way we get cig and booze taxes about once a year here and it sucks....they call it sin taxes.....
same here....
rwantin: Yeah, down to just one right now. Tough times, these.
Good to see you Indy.
Seeing if I remember how all this works...
Good to see you Indy.
Seeing if I remember how all this works...
type the 1st thing that comes to your head. not much changes here...
toranoga: Just do like Iowa, we spent the tobacco settlement about 4 times over, added another 50 cents a pack in taxes last year and oops, there is no money to treat the smokers who paid the tax in the first place. Yep, our highly skilled goverment at work for you.
Iowa could do what our idiot RINO governor did, add a "Health Impact Fee" to the price of a pack. A tax that's not a tax that's supposed to pay for our "treatment". I guess no one told him that studies have proven that it cost more over a lifetime to treat an non-smoker than a smoker.
Indyfella: type the 1st thing that comes to your head. not much changes here...
Yep. Like riding a bicycle...
southtc: Iowa could do what our idiot RINO governor did, add a "Health Impact Fee" to the price of a pack. A tax that's not a tax that's supposed to pay for our "treatment". I guess no one told him that studies have proven that it cost more over a lifetime to treat an non-smoker than a smoker.
Just switch to corn husks and silks, they are still free to pick up in the corn fields and no one has found a need to tax them ------YET!
toranoga: The republicans didn't exactly do a bang up job of reducing spending and the only real difference between those two parties is who spends the most.
While the republicans did lower some taxes, those tax cuts raised the deficit, which is really only another tax.
While the republicans did lower some taxes, those tax cuts raised the deficit, which is really only another tax.
I'm only talking about cigarettes and taxes on them. Blame for all these increases and bans for that matter fall right in the laps of the Democrats including the $.62 a pack increase that goes into effect on 4/1, something the Dems introduced that Bush vetoed 3 times and the spend and spend moron currently in the White House signed as his first bill.
Hugz_n_Kissez: I agree and somebody has to do it...It's the same here just a buch of BS until the public gets fed up and then nest idiot gets into power...by the way we get cig and booze taxes about once a year here and it sucks....they call it sin taxes.....
No sin, no tax. Must be a sin to work?
Ron Paul (though a wacko)...is starting to look good. 
southtc: I'm only talking about cigarettes and taxes on them. Blame for all these increases and bans for that matter fall right in the laps of the Democrats including the $.62 a pack increase that goes into effect on 4/1, something the Dems introduced that Bush vetoed 3 times and the spend and spend moron currently in the White House signed as his first bill.
Not disagreeing with you at all, just put a little more spin on the topic.
Indyfella: Ron Paul (though a wacko)...is starting to look good.
Ron Paul is not a whacko, just Hugs in reverse.
toranoga: Ron Paul is not a whacko, just Hugs in reverse.
toranoga: Not disagreeing with you at all, just put a little more spin on the topic.
I think we need to get rid of all of them. There has to be a better way to run the country that involves people who actually know what they're doing rather than ones with no experience who are just guessing at it.
Here is something I found.
Federal Cigarette Tax Increase Signed Into Law; Raises Taxes on Families Earning Under $250,000
by Joseph Henchman
President Obama yesterday signed into law H.R. 2, a 4-1/2 year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (formerly State Children's Health Insurance Program). The bill is estimated to fund health insurance for the existing 7 million beneficiaries, and expand it to a net further 4 million at 300% of the poverty level with the most favorable federal matching funds. (I say "net" because it takes into account children who currently have private insurance, and a smaller number who have Medicaid, who will be induced to drop it and enter the more generous government program.) It had passed the House by a vote of 290-135 and the Senate by a vote of 66-32.
The "pay for" for the reauthorization is a hike in the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents per 20-cigarette pack to $1.0066 per 20-cigarette pack, effective March 31, 2009. As my colleague Gerald Prante and I noted, a politically popular and expensive program should never be funded by a small, low-income, politically unpopular minority like cigarette smokers. Just because the government needs revenue to fund some general spending program that has broad benefits doesn't mean that an arbitrarily selected group of people should pay the tax. Popular, expensive, broadly available public programs should be paid for with broad-based taxes on income or consumption. In our paper, we run through many of the non-revenue reasons for raising cigarette taxes for S-CHIP and find them wanting.
As some have noted, this law breaks President Obama's campaign pledge that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase...not any of your taxes." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 95.8% of tobacco expenditures are made by consumer units (people spending together) who earn under $150,000 a year. Essentially all of this tax increase will be paid by families earning less than $250,000, and probably those earning substantially less than that.
Federal Cigarette Tax Increase Signed Into Law; Raises Taxes on Families Earning Under $250,000
by Joseph Henchman
President Obama yesterday signed into law H.R. 2, a 4-1/2 year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (formerly State Children's Health Insurance Program). The bill is estimated to fund health insurance for the existing 7 million beneficiaries, and expand it to a net further 4 million at 300% of the poverty level with the most favorable federal matching funds. (I say "net" because it takes into account children who currently have private insurance, and a smaller number who have Medicaid, who will be induced to drop it and enter the more generous government program.) It had passed the House by a vote of 290-135 and the Senate by a vote of 66-32.
The "pay for" for the reauthorization is a hike in the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents per 20-cigarette pack to $1.0066 per 20-cigarette pack, effective March 31, 2009. As my colleague Gerald Prante and I noted, a politically popular and expensive program should never be funded by a small, low-income, politically unpopular minority like cigarette smokers. Just because the government needs revenue to fund some general spending program that has broad benefits doesn't mean that an arbitrarily selected group of people should pay the tax. Popular, expensive, broadly available public programs should be paid for with broad-based taxes on income or consumption. In our paper, we run through many of the non-revenue reasons for raising cigarette taxes for S-CHIP and find them wanting.
