PDA

View Full Version : PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke



b1e9a8r5s
04-01-2009, 03:15 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.

The extra money will be used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. That represents a step toward achieving another promise, to make sure all kids are covered.

Obama said in the campaign that Americans could have both—a broad boost in affordable health insurance for the nation without raising taxes on anyone but the rich.

His detailed campaign plan stated that his proposed improvement in health insurance and health technology "is more than covered" by raising taxes on the wealthy alone. It was not based on raising the tobacco tax.

The White House contends Obama's campaign pledge left room for measures such as the one financing children's health insurance.

"The president's position throughout the campaign was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000, and that's a promise he has kept," said White House spokesman Reid H. Cherlin. "In this case, he supported a public health measure that will extend health coverage to 4 million children who are currently uninsured."

In some instances during the campaign, Obama was plainly talking about income, payroll and investment taxes, even if he did not say so.

Other times, his point appeared to be that heavier taxation of any sort on average Americans is the wrong prescription in tough times.

"Listen now," he said in his widely watched nomination acceptance speech, "I will cut taxes—cut taxes—for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."

An unequivocal "any tax" pledge also was heard in the vice presidential debate, another prominent forum.

"No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax."

The Democratic campaign used such statements to counter Republican assertions that Obama would raise taxes in a multitude of direct and indirect ways, recalled Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

"I think a reasonable person would have concluded that Senator Obama had made a 'no new taxes' pledge to every couple or family making less than $250,000," she said.

Jamieson noted GOP ads that claimed Obama would raise taxes on electricity and home heating oil. "They rebutted both with the $250,000 claim," she said of the Obama campaign, "so they did extend the rebuttal beyond income and payroll."

Government and private research has found that smoking rates are higher among people of low income.

A Gallup survey of 75,000 people last year fleshed out that conclusion. It found that 34 percent of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers, and the smoking rate consistently declined among people of higher income. Only 13 percent of people earning $90,000 or more were smokers.

Federal or state governments often turn for extra tax dollars to the one in five Americans who smoke, and many states already hit tobacco users this year. So did the tobacco companies, which raised the price on many brands by more than 70 cents a pack.

The latest increase in the federal tax is by far the largest since its introduction in 1951, when it was 8 cents a pack. It's gone up six times since, each time by no more than a dime, until now.

Apart from the tax haul, public health advocates argue that squeezing smokers will help some to quit and persuade young people not to start.

But it was a debate the country didn't have in a presidential campaign that swore off higher


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1

I'm honestly starting to feel sorry for smokers. They keep having to take it up the ***. And like the article mentions, I'm sure this effects the poor, more than the wealthy.

cabernetluver
04-01-2009, 03:21 PM
I no longer smoke cigarettes, so, it seems that whole thing is just about as solid as smoke to me. For those who do smoke cigarettes, I hope it gives you the reason you are looking for to quit.

b1e9a8r5s
04-01-2009, 03:40 PM
I no longer smoke cigarettes, so, it seems that whole thing is just about as solid as smoke to me. For those who do smoke cigarettes, I hope it gives you the reason you are looking for to quit.

So because you don't smoke, it doesn't bother you that the poor are disproportionately getting taxed here? I'm a republican (and I hate the poor) and this bothers me. Why not jack up the tax of Cabernet wines? You could argue that is just as dangerous, and that it would at least go more towards the rich. I think smokers have gotten screwed in this country. For the record, I don't smoke, I dip. I think it's absurd that in my state (IL), the government can tell a bar owner that they aren't allowed to have smoking in there bar. If I own a place, I should be able to allow a legal activity within my bar and the customers should have the right to go to bars that do or don't allow it by there own choice. Sorry, that's kind of a side rant.

cabernetluver
04-01-2009, 04:01 PM
So because you don't smoke, it doesn't bother you that the poor are disproportionately getting taxed here? I'm a republican (and I hate the poor) and this bothers me. Why not jack up the tax of Cabernet wines? You could argue that is just as dangerous, and that it would at least go more towards the rich. I think smokers have gotten screwed in this country. For the record, I don't smoke, I dip. I think it's absurd that in my state (IL), the government can tell a bar owner that they aren't allowed to have smoking in there bar. If I own a place, I should be able to allow a legal activity within my bar and the customers should have the right to go to bars that do or don't allow it by there own choice. Sorry, that's kind of a side rant.

No, it does not bother me. Now if it were food, or energy, or water, or other necessities that would bother me. For the record, I would capitalize the R in your party affiliation, but that is just me. I do not hate the poor, or the middle class or the wealthy.

The more I think of it that is a funny thing to say that you hate someone because of the level of income. But that too is just me. You are entitled to feel however you choose to feel. But I wonder do you hate the poor just because you hate the poor, or do you hate the poor because you are a Republican (see I really do capitalize the R).


Actually you cannot compare tobacco with red wine, because, if you use tobacco as directed it is a health risk, while using red wine as directed is a benefit to one’s health, but, that aside, I have no problem with the idea taxes might go up on wine.

Smokers, and although I said I don't smoke cigarettes any more, I do smoke about 4 cigars a year (so I will pay about another $2 in taxes), are in fact, not getting screwed. In fact, I would argue that smokers for years screwed non smokers. If I drink a glass of wine next to someone who does not drink anything stronger than Sprite, I have not caused them to drink wine. If on the other hand I am sitting next to a smoker, and I choose not to be a smoker, I suddenly am a smoker.

Interestingly, on a side note, I do travel a fair amount, and am finding more and more hotels becoming non smoking hotels, not because of a change in law, but a change in society.

FOBolous
04-01-2009, 04:02 PM
somehow raising the tax on cig is connected to taxing the poor and now is used to bashed Obama? :rolleyes: wow you Republicans are getting desperate aren't yall?

b1e9a8r5s
04-01-2009, 04:13 PM
No, it does not bother me. Now if it were food, or energy, or water, or other necessities that would bother me. For the record, I would capitalize the R in your party affiliation, but that is just me. I do not hate the poor, or the middle class or the wealthy.

The more I think of it that is a funny thing to say that you hate someone because of the level of income. But that too is just me. You are entitled to feel however you choose to feel. But I wonder do you hate the poor just because you hate the poor, or do you hate the poor because you are a Republican (see I really do capitalize the R).


Actually you cannot compare tobacco with red wine, because, if you use tobacco as directed it is a health risk, while using red wine as directed is a benefit to one’s health, but, that aside, I have no problem with the idea taxes might go up on wine.

Smokers, and although I said I don't smoke cigarettes any more, I do smoke about 4 cigars a year (so I will pay about another $2 in taxes), are in fact, not getting screwed. In fact, I would argue that smokers for years screwed non smokers. If I drink a glass of wine next to someone who does not drink anything stronger than Sprite, I have not caused them to drink wine. If on the other hand I am sitting next to a smoker, and I choose not to be a smoker, I suddenly am a smoker.

Interestingly, on a side note, I do travel a fair amount, and am finding more and more hotels becoming non smoking hotels, not because of a change in law, but a change in society.

For the record, the hate the poor was an old joke, as DB can atest too. I just think at some point enough is enough. I understand the differences between red wine and 2nd hand smoke. Obviously 2nd hand smoke was a problem, and public buildings and such should obviously be smoke free. However, i will never for the life of me agree that the government should be able to tell the owner of a private establishment what he can or can't allow in his/her establishment.

Raidaz4Life
04-01-2009, 04:13 PM
I'm a Republican and actually like this move by Obama, great job! Keep up the good work Obama!

Zep
04-01-2009, 04:16 PM
I smoke and I don't care that the taxes are getting raised, if the higher prices affected my perceived quality of life, I would quit (which, ironically, would unequivocally improve my actual quality of life).

b1e9a8r5s
04-01-2009, 04:20 PM
somehow raising the tax on cig is connected to taxing the poor and now is used to bashed Obama? :rolleyes: wow you Republicans are getting desperate aren't yall?

If you read the article (which is by the AP, not exactly a bastion of right wing propaganda) it pretty clearly states that there is a correlation between the percentage of people who smoke and their income level. It says...
" Gallup survey of 75,000 people last year fleshed out that conclusion. It found that 34 percent of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers, and the smoking rate consistently declined among people of higher income. Only 13 percent of people earning $90,000 or more were smokers."

So someone who only makes $12,000 a year and smokes a pack every other day (182.5 packs a year X.62 increase) just had there taxes go up %0.94. Anyways, my point on this wasn't so much to say Obama broke a promise, and point fingers, more to discuss the idea as a whole, which I disagree with, or at least to the extent it has been taking. If you note in my first post, I made no mention of Obama or campaign promises. The article was written by AP, and I'd guess that breitbart put up the promises promise part, and brietbart does lean right obviously, but you keep calling me desperate for posting AP articles. Good job by you.

b1e9a8r5s
04-01-2009, 04:36 PM
A question. I assume everyone who's for this likes it because smoking is dangerous and all that. So the goal of this would be two fold. Generate more revenue through taxes and to deter people from smoking. What would happen if everyone stopped smoking? How much of a budget deficit would that create? In many ways, I think the government needs people to smoke. After all, as an issue, there aren't many who will voice opposition to this tax raise. It's sort of like a free tax rate without having to have the baggage (bad publicity) that can come with it.

cabernetluver
04-01-2009, 04:36 PM
who or what is brietbart?

cabernetluver
04-01-2009, 04:37 PM
A question. I assume everyone who's for this likes it because smoking is dangerous and all that. So the goal of this would be two fold. Generate more revenue through taxes and to deter people from smoking. What would happen if everyone stopped smoking? How much of a budget deficit would that create? In many ways, I think the government needs people to smoke. After all, as an issue, there aren't many who will voice opposition to this tax raise. It's sort of like a free tax rate without having to have the baggage (bad publicity) that can come with it.

Not really, you save money on health care more than that which one would get from taxes.

b1e9a8r5s
04-01-2009, 04:43 PM
who or what is brietbart?
From wikipidia....


Andrew Breitbart (born February 1, 1969) is an American conservative commentator for the Washington Times, author,[2] occasional guest commentator for political news programs and is best known as a part-time editor of the conservative Drudge Report website. He was a developer for The Huffington Post and currently runs his own news portal, Breitbart.com.

Contributor
Breitbart's highest profile venue to date is the Drudge Report. Breitbart, who describes himself as "Matt Drudge’s *****",[3] does not write stories on the website, but simply links to other mainstream news wire sources. See Drudge Report for more information. On November 7, 2008, Mr. Breitbart guest-hosted the Savage Nation talk radio program. He is also a regular fill in for Dennis Miller on his nationally syndicated radio show.

Breitbart.com
He now runs his own news site at Breitbart.com, with the motto "Just The News." The site is frequently linked to by the Drudge Report and independently run websites. It features wire stories from the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, Fox News, PR Newswire, US Newswire, as well as direct links to a number of major international newspapers. Its Blog & "Network" links, however, tend to represent almost solely a US right-wing point of view, such as National Review, Instapundit, and Townhall.com. The site also features a search engine powered by Lingospot and a finance channel powered by FinancialContent. Breitbart also launched a video blog Breitbart.TV in 2007. [4] When Breitbart is at the controls of the Drudge Report, he regularly links to breitbart.com, in order "to cash in on Drudge's legions".[4]


Big Hollywood
In 2008 Breitbart launched the website "Big Hollywood" [5] a "group blog" driven by Tinseltown, with contributions from high profile Hollywood types who politically lean right.[5] The site is an outgrowth of the column "Big Hollywood" that Breitbart wrote for the newspaper The Washington Times that addresses issues facing conservatives working in Hollywood.[1]







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart

ari1013
04-01-2009, 04:43 PM
A question. I assume everyone who's for this likes it because smoking is dangerous and all that. So the goal of this would be two fold. Generate more revenue through taxes and to deter people from smoking. What would happen if everyone stopped smoking? How much of a budget deficit would that create? In many ways, I think the government needs people to smoke. After all, as an issue, there aren't many who will voice opposition to this tax raise. It's sort of like a free tax rate without having to have the baggage (bad publicity) that can come with it.
Exactly. The funds here are designated entirely to fund SCHIP. If enough people quit that SCHIP is in need of funding, then we'll have to figure something out. Until then, the extra funding for child health care coupled with a decrease in second hand smoke really can't be construed as a bad thing at all.

This is what we refer to as a Pigouvian Tax. We're internalizing the negative externality created when people smoke cigarettes.

It's similar to taxing excessive carbon emissions and then designating that revenue towards environmental cleanup.

ari1013
04-01-2009, 04:44 PM
From wikipidia....


Andrew Breitbart (born February 1, 1969) is an American conservative commentator for the Washington Times, author,[2] occasional guest commentator for political news programs and is best known as a part-time editor of the conservative Drudge Report website. He was a developer for The Huffington Post and currently runs his own news portal, Breitbart.com.

Contributor
Breitbart's highest profile venue to date is the Drudge Report. Breitbart, who describes himself as "Matt Drudge’s *****",[3] does not write stories on the website, but simply links to other mainstream news wire sources. See Drudge Report for more information. On November 7, 2008, Mr. Breitbart guest-hosted the Savage Nation talk radio program. He is also a regular fill in for Dennis Miller on his nationally syndicated radio show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart
Funny that he helped develop HuffPo which most cons rail against.

Jerry34
04-01-2009, 04:49 PM
For the record, the hate the poor was an old joke, as DB can atest too. I just think at some point enough is enough. I understand the differences between red wine and 2nd hand smoke. Obviously 2nd hand smoke was a problem, and public buildings and such should obviously be smoke free. However, i will never for the life of me agree that the government should be able to tell the owner of a private establishment what he can or can't allow in his/her establishment.

Yeah, but the government has regulations on the cleanliness of the restaurant. Which I think most people appreciate. I smoke occasionally, mostly when I'm drinking, but I just don't see what the big deal is with smoking outside? The smoking ban in bars is for the restaurant employees. If you work in a smoke filled bar all day long you might as well smoke, because you're sucking that **** in all day.
Anyway as much as it sucks for smokers I guess I don't totally feel bad that the government is taxing something that isn't a necessity for life.

b1e9a8r5s
04-01-2009, 04:52 PM
Ok, so I'm just spit balling here. But why not tax McDonalds or sandwhiches with too much fat or something to that extent too? I know New York was talking about it at one point. I guess I'm just asking when does it stop.

ari1013
04-01-2009, 04:53 PM
Ok, so I'm just spit balling here. But why not tax McDonalds or sandwhiches with too much fat or something to that extent too? I know New York was talking about it at one point. I guess I'm just asking when does it stop.
They're adding a 5% tax on soft drinks in your home state just for that reason.

b1e9a8r5s
04-01-2009, 05:03 PM
Yeah, but the government has regulations on the cleanliness of the restaurant. Which I think most people appreciate. I smoke occasionally, mostly when I'm drinking, but I just don't see what the big deal is with smoking outside? The smoking ban in bars is for the restaurant employees. If you work in a smoke filled bar all day long you might as well smoke, because you're sucking that **** in all day.
Anyway as much as it sucks for smokers I guess I don't totally feel bad that the government is taxing something that isn't a necessity for life.

But the thing is, if I as a bar owner (and I'm not for the record) hire only people who smoke, and they sign waivers or what have you, I still couldn't legally do it. People have options in jobs. The idea that every job is available to everyone is PC BS. I couldn't get a job as a waiter at hooters because I'm a dude. Although I probably could sue and get paid off, but you know what I'm saying. If you want to be a waitress, you could go to an establishment that doesn't allow smoking, because in my world each establishment would decide what they wanted or didn't want. And in the end, if enough people didn't go to the bar that allowed smoking, then he/she would probably change to non smoking because that's where the business is. That's how it should be in my world. More of a "free market" (I use that cautiously knowing that it has become a four letter word with this whole banking/economy thing.) In Illinois, you can't have a cigar bar anymore, because the only establishments that can allow smoking have to have like 80% of there revenue from tobacco sales.

PHX-SOXFAN
04-01-2009, 05:19 PM
this does not constitute breaking a campaign pledge.

the republicans in the house who pledged to grover norquist on the other hand have nothing to fall back on except the fact that they have broken their word

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/26/tax-travesty-congress-opinions-columnists-republican.html

behindmydesk
04-01-2009, 05:52 PM
this does not constitute breaking a campaign pledge.

the republicans in the house who pledged to grover norquist on the other hand have nothing to fall back on except the fact that they have broken their word

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/26/tax-travesty-congress-opinions-columnists-republican.html

Well republicans, that voted for it. Did they run on no new taxes? You can't just lump together and say woops they went on their word.

Of course Obama actually did go on his word on this one. I am fine that he did, because I understand why the tax is there.

Once again typical left wing, we only look at one side, Moore style spin from our good friend PHX.

