smokers tax

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Hmmm...A six pack of coors Light in MD. is like $4.99. How much in PA?

$5.99, sometimes way more.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

10.00 easy. maybe alittle less in some spots, maybe alittle more

A lot of that cost is because you can't buy beer at grocery or convenience stores. At beer distributors, you can only buy by the case. So the only place to get a sixer is at bars/restaurants with liquor licenses who sell take out beer.

These places are the only places open in the state that sell beer after 10:00 pm. So they jack their prices way up because of the supply and demand balance.

So you can't compare the prices of sixers in VA and PA, it's not apples to apples. But if you compare prices of cases in PA and VA, you're talking about 10-20% more in PA.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I thought cigarettes were an appetite suppresant, therefore preventing you from eating that fast food, clogging your arteries, getting a heart attack and dying.

So...cigarettes are clearly good for you

There was an interesting study that came out of Yale or MIT a few years ago that showed that cigarettes may actually SAVE taxpayer dollars. Crazy you say? Guess when people stop "contributing" to society, at least in terms of tax dollars? When they are old and retired. Guess when people consume tax dollars in terms of Medicare and Social Security? When they are old and retired. Guess what cigarette smoke does? Kill people prematurely. The study "proved" that smokers' premature deaths offset the costs of caring for them when they get sick from cancer.

Obviously, I don't advocate people dying young or smoking cigarettes. But, I wonder if the social utiliarians (i.e., those who advocate taxes on smokes because smokers take away tax dollars) are truly utilitarian and would support tax breaks for cigarette smokers if the above study was proven correct. If the study was proven correct and the social utiliarians still believed that the federal government should tax smokes, they are really basing their support of such taxes on "I don't like your lifestyle, choices, or habits, so I'm going to tell you what to do or not to do."

[JoeRedskin]

Soylent Green is People.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

There was an interesting study that came out of Yale or MIT a few years ago that showed that cigarettes may actually SAVE taxpayer dollars. Crazy you say? Guess when people stop "contributing" to society, at least in terms of tax dollars? When they are old and retired. Guess when people consume tax dollars in terms of Medicare and Social Security? When they are old and retired. Guess what cigarette smoke does? Kill people prematurely. The study "proved" that smokers' premature deaths offset the costs of caring for them when they get sick from cancer.

That reminds me of the "argument" that was presented in that movie "Thank You for Smoking"

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

That reminds me of the "argument" that was presented in that movie "Thank You for Smoking"

I'll try to find a link to the study.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

More so here in PA. A case of beer typically costs $2-4 more than it would in VA. That's mainly attributable to tax differences.

My buddy just moved to Alabama, and he told me about the "sin tax". Alcohol and cigarettes are already more expensive then they were in Florida.
I told him to stop smoking and cut down on his drinking, he laughed at me.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

There was an interesting study that came out of Yale or MIT a few years ago that showed that cigarettes may actually SAVE taxpayer dollars. Crazy you say? Guess when people stop "contributing" to society, at least in terms of tax dollars? When they are old and retired. Guess when people consume tax dollars in terms of Medicare and Social Security? When they are old and retired. Guess what cigarette smoke does? Kill people prematurely. The study "proved" that smokers' premature deaths offset the costs of caring for them when they get sick from cancer.

That's a very interesting point. Although while I do think they would save money from that, the cost of those people in treatment for cancer / or other related illness would be very high.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

There was an interesting study that came out of Yale or MIT a few years ago that showed that cigarettes may actually SAVE taxpayer dollars. Crazy you say? Guess when people stop "contributing" to society, at least in terms of tax dollars? When they are old and retired. Guess when people consume tax dollars in terms of Medicare and Social Security? When they are old and retired. Guess what cigarette smoke does? Kill people prematurely. The study "proved" that smokers' premature deaths offset the costs of caring for them when they get sick from cancer.

Obviously, I don't advocate people dying young or smoking cigarettes. But, I wonder if the social utiliarians (i.e., those who advocate taxes on smokes because smokers take away tax dollars) are truly utilitarian and would support tax breaks for cigarette smokers if the above study was proven correct. If the study was proven correct and the social utiliarians still believed that the federal government should tax smokes, they are really basing their support of such taxes on "I don't like your lifestyle, choices, or habits, so I'm going to tell you what to do or not to do."

SGG, when you think about that, and I haven't read the article, it makes some sense.

Smoke hard good chance of dying young...? On the other hand the number of long term cancer patients or related illness, with or maybe without insurance, would be very costly.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Soylent Green is People.

Sage wisdom

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Here is one such study I referenced earlier. It was authored by a member of the Congressional Research Service.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

"I don't like your lifestyle, choices, or habits, so I'm going to tell you what to do or not to do."

Do you think it's that or it's the fact that MANY (if not the vast majority) of people would support banning smoking permanently and the government is just seeing this as a way to make a buck AND please the masses?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Do you think it's that or it's the fact that MANY (if not the vast majority) of people would support banning smoking permanently and the government is just seeing this as a way to make a buck AND please the masses?

I think the majority of the public would support a ban, the government wants to make a buck off of easy targets (smokers aren't too popular), AND the underlying reason why the public supports a ban is that they do not care for smokes and want to dictate how others should live their lives. I keep hearing economic justifications for taxing cigs, but I don't think the supposed tax burden of cigs is the real reason for most everyone's desire to see an end to cigs.

[Hog1]

I am a non-smoker. I am a non-drinker. I am sure I have other nons that elude me at the moment.
I would never support any such measure, as it is escalating to another freedom gone. If you do, the next time it may be something important to you.
We will live to regret the loss of our "Freedom's" in this country due to the actions of misguided zealots.
America, land of the..................used to be free, home of the brave?

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I think the majority of the public would support a ban, the government wants to make a buck off of easy targets (smokers aren't too popular), AND the underlying reason why the public supports a ban is that they do not care for smokes and want to dictate how others should live their lives. I keep hearing economic justifications for taxing cigs, but I don't think the supposed tax burden of cigs is the real reason for most everyone's desire to see an end to cigs.

I think this is a fundamental difference in a lot of people's thinking on a lot of issues. I think that in all things when one person's rights violates another person's that when is there is a problem. I think that as long as smoker's have a place to smoke that will never EVER let the smoke reach the lungs of someone who doesn't want it, they'll be fine and the non-smokers will be fine.

I don't think it's people wanting to dictate how other's live their lives. I'm sure most people couldn't give two craps if a perfect stranger dies from lung cancer. People are rightfully selfish when it comes to their own health and something that is proven to have a harmful effect, those people should be able to go to public places like anyone else and not have that right violated by those who smoke.