| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| An idea so dumb only Congress could come up with it |
| 2007-10-30 |
| Video at the link. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #11 If Hillary is elected, get ready for socialism. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-10-30 18:11 |
| #10 The way to stop all this, or at least make me feel better, is to tax out the wazoo wine (the type that comes with a cork, screw tops exempted) and Brie. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-10-30 12:21 |
| #9 mhw, sinse the tax on smoking is earmarked for the children, not smoking is selfish? However, if the tax fails to produce the revenue due to reduced smoking by government intervention, the shortfall will be made up by taxing something else...like whatever you shouldn't like to do. |
| Posted by: Phinater Thraviger 2007-10-30 12:15 |
| #8 The government is a very bad judge of what is Good or Bad for individuals and thus society. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-10-30 10:52 |
| #7 smoking is good for society, it reduces the number of social security claims in the long run while at the same time keeping smokers who are younger paying SS taxes but with a fewer percentage claiming them when they're old. Also, whatever happened to letting people choose to buy their own health insurance or NOT. If some folks feel they need , say a new pickup every 4 years rather than secure health care let 'em pay the medical costs themselves if its a risk they're willing to take. People in this country make their own choices regarding what they consume, be it health care or X-boxes, if they are unable to make the sensible choice then , well, tough luck imbeciles. A fool and his money are soon parted. |
| Posted by: Daffy Ebbusoth4423 2007-10-30 10:33 |
| #6 I'm not in favor of "sin" taxes. Almost anuthing can be taxed under the claim that society would substantially benefit. The proposal to increase taxes on carbonated beverages on the premise that drinking them makes people fat and a leaner populace is better is one example. There are hundreds of others. Other than that, I agree with mhw. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-10-30 09:58 |
| #5 ~So how does "society substantially benefit from less smoking"? What externalisation is there? I cannot see one myself. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-10-30 09:55 |
| #4 We're going to find out whether a government can tax a product so much that black marketing becomes acceptable as well as profitable. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-10-30 09:34 |
| #3 more taxes...just what we need clean the welfare roles of all illegials and you have paid for this as well as universal health care for the children... |
| Posted by: dan 2007-10-30 09:31 |
| #2 the Donk SCHIP proposal is simply the first step to Hillarycare, by pushing children from private healthcare to gov't mandated and run "healthcare". but of course, it's for "the children", not greedy, power-hungry socialist pols |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-10-30 09:30 |
| #1 The idea of making an entitlement for children's health care for families with up to $85k may be silly and the theory of zero elasticity of demand for smoking is obviously wrong. However, the idea of increasing sin taxes is not silly. If one assumes society would substantially benefit from less smoking (I'm not actually sure this is true but make it an assumption for this purpose), it clearly justifies a market intervention to reduce smoking (this also assumes that it does not make sense to make smoking illegal). Furthermore taxing cigarettes at the retail level is a reasonably easy to administer the tax. |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-10-30 09:15 |