Jerry34
04-01-2009, 06:16 PM
But the thing is, if I as a bar owner (and I'm not for the record) hire only people who smoke, and they sign waivers or what have you, I still couldn't legally do it. People have options in jobs. The idea that every job is available to everyone is PC BS. I couldn't get a job as a waiter at hooters because I'm a dude. Although I probably could sue and get paid off, but you know what I'm saying. If you want to be a waitress, you could go to an establishment that doesn't allow smoking, because in my world each establishment would decide what they wanted or didn't want. And in the end, if enough people didn't go to the bar that allowed smoking, then he/she would probably change to non smoking because that's where the business is. That's how it should be in my world. More of a "free market" (I use that cautiously knowing that it has become a four letter word with this whole banking/economy thing.) In Illinois, you can't have a cigar bar anymore, because the only establishments that can allow smoking have to have like 80% of there revenue from tobacco sales.

Alright well before the smoking ban a year ago all bars/restaurants weren't forced to allow smoking. But how many do you remember that voluntarily were non smoking? Not too many right? Up in the suburbs (of chicago) where I live a few towns passed no-smoking ordinances and some bars were suing the cities because all their business was driving a mile down the road so they could smoke. Anyway my point is that if the main reason behind the ban is employee health then I don't think the voluntary smoking/non-smoking thing would work out well for them.

b1e9a8r5s
04-01-2009, 07:43 PM
Alright well before the smoking ban a year ago all bars/restaurants weren't forced to allow smoking. But how many do you remember that voluntarily were non smoking? Not too many right? Up in the suburbs (of chicago) where I live a few towns passed no-smoking ordinances and some bars were suing the cities because all their business was driving a mile down the road so they could smoke. Anyway my point is that if the main reason behind the ban is employee health then I don't think the voluntary smoking/non-smoking thing would work out well for them.

I'm from Oak Park (one of the towns that banned smoking). I went to a few of the hearings at the village hall, so I know what your talking about. I know that the health issue is the main reason behind it and I understand that. What I'm saying is if enough people really cared, as they claim too, why couldn't they have only have gone to restaurants that were non smoking, as consumers. I think that ultimately it would have worked itself out. Some restaurants/bars would allow it and others wouldn't have. In the end owners would have done what was in the best interests of their business. If one business wants to cater to that smoky whole in the wall local bar, why shouldn't they be able to? What if I own my own bar and I'm the only employee? Or me and my wife? Should we not be able to allow smoking? Why is it that tobacco stores can have it? What about people that work there? All the poor cigar salesman's health doesn't matter? Or is it because you know that if you work in a smoke shop, there's going to be smoke, so you assume that risk. Just like if you work in a bar that allows smoking. If it's that big of a deal, go to a bar that doesn't. There's so much support for these anti smoking laws that there had to be some. Basically, in my world, your right as a potential employee doesn't super cede my right as a business owner to run the business the way I see fit. This is America.

PHX-SOXFAN
04-01-2009, 07:59 PM
Well republicans, that voted for it. Did they run on no new taxes? You can't just lump together and say woops they went on their word.

Of course Obama actually did go on his word on this one. I am fine that he did, because I understand why the tax is there.

Once again typical left wing, we only look at one side, Moore style spin from our good friend PHX.

obviously you didn't read the link, otherwise you would have seen it was a list of republicans that voted for it. Therefore I wasn't lumping them all together. and yes they went against their oath and pledget that they signed. they went out of their way to have this on the same day as their inauguration oath then just made themselves look like incompetent hypocrits with one vote.

obama on the other hand is referring to progressive income tax rates. just like what was in the stimulus and his budget. he did not break a campaign promise at all.

no moore style spin at all, just facts with references. If you cared to read them your foot would stay out of your mouth:D

cabernetluver
04-01-2009, 08:00 PM
I'm from Oak Park (one of the towns that banned smoking). I went to a few of the hearings at the village hall, so I know what your talking about. I know that the health issue is the main reason behind it and I understand that. What I'm saying is if enough people really cared, as they claim too, why couldn't they have only have gone to restaurants that were non smoking, as consumers. I think that ultimately it would have worked itself out. Some restaurants/bars would allow it and others wouldn't have. In the end owners would have done what was in the best interests of their business. If one business wants to cater to that smoky whole in the wall local bar, why shouldn't they be able to? What if I own my own bar and I'm the only employee? Or me and my wife? Should we not be able to allow smoking? Why is it that tobacco stores can have it? What about people that work there? All the poor cigar salesman's health doesn't matter? Or is it because you know that if you work in a smoke shop, there's going to be smoke, so you assume that risk. Just like if you work in a bar that allows smoking. If it's that big of a deal, go to a bar that doesn't. There's so much support for these anti smoking laws that there had to be some. Basically, in my world, your right as a potential employee doesn't super cede my right as a business owner to run the business the way I see fit. This is America.

