Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:10 pm   Reply with quote      

Tobacco products are generally believed that they are hazardous to your health. This is often the argument made to support tobacco tax. What's your take on tobacco tax?

Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:03 pm   Reply with quote      

As a vehement non-smoker, I'd like to see smoking heavily taxed. Smoking does little for us IMO.

Aaron

Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:21 pm   Reply with quote      

I was just thinking about this the other day. Let me ask you a theoretical question. Tobacco is already taxed, and the money goes to healthcare in principle. We often hear that smokers are costing tax payers, but smokers are paying more already. So, aren't they doing their part already? Also if healthcare system complains about smokers given the fact that they are taxed more, aren't smokers under-represented? Isn't it taxation without representation?

(Just a theoretical question)

Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:01 pm   Reply with quote      

But doesn't the amount that smokers pay in tax far less than the amount they cost in other respects (eg. healthcare costs, absence from work, etc.)...?

Aaron

Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:45 pm   Reply with quote      

That, I don't know. I am certainly not advocating smoking here, but I think that's a pretty interesting data purely numerically.

Wed Aug 17, 2005 9:26 am   Reply with quote      

I don't know either but my gut instinct says that the tax paid on cigarettes doesn't compensate for the money lost elsewhere in the system.

Aaron

Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:21 pm   Reply with quote      

But lets look at it from another angle...


Care for the aged costs what? Old people generally have more ailments that need regular expensive medical care, right?
Smoking reduces your lifespan, right?

So then perhaps we should rather tax old people to subsidise smoking, that way reducing the number of old people for the beloved system to take care of... year in & year out!

Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:34 pm   Reply with quote      

I need to think about this particular idea of taxation, but ...

This is actually interesting. Generally speaking, old people get a lot of benefit from the government, which, of course, comes from tax. Now if you believe that smoking is unhealthy and it reduces your life expectancy, it implies that you'll be taking less resources from the government than those who do not smoke. In essence, smokers are helping the government, not hurting her. This completely contradicts to the popular theory that smoking is hazardous to health and raises nation's healthcare cost; therefore, smokers should be taxed. ... interesting argument.

Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:44 pm   Reply with quote      

Well? How much would she save if nobody lived past 65?

Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:46 pm   Reply with quote      

Ok, how do you counter-argue this? Everyone pays tax including old people who are eligible to get various benefits. As they live longer, they pay more to the government. If they die younger, then they would not contribute to pay more tax, so smokers are indeed less helpful to the government.

(I already have a response, but I'd like to hear your response.)

Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:19 pm   Reply with quote      

If you removed the need for pensions, then there would be less wage deductions, thereby putting more money back into the consumer's hands, which in turn, boosts the economy through higher spending and less tax-deductibles (pension funds).

(For anybody joining the discussion late & not reading where this post is leading from - it's certainly not my feeling to get rid of pensioners! lol it's merely a hypothetical discussion)

I would still have a relook at stats like "xy% of all lung-cancer patients are smokers" since that very same xy% of motor vehicle drivers might also be smokers, but certainly smoking would not thus be the cause of people driving motor vehicles!!! It is flawed logic that the public laps up without even thinking! The worst of it all, is that the media and health organizations, even governments support this type of faulty reasoning!

I suppose if churches went back to the old roman way of reading the bible to everybody in Latin, they would still believe any interpretations given by those in charge - we as humans have a long history of simply accepting what we are told, daring never question "authority".

Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:46 pm   Reply with quote      

The following is my response.

In principle, you pay your share of tax to cover your expenses (healthcare, pension, etc.), no more, no less. Consequently, you aren't paying more to the government as you live longer; you simply keep covering your expenses longer, as you live longer. Now, many of old people are retired, so they have less income, thus, generally speaking, they pay less tax. Also generally speaking, they take more from the government because there are many more benefits available to them. So, it's pretty clear that, the longer they live, the more (share) they take from the total government fund. If smokers live shorter, then it only implies that they are only helping the government financially. This sounds a bit crazy, but I think this makes sense logically.

Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:51 pm   Reply with quote      

Doesn't sound crazy at all to me.

What is this concept they keep mentioning? "Productive years"...

So to try play the aged into the category of productive is nonsense! Would you like to tell me that a pensioner who is drawing a government pension is taking less from the government than a deceased person?

No, I think you're hitting the nail on the head, friend!