Tax on Cigarettes
Debate Rounds (3)
Let's look at each point;
1) We already tax cigarettes so perhaps the question is whether that tax is proper. That depends on the next few points.
2) They are bad for the environment. Granted, but are they taxed in line with other detrimental activities like trash or sewage?
3) Bad for ourselves. Granted, but are they taxed in line with other detrimental activities like eating fast foods?
4 ) "they are detrimental through future implications towards future generations. " Those implications may have more to do with taxation and what should be taxed rather than cigarettes.
5) More revenue for the federal government may not be a good thing.
6) We do not need more revenue for the feds. They do not have a revenue problem they have a spending problem,
7) The feds are unstable because of spending.
To sum up, cigarettes are already taxed, but the reasons cited by the Senator seem to have more to do with funding big government rather than preserving peoples health. I would rather get rid of the tax, or earmark the tax for health projects, but not just give the money to the Washington Money Pit.
Cigarettes are a cogent place to start with taxing because 43.8 million people use them and they're virulent in the United States. Also, if spending if the unstable area of analysis and not regulating the revenue, we should allot some money towards organization and steps to improve budgeting.
I'm actually proposing a higher tax on cigarettes, in order for people to either stop buying them, which will lead to a healthier environment or buy the same amount for higher prices, which will lead to more money for the federal government, towards a more proficient budgeting program. Getting rid of the tax would be severely malignant because more and more packs of cigarettes would be bought at a lower price. By doing this we're not just giving money to the Washington Pit, but actually doing American citizens a favor and the money from the higher taxes on cigarettes could be allocated towards the educational system or infrastructure in the United States: Both need a lot of improvement and I'm sure many people would agree with that!
Let's look at each point.
A)" increasing the tax on cigarettes will cause a drop in use". This is using tax as a penalty. Smoke and you pay the penalty! But look at what effect this same penalty tax would have if applied to other activities such as trash pickup! People would find avoidance tactics which would do more harm.
B) increasing the tax on cigarettes will cause an increase in federal revenue. The feds do not need more money. Annual Federal revenue today exceeds the entire TOTAL WEALTH of the entire Forbes 400.
C) other things should be taxed - trash and fast food. NO. Other things should be the focus of public education not the focus of a new revenue stream.
D) the feds have many good things they could do with the money - e.g. improve infrastructure. The Federal government is NOT the ultimate developer of infrastructure. Look at the Erie Canal, Ohio Canal, the National Interstate Defense Highway system - all built via private bond investments.
In conclusion I would put forth that we should FEAR THE NANNY STATE. We should educate but not legislate. Leave the tax where it is. Use the existing revenues to educate and reduce smoking.
Senator forfeited this round.
1. The tax on cigarettes shall not be increased
2, Current cigarette tax revenues shall be used to reduce the use of cigarettes
3 Activities to reduce cigarette use shall be limited to education and not further legislation
Quid Erat Demonstandum ( that which was to be shown has been shown).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Projectid 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded so conduct goes to Con. Pro had s/g issues so that goes to Con. Con's arguments were well stated and made sense and were definitely more convincing than Pros.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.