It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cigarette Taxes are one thing but ELEVEN dollars a pack?!

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
If one can demonstrate they can pay for their own medical treatment from smoking related diseases and not be burden on society, then they should be able to suck fags with gay abandon (pardon the pun).

Otherwise, pay up or shut up!




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CristobalColonic
 


As soon as there is proof that these taxes pay for any of that.
If these taxes are for smoking related illness then that money
should be traceable going into stop smoking programs and
health care for people due to smoking related illness.

As far as what is able to traced it doesn't get funneled into
any of these programs at all. What I found locally was that money
was being funneled into a luxurious city council building dropped
in front of homes that are going for 9000.00 because they are
in such disrepair and the citizens can't afford upkeep on them.
Kinda like kings in a castle. For the most part though this money
vanishes.

Any issue with smoking related illness costs is still there because
this money isn't being used for that as far as I can tell.

reply to post by CristobalColonic
 



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Aside from the fact that the cigarette tax isn't used for what it's supposed to be used for, I have to laugh at this outrage. The outrage should be that the tax is improperly used (tobacco companies get some of that tax). If cigarette makers wanted to outright charge 11 dollars a pack, this thread wouldn't exist.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I smoke.

I see nothing wrong with high taxes on cigarettes.

If you're going to whine about taxation without representation, I would rebut that you could think of dozens of "representations" behind the taxing of cigarettes starting with community health and comfort.

I always think it's hilarious when people claim someone is "discriminating" against smokers. You choose to smoke. Looking down upon a poor CHOICE is not discrimination. You look like a fool when you say people are discriminating against you because you choose to subscribe to a nasty habit. In fact, in my opinion it's kind of insulting to all the minority groups that actually do struggle with discrimination.

You could always look for an alternative like e-cigs or rolling your own. Or you could quit smoking. Or you can continue to pay high taxes. It's not going to change.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Aside from the fact that the cigarette tax isn't used for what it's supposed to be used for, I have to laugh at this outrage. The outrage should be that the tax is improperly used (tobacco companies get some of that tax). If cigarette makers wanted to outright charge 11 dollars a pack, this thread wouldn't exist.


I adamantly doubt that the taxes go back to the cigarette companies. I tried doing some research on the topic myself but I mainly got blogs and state-level information which obviously differed from state to state but did not really go into detail about how the tax revenue is used.

Please provide a link for your claim.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Not everyone gets cancer even from asbestos. Smoking is worse than asbestos. The tabacco companies created the black market when prices went up,they also have to keep their revenue up.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


I read a report a while back about how ACE (Agricultural Conservation Easement Purchase Fund), a government program in which that government buys parcels of land from farmers for the purpose of preserving farmland. The way it's supposed to work is that farmers sell their land for a number of years or permanently, they still get to work the land but they must promise in exchange to use the land only for farming. In many cases the government gets to decide which crops are grown and what the yield of the crop can be sold for.

In many States, cigarette tax revenues fund PACE or similar programs, I think you can guess where this is going. Unfortunately, I didn't save the link and search didn't turn it up.
edit on 3-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by maxhobbs
 


Alcohol and drug related activity kill many more people than cigarettes. I never heard of anyone smoking too many cigarettes, then going home and beating up his wife or shooting up the neighborhood.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


So someone on a federal level is getting paid off or perhaps being lobbied to (if there's a difference) by big tobacco in order to ensure that, despite high taxes, the industry won't lose it's revenue. Not to make light of the situation but this happens literally every day. While the corruption needs to be faced and dealt with in a serious way, I still believe taxing cigarettes is a justifiable concept which is not nullified by an entirely separate flaw in the system.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


I'm a smoker and I don't have a problem with the tax. It's my choice to smoke and no one else's. There are some things I just find silly to get outraged about and really couldn't care less how corrupt it is... cigarettes are one of those things. I was just alluding to another point.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
They are creating a new black market for organized crime. Pretty soon people will break into your house because you smoke and have a carton of cigs.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Just one more reason Chicago was 4th on the 'Most Miserable Cities in the Country' list. I'm about 50 miles south of Chicago and I get cigarettes for about a third of what Chicagoans pay.
edit on 3-3-2013 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
If you can't drill it into the sheeple's minds via advertising, drive the heathens away with price gouging.

Hear hear, Government.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


I'm a smoker and I don't have a problem with the tax. It's my choice to smoke and no one else's. There are some things I just find silly to get outraged about and really couldn't care less how corrupt it is... cigarettes are one of those things. I was just alluding to another point.


Im a smoker too. I have problems with EVERY Tax though.



I'm more outraged that people voted into the two party system, and helped destroy this Country.


Let folks choke on that outrage for a while..........







posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I only pay 5.05 for a pack here in Louisiana. I think you will find that the reason you pay 10-11 bucks for a pack is because you live in a democratically controlled state. Democrats will tell you what you need to do and if you don't do it they will just tax the hell out of it until you can't afford to do it or they will stop businesses from selling it. When the tax on a product is more than the actually cost of the product itself then you are being controlled by the government. But smoking is addictive and we all know it so they can get away with taxing it because people will still buy them.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The taxes on cigarettes have nothing to do with "public health" concerns. It has to do with behavioral engineering.
The elite believe that they are the only ones that understand the proper way to live one's life, therefore, they must FORCE the rest of us to comply with that vision.

They blitz the public with anti-smoking propaganda, raise taxes to "encourage" citizens to cease purchasing the product and what happens when Big tobacco is out of business? What then? Well, maybe they focus on a new product to eliminate, They've already begun to take on sweets and soda so, coffee perhaps?

Coffee drinkers the world over are rolling their eyes at that suggestion, however, that is precisely what smokers did when the campaign started against cigarettes. Smoking was at one time nearly as common as coffee drinking (at least in the U.S.), it is now socially unacceptable and considered "dirty".

TPTB turned public opinion against the habit and it is now on the verge of being eradicated. The same can happen to coffee. Think about it, coffee is just as bad for you as smoking is in a lot of ways. So how long before we begin to see commercials highlighting the dangers of drinking coffee, and the disgusting "coffee breath" associated with it?

The sheep are out there that will certainly buy this tactic, it happened with smoking, as well as with other products.

Even here on ATS, some fool posted a thread comparing smoking to "Government approved gassing" of the citizenry. Yes, really.

I have some really bad news for you guys, the morons are out in droves and the there are a hell of a lot more of them than there are of us.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CristobalColonic
If one can demonstrate they can pay for their own medical treatment from smoking related diseases and not be burden on society, then they should be able to suck fags with gay abandon (pardon the pun).

Otherwise, pay up or shut up!


That is pure B.S. I also love the assumption that people who smoke all end up with medical issues that put a financial burden on society, if they work and have insurance, they cause no more burden than anyone else that is ill and in a hospital receiving treatment. After all, very few people can afford the treatment they receive regardless of how they got sick in the first place. Everyone in this country does SOMETHING that will affect them later on in life and most likely cause illness or infirmity, and guess what? That could also be considered the same "burden" to society.

As with my previous post, can we now tax coffee drinkers because they may develop one or more of the following:
Caffeine dependency, Cancer, Gastrointestinal problems, Psychological effects and sleep changes, Cholesterol problems, Blood pressure issues?

As you said, pay up or shut up, then you can swill coffee with gay abandon.

P.S. Don't even attempt to cite the completely biased second-hand smoke studies, there are just as many studies that counter their claims.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I realize OP doesn't smoke, but rolling your own is the way to go. So much savings and it's really easy if you have a good rolling machine. I use the electric one now and I love it. (I keep a spare standard one if the power goes out) The savings add up really fast and before you know it, you're barely losing any money at all while you enjoy the pleasures of tobacco.

The main reason I switched to RYO is to avoid the FSC additives which not only taste disgusting, ( I don't understand how people don't explode in fury over this) but will certainly contribute to all the bad health they claim are caused by smoking.

I also won't eat out, go to bars or hotels until this society gains a modicum of intelligence and repeals these ridiculous bans. Boycotting is the only way to stop this craziness.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I was actually just thinking about this yesterday, and I was thinking they should make cigarettes $20 a pack. That's just $1 a cigarette. I think people would be willing to pay that much to smoke. And since it's so much, people will hopefully smoke less. I think smoking is pretty gross, and I hate the smell. I'm 27 years old and I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. Both my parents are smokers and I think that's what did it.

I hear if your parents don't smoke, then you are more likely to smoke, and vice versa. I guess the idea of it is that you're rebelling against your parents as a teenager.

For people who think smoking is too much, I'm sorry. I hope you can smoke less and then you can save money, But it's your body and it's your decision. Give all that money to giant tobacco companies for all I care. I actually don't mind the gov't makes a lot of money from it. At least that money can go to take care of some of the sick people that got that way from the cigarettes to begin with.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
People will always pay a premium price to feed an addiction, unruly high taxing or the illegalization of an addictive product will never solve this problem,and example is if ciggs are illegal in the Federal BoP and a prisoner can still get them he just has 2 pay 300-400 us dollars for a pack o ciggs.

It seems California has come to the conclusion that smoking produces/contains chemicals none to cause cancer so what i am trying to say is why do the cigg company print that on all packs sold in all states printing cost money and cigg company is not in it to lose cash so my thinking is they are obligated to print that on all packs because they know it causes cancer,is it not messed up our government allows big cig to peddle death just so they can tax it at our expense to subsidize the paychecks of failed CEO's,Bankers and big privet war machine companys!




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join