I can answer the question about the market sorting it out when it comes to smoking v nonsmoking restaurants. Smokers are of course a small percentage of the total population. One would think just based on that, smoking establishments would be a small percentage of the population of restaurants. It was never true. Here is the reason why.

Imagine two couples are going out to dinner. One person of the four smokes. There is a choice of smoking or non smoking restaurants. The smoking restaurant will get the business, every time. I was a smoker and that is what people would have done. Now, as an ex smoker, I would still feel for my smoker friend and still go there for him. In fact, this is exactly what I used to do for a friend.

Here in Los Angeles, for a period of time, smoking was allowed in bars but not in restaurants. There was this bar next to a deli. They had a pass through window so food could be ordered from the deli. My friend smoked, so in the bar we ate.

If bar owners and restaurant owners were never worried about losing business because of this addicted minority, they would almost unanimously want to be non smoking places because it is less expensive to operate in a non smoking environment.

Since there is no constitutional right to smoke (smokers’ rights is nonsense, except in a closet by themselves, because their smoking does to one degree or another make others smokers who did not volunteer for the role) it then becomes a question of conflicts. I understand your position of property rights, and agree, but there is a conflict with others right to not smoke.

ari1013
04-01-2009, 08:17 PM
I'm from Oak Park (one of the towns that banned smoking). I went to a few of the hearings at the village hall, so I know what your talking about. I know that the health issue is the main reason behind it and I understand that. What I'm saying is if enough people really cared, as they claim too, why couldn't they have only have gone to restaurants that were non smoking, as consumers. I think that ultimately it would have worked itself out. Some restaurants/bars would allow it and others wouldn't have. In the end owners would have done what was in the best interests of their business. If one business wants to cater to that smoky whole in the wall local bar, why shouldn't they be able to? What if I own my own bar and I'm the only employee? Or me and my wife? Should we not be able to allow smoking? Why is it that tobacco stores can have it? What about people that work there? All the poor cigar salesman's health doesn't matter? Or is it because you know that if you work in a smoke shop, there's going to be smoke, so you assume that risk. Just like if you work in a bar that allows smoking. If it's that big of a deal, go to a bar that doesn't. There's so much support for these anti smoking laws that there had to be some. Basically, in my world, your right as a potential employee doesn't super cede my right as a business owner to run the business the way I see fit. This is America.
Fine, but does the smoking ban that passed democratically really impede the way you run your business? Are you still able to pour drinks and serve high-sodium high-fat foods to sell more drinks?

b1e9a8r5s
04-01-2009, 08:34 PM
Fine, but does the smoking ban that passed democratically really impede the way you run your business? Are you still able to pour drinks and serve high-sodium high-fat foods to sell more drinks?

Well if I was a hookah (sp?) bar that only got say 10% of my revenue from tabbaco, I would have to lose the pipes, which would have obviously been a big part of the attraction of my business. Or a cigar bar? That is obviously part of the attraction to some bars, maybe not all, but I would say in those cases that, yes it does hinder me from running my business and the sales of my other products.

ari1013
04-01-2009, 09:23 PM
Well if I was a hookah (sp?) bar that only got say 10% of my revenue from tabbaco, I would have to lose the pipes, which would have obviously been a big part of the attraction of my business. Or a cigar bar? That is obviously part of the attraction to some bars, maybe not all, but I would say in those cases that, yes it does hinder me from running my business and the sales of my other products.
Actually, despite the ban, hookah bars still legally operate in NY state. I believe cigar bars do as well. As specialty shops, they don't fall under the bar+restaurant rule. I can't speak for IL but I'm sure it's similar.

behindmydesk
04-01-2009, 09:35 PM
obviously you didn't read the link, otherwise you would have seen it was a list of republicans that voted for it. Therefore I wasn't lumping them all together. and yes they went against their oath and pledget that they signed. they went out of their way to have this on the same day as their inauguration oath then just made themselves look like incompetent hypocrits with one vote.

obama on the other hand is referring to progressive income tax rates. just like what was in the stimulus and his budget. he did not break a campaign promise at all.

no moore style spin at all, just facts with references. If you cared to read them your foot would stay out of your mouth:D

My foot is not in my mouth, because while yes he did have a progressive tax, the cold hard FACTS that you like to say you always use, is the majority users that this tax will affect is lower income people. It's a simple fact. He said he would not raise taxes on those families. You are taking a rather liberal view to say well now he just meant income tax.


