The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zennie5000
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

tobacco should be heavily taxed to reimburse for government health care cost

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Zennie5000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 828 times Debate No: 59179
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the idea, that cancer and other bad health effects from smoking causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in cigarette taxes.

my understanding is right now the costs of tobacco to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for smokers, so they would't smoke as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends due to the product.
Zennie5000

Con

The cigarette tax should not be brought up to ay or a government program.

First: Do you realize how high the cigarette tax would need to be? The tax would be over 10 dollars per pack making it more than a 1000 % increase. Also, the government is then punishing those who use cigarettes. With this policy the government would need to tax beer as well?

Second: With the fluctuating cost of the healthcare system the tax would not be a flat tax. It would need to be changed accordingly with the amount of money that the healthcare system would be requiring.

The government has no right to raise the tax on something just because it causes cancer and can be fatal. Your argument is a slippery slope that would eventually raise taxes on anything that is deadly
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

it may be a lot more cost prohibittive, but that'st just life. it will help deter some from smoking so much. it is merely recouping what they cost in health care. im sure if you ask any of them, they would all say theyd like health care in their last days or for illnesses brought on by cigarettes. so, the gov is just recouping, and if it has to fall on someone why should it fall on general tax payers to pay it?
Zennie5000

Con

If you want to go down the path of taxing people for things that will hurt them than we will have to tax things like cars and beds. A car can crash and make you rely on the health care system and a bed, you can fall out of and break both your legs and arms. You cannot go down the path of taxing for injuries that could happen farther down the road. Very similar to the Hobby Lobby case, the verdict would later apply to more and more things.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

cars and beds are not something that can be considered 'culpable'. tobacco is a bad habit, the other things are a part of life. though, i wouldn't be opposed to a gas tax to recuperate the losses there.

the hobby lobby case is irrelevant to this issue. and, besides, the ruling of that case could have been different and it'd have been a slippery slope in the direction of no religoius rights. it was best to take that case as an example case of something traditional that was permitted on the side of religion, and not read too much into it as far as sippery slopes go.
Zennie5000

Con

The US health care system is modeled so that people thaw choose more don't pay more. If you want to go down that road them why not tax diabetics our people born with diseases as they will cost more money. The system that you propose just isn't viable and unrealistic. The government will need to have an indeed for every petty tax that is proposed. Your idea is stupid and you obviously didn't think it through.

I enjoyed the debate and the questions that you have me. Made me think. Have fun voters!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
When ye sit in your matrix bubble, as a tool of the powers that be, ye may not be taxed. That is the essence of ideas such as this. Hurry up ad legalize pot, so it can be taxed, and you can be in your bubble.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
well i can't deny...

i might actually be open to the idea of a 'fat tax' or something like that....

(maybe some exceptions for those with known medically excused conditions for their weight
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
There you have it, Obamacare ("government health care cost") is an open-door tax policy. In the future, let"s "heavily tax to reimburse for government health care cost" decided by the masterminds. One day those masterminds may feel the following are unhealthy: sugar, bacon, eggs, ice cream, your weight, etc. All that tax money coming into DC, oh the humanity. As for government healthcare, they will kill us like they"re doing to our Vets. You got to love socialism in the shadow of tyranny.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
though the costs for somehting like that would seem to be starting to get pretty high. would be curious what a pack of cigarettes would cost if that were the case.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
well, i could see that. a tax that covers medical expenses, and rehab.
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
Would be better to spend on helping smokers overcome their addiction otherwise it's just exploitation of addicted people who can't stop.
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
Cigarette taxes are not spent on health so you'll need to get government to change that policy first..
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cZennie5000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con effectively showed the downsides of heavy taxes
Vote Placed by TruthHurts 2 years ago
TruthHurts
dairygirl4u2cZennie5000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was not the best debate, and both sides could use some additional work on argument structure, along with basic spelling and grammar. However, based on the arguments presented, I have to give this debate to Con. Con noted that the idea of recouping health care costs from a product through taxes on said product is untenable, because this would require taxes on any product that has any possible effect on health. Pro, having the BOP, was simply not able to defend a system that taxes consumers on the possible health consequences of their purchases.
Vote Placed by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
dairygirl4u2cZennie5000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is totally correct in the observation that taxing personal choice so the system can prosper is inherently wrong. To add to Cons argument, should every athlete be taxed, because of the risks they themselves willingly assume? When we all sit still at home we will be no risk to the healthcare system?