As some have noted, this law breaks President Obama's campaign pledge that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase...not any of your taxes." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 95.8% of tobacco expenditures are made by consumer units (people spending together) who earn under $150,000 a year. Essentially all of this tax increase will be paid by families earning less than $250,000, and probably those earning substantially less than that.
toranoga: Ron Paul is not a whacko, just Hugs in reverse.
He must be a very bright man then....
mylifewithu: Here is something I found.
Federal Cigarette Tax Increase Signed Into Law; Raises Taxes on Families Earning Under $250,000
by Joseph HenchmanPresident Obama yesterday signed into law H.R. 2, a 4-1/2 year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (formerly State Children's Health Insurance Program). The bill is estimated to fund health insurance for the existing 7 million beneficiaries, and expand it to a net further 4 million at 300% of the poverty level with the most favorable federal matching funds. (I say "net" because it takes into account children who currently have private insurance, and a smaller number who have Medicaid, who will be induced to drop it and enter the more generous government program.) It had passed the House by a vote of 290-135 and the Senate by a vote of 66-32.
The "pay for" for the reauthorization is a hike in the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents per 20-cigarette pack to $1.0066 per 20-cigarette pack, effective March 31, 2009. As my colleague Gerald Prante and I noted, a politically popular and expensive program should never be funded by a small, low-income, politically unpopular minority like cigarette smokers. Just because the government needs revenue to fund some general spending program that has broad benefits doesn't mean that an arbitrarily selected group of people should pay the tax. Popular, expensive, broadly available public programs should be paid for with broad-based taxes on income or consumption. In our paper, we run through many of the non-revenue reasons for raising cigarette taxes for S-CHIP and find them wanting.
As some have noted, this law breaks President Obama's campaign pledge that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase...not any of your taxes." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 95.8% of tobacco expenditures are made by consumer units (people spending together) who earn under $150,000 a year. Essentially all of this tax increase will be paid by families earning less than $250,000, and probably those earning substantially less than that.
Federal Cigarette Tax Increase Signed Into Law; Raises Taxes on Families Earning Under $250,000
by Joseph HenchmanPresident Obama yesterday signed into law H.R. 2, a 4-1/2 year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (formerly State Children's Health Insurance Program). The bill is estimated to fund health insurance for the existing 7 million beneficiaries, and expand it to a net further 4 million at 300% of the poverty level with the most favorable federal matching funds. (I say "net" because it takes into account children who currently have private insurance, and a smaller number who have Medicaid, who will be induced to drop it and enter the more generous government program.) It had passed the House by a vote of 290-135 and the Senate by a vote of 66-32.
The "pay for" for the reauthorization is a hike in the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents per 20-cigarette pack to $1.0066 per 20-cigarette pack, effective March 31, 2009. As my colleague Gerald Prante and I noted, a politically popular and expensive program should never be funded by a small, low-income, politically unpopular minority like cigarette smokers. Just because the government needs revenue to fund some general spending program that has broad benefits doesn't mean that an arbitrarily selected group of people should pay the tax. Popular, expensive, broadly available public programs should be paid for with broad-based taxes on income or consumption. In our paper, we run through many of the non-revenue reasons for raising cigarette taxes for S-CHIP and find them wanting.
As some have noted, this law breaks President Obama's campaign pledge that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase...not any of your taxes." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 95.8% of tobacco expenditures are made by consumer units (people spending together) who earn under $150,000 a year. Essentially all of this tax increase will be paid by families earning less than $250,000, and probably those earning substantially less than that.
But it's for the chilrun.
Hugz_n_Kissez: He must be a very bright man then....
but then that'd make you an idiot...
mylifewithu: Here is something I found.
Federal Cigarette Tax Increase Signed Into Law; Raises Taxes on Families Earning Under $250,000
Federal Cigarette Tax Increase Signed Into Law; Raises Taxes on Families Earning Under $250,000
That's the one. I wonder if I can deduct that from my taxes since it involves pay for childrens health care.
southtc: That's the one. I wonder if I can deduct that from my taxes since it involves pay for childrens health care.
Hey if they can tax it, can't we turn in proof of who much we spend on cigarettes a year and how much we pay in taxes on it and get a refund. 
You would think we should get too.Indyfella: but then that'd make you an idiot...
mylifewithu: Hey if they can tax it, can't we turn in proof of who much we spend on cigarettes a year and how much we pay in taxes on it and get a refund. You would think we should get too.
I'm sure if it was possible, they would close that loophole real quick. It's funny how many taxes I pay for children even though I don't have any of my own.
mylifewithu: Hey if they can tax it, can't we turn in proof of who much we spend on cigarettes a year and how much we pay in taxes on it and get a refund. You would think we should get too.
Then shouldn't those who don't smoke get the same refund so that we don't discriminate against them too?
toranoga: Then shouldn't those who don't smoke get the same refund so that we don't discriminate against them too?
Nope cause only the smokers are paying that. toranoga: Then shouldn't those who don't smoke get the same refund so that we don't discriminate against them too?
Start smoking...
Indyfella: but then that'd make you an idiot...
This is true...I stepped in it didn't I...
More Threads
your personality
Salami, Salami, Baloney
1830's Music
rarotonga
Icebergs Still Around
other can see but not you
How far is too far?
Common Issues with the BMW X1
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
everything is changing
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
The liquor lobby is far stronger and better financed than the tobacco lobby plus more people drink than smoke. Tell an anti-smoker you want to see alcohol banned for public health and safety and watch them go completely off the deep end.