And I did read your article, and I never said it wasn't about republicans. You are lumping all the republicans together, that we all went against some oath. And there is no mention of some oath you are talking about. So me saying you are lumping them all together is factual, because you are providing no evidence that they all said NO NEW TAXES WE WON"T EVER RAISE TAXES! Also on a side note, while I didn't agree with the 90% tax, the american people for the most part loved it.

behindmydesk
04-01-2009, 09:38 PM
I can answer the question about the market sorting it out when it comes to smoking v nonsmoking restaurants. Smokers are of course a small percentage of the total population. One would think just based on that, smoking establishments would be a small percentage of the population of restaurants. It was never true. Here is the reason why.

Imagine two couples are going out to dinner. One person of the four smokes. There is a choice of smoking or non smoking restaurants. The smoking restaurant will get the business, every time. I was a smoker and that is what people would have done. Now, as an ex smoker, I would still feel for my smoker friend and still go there for him. In fact, this is exactly what I used to do for a friend.

Here in Los Angeles, for a period of time, smoking was allowed in bars but not in restaurants. There was this bar next to a deli. They had a pass through window so food could be ordered from the deli. My friend smoked, so in the bar we ate.

If bar owners and restaurant owners were never worried about losing business because of this addicted minority, they would almost unanimously want to be non smoking places because it is less expensive to operate in a non smoking environment.

Since there is no constitutional right to smoke (smokers’ rights is nonsense, except in a closet by themselves, because their smoking does to one degree or another make others smokers who did not volunteer for the role) it then becomes a question of conflicts. I understand your position of property rights, and agree, but there is a conflict with others right to not smoke.

I used to be on the side, that the market will sort it out, etc. But what you say is 100% truth. Plus basically any place that serves booze has to allow smoking if it's allowed, because they will lose mass amounts of business. Yea sure occasionally there is a bar hotspot that for awhile makes it, but it's usually not the case.

ari1013
04-01-2009, 10:18 PM
My foot is not in my mouth, because while yes he did have a progressive tax, the cold hard FACTS that you like to say you always use, is the majority users that this tax will affect is lower income people. It's a simple fact. He said he would not raise taxes on those families. You are taking a rather liberal view to say well now he just meant income tax.


And I did read your article, and I never said it wasn't about republicans. You are lumping all the republicans together, that we all went against some oath. And there is no mention of some oath you are talking about. So me saying you are lumping them all together is factual, because you are providing no evidence that they all said NO NEW TAXES WE WON"T EVER RAISE TAXES! Also on a side note, while I didn't agree with the 90% tax, the american people for the most part loved it.
The 90% tax thing was really really stupid. I hope the Senate doesn't pass that crap from the House. I don't care that they got over 300 votes on it. It's a terrible precedent IMO. There are other ways to deal with it -- like simply passing a bill stating no more bonuses. But going back in time? Iffy at best.

ari1013
04-01-2009, 10:20 PM
I used to be on the side, that the market will sort it out, etc. But what you say is 100% truth. Plus basically any place that serves booze has to allow smoking if it's allowed, because they will lose mass amounts of business. Yea sure occasionally there is a bar hotspot that for awhile makes it, but it's usually not the case.
Not if it's banned in all bars. NY bars aren't any less packed than they were when cigarettes were legal inside.

DenButsu
04-01-2009, 10:51 PM
Ok, so I'm just spit balling here.

As long as we're keeping it real, then, can we make one giant Obama-bashing thread where you and lakersrock can post all these crap threads?

DenButsu
04-01-2009, 10:52 PM
^to clarify - the topic of whether smokes should be taxed more is not crap. The title and the presentation are.

gcoll
04-02-2009, 01:31 AM
It's that whole "power to tax is power to destroy" thing.

They want to stop people from smoking, and they also get the benefit of collecting more revenue.

Fast food will be taxed at a high rate sooner or later under the "sin tax" banner. Especially if they pass universal health care.

behindmydesk
04-02-2009, 09:38 AM
Not if it's banned in all bars. NY bars aren't any less packed than they were when cigarettes were legal inside.

