Cigarettes have gone up over 61 cents due to the federal tax and states are quickly adding their own provisions to increase their revenue. This may not seem like much, but to people with little money it is a BIG difference. Obama has said in a statement that it is a step forward in the "War on Tobacco". Has the federal government gone too far by interfering with our rights as citizens to smoke?
The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (“Act,”
Public Law 111-3), was signed into law on February 4, 2009. The Act
increases the Federal excise taxes on tobacco products and sets forth new permit
and enforcement provisions regarding tobacco products and processed
tobacco. http://www.ttb.gov/main_pages/schip-summary.shtmlJustin Austin
POS2001
12pm M/F
4 comments:
The answer is yes. The government is not just interfering with our right to smoke, it is creating taxes in order to pretend to lower the taxes of working class Americans. Take the tea parties for example; they were not out there to protest income taxes! They were out there protecting us from unlawful tariffs like the one you are speaking of.
William Derrick
POS2001 12pm M-F
William, the government isn't interfering with anyone's right to smoke. That right still exists. There is no "right to smoke cheaply." The primary purpose of the tea parties was to protest the Obama administration and its overall policies. Since there haven't been any significant changes to tax law since Obama has come into office, the parties couldn't be about something like that. Cigarette taxes aren't tariffs, a tariff is a tax on imported goods. Similarly, they aren't unlawful. They were legally passed by Congress and violate no portion of the Constitution, that makes them lawful.
Okay. I misunderstood the entire point then. It seemed to me that the argument was more over taxes (not tariffs) that seemed "unfair" (not unlawful). Although my exact science isn't perfect when it comes to politics I still do not believe in irresponsible government spending and then expecting us to pick up the bill. When the government is borrowing 50 cents for every dollar it spends am I wrong to believe that the taxes being placed on cigarettes are their way to pay back the government for there irresponsible use of our tax payer funds? Also, stating that the tea parties were a protest to the Obama Administration seems to me like a personal belief more than a fact. I was at the capital and saw nothing but signs about new taxes and poor government spending. As well as many democrats who had also had enough. I am just trying to understand why the left feels its okay to pass spending plans with thousands of ear marks in them when we are clearly in an economic crisis. Money is being given out and with absolutely no accoutability being over seen by Timothy Geithner. The new AIG CEO takes the job at one dollar a year and then is reemed by congress for paying out bonuses that where only paid out because of the Dodd Amendment which was part of the stimulus bill. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood would like a tax to be placed on how many miles we drive. Plus we are taxing the rich who are the business owners who create jobs and support the middle class. When does it stop?
William Derrick
POS2001 12pm
It is certainly a legitimate point of view to say that a particular law or tax is unfair.
As mentioned elsewhere, the government isn't borrowing 50 cents for every dollar it spends. The ratio is closer to 3-1, meaning the government is borrowing 25% of what they spend (at the federal level). This tax you are referring to is actually a state level thing. At the state level, there is a balanced budget requirement and Florida borrows no money, it's illegal.
Plus, you assume that taxpayer funds are being used irresponsible, but that is an assumption. Where is the evidence to back up the claim?
You said the tea parties were about new taxes and poor spending. Who is in charge of taxes and spending now, if not Obama? Beyond that, the tax party at the capitol was just one of thousands of such protests and generalizing from it would be the anecdotal evidence fallacy. Many, if not most, of the protests had explicit anti-Obama messages or signs at them. Besides, Obama actually proposed tax cuts for 95%+ of the population and poor government spending has been around a long time and is done by both parties, why would these events start only after Obama came to office if they weren't at least partially about him.
Earmarks are done by both parties in large numbers. Some of the people who complained about them, like John McCain, actually requested them. Earmarks were also very high when the Republicans controlled Congress. That being said, earmarks make up less than 1% of the budget and, more importantly, earmarks don't actually represent new spending. The money that goes to earmarks was going to be spent anyway, an earmark just requires that it be spent in a particular location on a particular project, it doesn't increase the budget.
There are several different government agencies engaging in government accountability over the bailouts. In addition to the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office, Congressional hearings have been held looking into how the money has been spent. Additionally, the White House is following up on how the money has been spent.
I've also already addressed the AIG bonuses, which were in contracts that existed prior to the Dodd Amendment's passage. And while there is some honor to the $1 salary thing, it's only symbolic, since he's already a millionaire. LaHood is a conservative Republican and his tax idea is unlikely to pass.
We tax everyone, not just the rich. Every American pays taxes. The rich pay a higher income tax because they use more in terms of government resources. When you think of national defense, what is it protecting, the property of poor people or the property of rich people? Poor people don't have much property, so it doesn't help them much. Same with fire protection, air traffic control, police, etc. Who uses roads more? Poor people, many of whom don't own cars, or rich people, who not only own multiple cars, they own businesses that transport heavy cargo over those roads. I could go on and on, but the point is made, we have a progressive income tax because the more money you have, the more likely you are to use more in government services.
Post a Comment