Financial Information
Rush only a good point. . . How can we finance the health of children in tobacco taxes, when?
If too much tax will encourage people to quit smoking? The Left has been saying for years. . . . . To encourage the taxation of people to quit smoking cigarettes – smoking ban in public places to encourage people to quit smoking. Smoking is bad personnes.Et statistics show that many more people left as a result of increasing cigarette taxes and smoking bans in public! So how to show increased tobacco taxes Child Health Care Fund, if statistics show that higher taxes and fewer purchases less available tax? libs I’m sorry but this is an excellent example of why liberalism is sometimes a sense of Nice on some issues, but the results are averages do not jive with the intention. What are your thoughts? libs BTW, I do not often listen to Rush, but you can thank Harry Reid for reminding me that Rush is a heck of a lot smarter than most of you pensez.Steve C – you can answer the question, displayed or blocked. I have zero tolerance for fools who have the courtesy to the question affichée.Pat deny access, – (see my reply to Steve C) Reaction time
by white feather you just want
money. they do not care whether you or I resign. They are not for our health care system and should not
-
-
#2 written by bootedbylibsx2 9 months ago
Yes, a lot of people will quit because of this new tax. Additionally, a lot of people will quit, or already have, because there are becoming fewer and fewer places where smoking is allowed. This is a terribly unstable source of funding. And it would seem that any fool should be able to see that. There seem to be many of my fellow conservatives who think this is just the typical short-sightedness of the libs. I happen to think they are more devious and might have actually thought this one out. This bill needs funding to stay alive and what better way to get that than going after the increasingly demonized smoker? There isn’t going to be many politicians who will side with the smoker anymore, so this is the perfect way to push this bill forward. Once they get the bill passed, they won’t care where the funding comes from. They will have their foot in the door, ready to further their socialized health care plan.
-
#5 written by labken1817 9 months ago
If you look at the stats, the bill and the funding for the bill, a decline in smokers was taken into account when proposing the amount to increase the taxes on cigarettes. If Rush was so smart he would have known that this is something that was addressed.
It was stated earlier but most smokers will continue to pay the heavy taxes placed upon them because they are addicted to the nicotine, (and the habit) but you are right that some will quit due to the overwhelming cost caused by tax increases. Yes the drop in tax revenue has already been factored in.
-
#7 written by Ahcho A 9 months ago
-
#9 written by Michael H 9 months ago
The facts are these:
First, the estimated cost of this program, $ 30 billion per year, is about a quarter of what it will really cost, some $ 120 billion per year. It will follow every other government program.
Second, this is a ploy to initially coddle the anti-smoking crowd. It will absolutely cut down on the number of smokers of legal cigarettes. Most will start smoking illegal one.
Third, the left has absolutely no intention of paying for this program. When there is not enough money to properly fund the program from smokers, they will raise taxes on all of us to cover the program. But hold on to your wallet; they will say that since they are doing such a good job for the children, why not do the same good job for the adults? Socialized health care.
People, be afraid of these liberals. They are socialist and elitists. Be very afraid.
-
#10 written by I_Love_McRedneck 9 months ago
I like your idea to an extent. It would generate a lot of money.
I’m not a smoker and never will be. I’m GLAD people can’t smoke in public where I live, because a lot of people with health problems were forced to live like hermits because the 20% of the people in my state that DID smoke thought their rights to kill themselves was more important than my right to breathe clean air.
HOWEVER, the whole sin tax idea is pathetic. It’s my body, the government should in no way tell me what to do with it.
I also don’t agree with or use illegal drugs, but again if someone is only using them & not selling them – nobody else is being hurt by their actions. People should decide what to do with their bodies.
I know I got a bit off topic, but the government sticks its nose into my life too much already. -
#11 written by JimSock 9 months ago
It’s a matter of simple arithmetic. No long division required.
Expecting Liberals to do math in the emotionally charged state they are always in is asking too much.
I blame the academics.
Even the math professors use up class and lecture time with political opinion. I’ve experienced it and found it amusing but, by the time the poor liberals get out, they’re so depressed, they can’t count.
Now they all work for me and want my taxes raised. -
#12 written by cissyit 9 months ago
Typical lib thinking. Like socialized healthcare, national healthcare, whatever it’s called these days. They don’t understand that it’s not free. Taxes will be raised to pay for it, our wages will not be raised to match the taxes and then the Dem politicians will all get to see their wet dreams come true. We’ll all be on the dole.
-
#13 written by Ken 9 months ago
This, obviously, is not an original Rush statement. Many others have made this point. That is one of the reasons the Republicans were against this bill. There is no guarantee that the revenue will cover the expenditures. The question of paying for the bill and the necessity of the bill are two different questions in my mind. I strongly believe that we should provide health care to those who truly cannot afford it. Especially senior citizens. But to provide health care to middle class families is going a bit far in my book.
-
#14 written by Mr. Morden 9 months ago
We should be able to finance basic health care for children without additional taxes on cigarettes. The cost is a fraction of what has already been wasted in Iraq due to mismanagement and cost overruns, waste that could have been reduced had there been proper congressional oversight for the first 4 years of the war.
-
#21 written by Mr. Knowitall 9 months ago
Any reason to disagree with liberals is good enough for Rush. If he can’t find a good reason, he’ll make up a phony one. So you have to listen to him carefully to decide if the argument is really merited.
Its’ true we have a lot fewer smokers in the US than we did years ago. I think this is much more because of education than because cigarettes are highly taxed. Smokers today are the hard-core addicts. They happily pay $ 3 for a pack of ciggies, if it was $ 4 I don’t think many of them would balk.
If we legalized marijuana but put a $ 20 tax on each pack, do you think there would be more marijuana smoked or less?
Here in California we put a 25-cent tax on cigarettes years ago. It had no apparent effect on the number of smokers. Look at rises in tobacco tax in the last 20 years, there have been several, and tell me they directly resulted in fewer smokers!
The child healthcare bill was a very popular one. Bush vetoed it for his own reasons, but couldn’t very well just come out and honestly give those reasons. The veto will hurt not just Bush, but all the Republican candidates who have to pretend to approve of it.
The way I see it, whether the bill would have ended up providing health care for children or making people quit smoking, either of those results would have been fine for me!
-
#24 written by ret_roch_cop 9 months ago
My wife just quit smoking when the per pack price hit $ 4.50 here locally. When you consider the taxes, I seriously doubt that many are going to keep smoking and paying those kinds of taxes so that revenue will dry up. There’s going to be nothing to pay for child health care.
Then, our government, being what it is, will look for other sources to maintain the inflow of cash so look for liquor, tires, and other items to have additional taxes added to them.
When my kids were young, I had to pay extra for a family insurance plan. I guess that’ll have to continue because I have no intention of paying for someone else’s insurance.
-
#25 written by suthrnlyts 9 months ago
I’m waiting for them to give the okay to remove the warnings on cigarette packs, lower the smoking age and lift the ban on TV commercials. Next, we’ll see new encouragement and the rising of a new ‘Marlboro Man’.
After all, to keep a program like this going, they will have to keep people smoking and encourage those who don’t, to take up this habit. It will take 22 million ADDITIONAL smokers to pay for this in just a few short years.
We all know that this is a snow job. It encourages socialism and government dependency.
-
#29 written by sted.ruckus 9 months ago
The idea is that you have no clue how much tobacco makes do you? If half the country quit overnight, you could still finance this program off taxes.
People raise taxes, ban where you can smoke, but the truth of the matter is cigarettes are more addictive than heroin, so don’t worry, no one is quitting anytime soon.
I though Rush, of all people, would understand the cash cow Tobacco is sitting on by peddling addiction.
-
#31 written by Showtunes 9 months ago
Way to go Rush—he managed to take an issue brought up in a million other places a month ago, heck it was even on the Daily Show a couple weeks ago.
Even a senator pointed out the stupidity in this–if they can see it then its nice to see Rush finally noticed.
However, where were Dems supposed to get the money? Deficit spending is not a DNC thing, they try not to do it. Especially now since Bush is pretending to be fiscally conservative despite the last 7 years in office. Any new tax they offered would have met the same resistance as deficit spending unless done right. Cigs are seen as bad by both parties, so theyre one of the few places they could go for the money. Especially once you add in the flimsy logic of cigs raising health care costs.
- Comment Feed for this Post
Like many others, I see the socialized health care plan beginnings and I also see the gotta getta vote issue.
When people do quit (I have cut down quite a bit already) then we also have people who are no longer necessary to the production of tobacco and are now on welfare. So we have a more government dependent society as they get in line for benefits. Which leads to more government power. They will have to raise taxes on something else and it goes round and round.
I am beginning to envision a second Tea Party… At what point are we overtaxed? Wasn’t that a main issue when this country was founded? Freedom from nagging government and their taxes, freedom to speak and think, freedom to worship? Freedom to pay your own bills if you go to the doctor? (OK, yeah I know this one’s not too constitutional, but you get the point.) We are being bashed on all accounts these days.
So what are we going to do about it?