Yea that was my point, it needs to be banned in all bars, because free market doesn't really wrok.

ink
04-02-2009, 11:41 AM
As long as we're keeping it real, then, can we make one giant Obama-bashing thread where you and lakersrock can post all these crap threads?


^to clarify - the topic of whether smokes should be taxed more is not crap. The title and the presentation are.

I'm sorry to say it but the ridiculously biased and misleading thread titles are a major turnoff about this forum now. :( Real disincentive to posting in here.

behindmydesk
04-02-2009, 11:57 AM
Ink it's the title of the AP article.

ink
04-02-2009, 12:11 PM
Ink it's the title of the AP article.

I know. It's a general comment.

ink
04-02-2009, 12:12 PM
I no longer smoke cigarettes, so, it seems that whole thing is just about as solid as smoke to me. For those who do smoke cigarettes, I hope it gives you the reason you are looking for to quit.

Me too.

b1e9a8r5s
04-02-2009, 12:20 PM
Ink it's the title of the AP article.

Thank you. I always try to just use whatever title is there, to avoid these types of charges against me.

ink
04-02-2009, 12:33 PM
This isn't just pointed at you b1e ... incendiary articles can be chosen for their heavy slant right? And sometimes from some pretty poor sources. That didn't happen with this AP article, but it happens more and more in this forum as Den said.

As for this article, why should we have any sympathy for smokers getting taxed? We'd be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't aware that smoking is a massive burden on the health system, and serves no useful purpose. It's about as open and shut a situation as you can get. Smoking kills. So the thread just seems like a pretext for taking heavily biased shots at the guy in power. Hey, the leader becomes the target of all kinds of criticism, I get that, but a lot of these threads are pretty flimsy. The premise and title of the thread about Wagoner is ridiculous for example ...

PHX-SOXFAN
04-02-2009, 06:51 PM
My foot is not in my mouth, because while yes he did have a progressive tax, the cold hard FACTS that you like to say you always use, is the majority users that this tax will affect is lower income people. It's a simple fact. He said he would not raise taxes on those families. You are taking a rather liberal view to say well now he just meant income tax.


And I did read your article, and I never said it wasn't about republicans. You are lumping all the republicans together, that we all went against some oath. And there is no mention of some oath you are talking about. So me saying you are lumping them all together is factual, because you are providing no evidence that they all said NO NEW TAXES WE WON"T EVER RAISE TAXES! Also on a side note, while I didn't agree with the 90% tax, the american people for the most part loved it.

then look up the grover norquist oath. educate yourself on which republican congressman are hypocrits and made themselves look like fools with this vote.

behindmydesk
04-02-2009, 08:06 PM
then look up the grover norquist oath. educate yourself on which republican congressman are hypocrits and made themselves look like fools with this vote.

Ok it's impossible to know everything, and had you posted a link, linking those congressman, with this oath story you talk about, it would have helped. But regardless, we have been told by you and others that 2 wrongs don't make a right. And the point of this is thread is Obama went back on his word.

ari1013
04-02-2009, 08:12 PM
Ok it's impossible to know everything, and had you posted a link, linking those congressman, with this oath story you talk about, it would have helped. But regardless, we have been told by you and others that 2 wrongs don't make a right. And the point of this is thread is Obama went back on his word.
He promised to pass SCHIP. So he didn't go back on his word there. He promised that 95% of Americans would not have their taxes raised. If you want to get into semantics like this, you could calculate the average tax burden levied by this on an American relative to the average tax cut via the stimulus.

behindmydesk
04-02-2009, 08:38 PM
He promised to pass SCHIP. So he didn't go back on his word there. He promised that 95% of Americans would not have their taxes raised. If you want to get into semantics like this, you could calculate the average tax burden levied by this on an American relative to the average tax cut via the stimulus.

Yes, but it doesn't discount, I will not raises taxes of any kind.............

I'm fine with the tax increase, it's not a tax on everyone, you can choose whether the tax applies to you etc.

I am a bit concerned with the ever increasing taxes on Tobacco, designed to get people to quit, when we are tying so many programs to the tobacco tax. I'm concerned we'll lose funding for them, and then go back to the general coffers.

ari1013
04-02-2009, 10:49 PM
I know what you mean. I'm a bit afraid that the government is going to forget that stimulus funding is supposed to be short term and a lot of these programs are going to grow really long tails. But honestly, what can you really do?