OrionTheWolf
Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheUtopian
quote:
If you tax a vice and then apply that money to an important program, then you really do not want that vice to go away, because it would stop funding this very special and important program. Any comments on that specifically?
That’s your assumed logic, but not necessarily that of the taxing authority. How generous of you, though, to phrase this question in such an overly simplistic manner. Obviously, its not that simple…
Assumed logic. Seems pretty black and white to me, as do the several cases since and including prohibition.
quote:
I would look at it in a more nuanced way that suggests its a calculated risk on the taxing authority’s part to continually push the envelope to a point where the revenue stream generated through the taxation of tobacco related products is thoroughly maximized.
Since it is being done, then this is the method that should be done.
quote:
It’s also my feeling that their thinking/logic here has been thoroughly modeled through super computers that defines for them to what significance and at what point the revenue fall-off will/would-be detrimental in effect to those specific programs.
Really? Super computers?
quote:
In essence, if this tax increase is such it causes thirty percent of the smokers to quit, yet maintains or even grows the taxation revenue stream, I’m extremely confident it will be viewed by them as a significant accomplishment.
Yes if any tax increases the general fund, and allows funding for special projects it is considered a success.
quote:
If you’re looking for some kind of nuanced, philosophical ethical vs. unethical argument ---Work that out for yourself.
I have already worked it out for myself, I just find it odd how people use salad bar ethics through their life. If you do not want to involve yourself in a discussion of ethics as applied to the government, I will understand.
quote:
quote:
Vices are usually things that people should not do at all, or not in excess. Apparently smoking is a vice. Usually society wants people to stop vices.
You’ve been accusatory in specific regard of my non-understanding of a perceived addictive behavior. Let me ask you in reference to the above : Do you always think in such a simplistic manner?
Well you did not seem to be getting it, so I made it simple. Also, when solving problems you need to deconstruct them first, which breaks them down into areas and as simple as possible. Then add in more depth so you slowly solve a problem, or reach a conclusion.
quote:
Sitting in your Lazy Boy after work every night, drinking a whole six-pack of Dr. Pepper, while watching eight solid hours worth reality-TV and Sitcoms is prolly a vice too. But ''that'' vice at this point, does not seem to have the same long term, downstream reciprocal effects smoking has on society.
Some would disagree. I believe the over consumption of sugar, HFCS, inactivity, and hypnosis effect of a lot of TV is actually worse. Some interesting studies and research if you bother to read it.
quote:
Smoking is highly offensive in the sphere of a public arena. It’s dirty, nasty and highly toxic for the majority of those innocent bystanders. And it looks to me like there’s a push back by the majority that would try to seriously curb this offensive behavior.
Now we have gotten to the truth. People find it highly offensive, so they are willing to deviate from their principles to be "okay" with what is done. Your position could have been contained in this entire paragraph.
quote:
So your lumping it in as ''just'' a vice….and than following that up with a generality-based supposition like '' Usually society wants people to stop vices.'' -- Is not only completely ridiculous, but also highly bizarre coming from someone who goes to great lengths through out the thread trying emphasize the complexities of rectifying a perceived addictive behavior.
It is completely ridiculous because you say so? Care to support that statement somehow? Also, I believe you added the word "just" in which is pretty deceitful to change what you are trying to refute.
quote:
quote:
Your last paragraph states your position is that you do not support the tax, but in this case since it is something you really dislike you do support the tax. Is that correct? If so, would that not mean that your principles and convictions are flexiable depending upon who is getting screwed by the government?
Let me further clarify my position : I do not support the tax increase, and would not vote for it if placed on the ballot. However, I accept the tax increase--with a smile-- as a fait accompli, generated by agenda-driven public policy institutions and unscrupulous/untrustworthy politicians.
The wavering/hypocrisy you’re trying to identify is very similar to that of myriad of posters here who vehemently support Chicago-school / free-market principles and decries government intervention. But at the same time, feels its of the utmost importance that a said/select group of derivative ensconced banks is re-inflated at taxpayer expense, and has always accepted such as a fait accompli.
- R
If you bother to look at any of my posts concerning government, you will find my positions are pretty consistant. I challenge you to find other wise.
You have made your position pretty clear now, and I understand. Hope that works for you.
Orion
_____________________________
When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."
|
RE: Yet another cigarette tax hike... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread