Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Taxes

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 9:46:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Understanding taxes:

Taxes, are simply a tool the goverment uses to pay for the goods they provide us, and pay off debts. [1]The most common taxes are payroll, Income, and sales taxes. [1]

The case for a progressive tax:

The main argument is fairness, as the overall tax burden is large and there are many ways to spread this burden. I needn't explain this type of tax as anyone on these forums probably know what this is. Those in the top 1%, those making over 400,000$ deserve a higher rate. [2] Raising taxes on these earners from 22% and raising it to 29% would increase revenue by 1% of GDP. [2] Now, how is this good? It is god as it would reduce deficits, therefore helping the economy. [2] Further it is fair as if you make more money, it makes sense that you pay more. [2]

The case for a Flat tax:

A flat tax is fair, simple, and spurs economic growth. [3] [4] they all have a low flat rate, and they are generally less then 20%. [3] This ends the problem of high marginal tax rates. It would also end special interests. [3] There would be n double taxation, and is family friendly![3] a family of 4 would not have to pay taxes until they have an income of 30,00$. [3] [5]. It is simple and woudl create wealth. [3] One economist says a flat tax ----> 5 trillion in new wealth. [3] [6].

That's the basics.

Case for no taxes:

All taxes are revenue neutral, the goverment thinks they can take whatever they want, but this is not the case, as many presidents functioned without an income tax. The reason we have taxes are to pay debts, yet they are just a... bandage. A balanced budget amendment and massive spending cuts are the only way to cut the deficits.

"Limiting government to its proper role will automatically cause the spending problem to disappear. The government needs to be gotten completely out of the places it doesn't belong….

The income tax code doesn't need to be simplified, shortened, fairer, or less intrusive. And neither do the income tax rates need to be made lower, flatter, equal, or less progressive." [7]

And we can get wealth without an income tax.

And I am to lazt to do a thing about a sales tax. But these are just basic tax arguments, all have their pitfalls.

"How Taxation Works" By Laura A Bella, real world economics. [1]
"The Case for a Progressive Tax:From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations" by Peter diamond and Emmanuel Saez. [2]
http://www.heritage.org... [3]
http://www.irs.gov... [4]
laborFor instance, see H.R. 1040, introduced by Representative Michael Burgess (R-TX). [5]
aborDale W. Jorgenson, "Efficient Taxation of Income," Harvard Magazine, March-April 2002 [6]
http://thenewamerican.com... [7]
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 9:57:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You left out Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that aim to reduce certain activities by making them more expensive. These taxes not only provide governments with revenue but they help the economy. Cigarette taxes are one example which save the economy billons yearly in lowered health costs. Other examples of things that could be taxes and included as Pigovian would be taxes on alcohol, sugar, unhealthy food, pollution, soda, stock transactions, tanning beds, plastic bags etc. etc. etc.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:02:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 9:57:42 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
You left out Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that aim to reduce certain activities by making them more expensive. These taxes not only provide governments with revenue but they help the economy. Cigarette taxes are one example which save the economy billons yearly in lowered health costs. Other examples of things that could be taxes and included as Pigovian would be taxes on alcohol, sugar, unhealthy food, pollution, soda, stock transactions, tanning beds, plastic bags etc. etc. etc.

So if someone want, on their own merits, hurt themselves we need a nanny state to stop them?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:12:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:02:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 9:57:42 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
You left out Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that aim to reduce certain activities by making them more expensive. These taxes not only provide governments with revenue but they help the economy. Cigarette taxes are one example which save the economy billons yearly in lowered health costs. Other examples of things that could be taxes and included as Pigovian would be taxes on alcohol, sugar, unhealthy food, pollution, soda, stock transactions, tanning beds, plastic bags etc. etc. etc.

So if someone want, on their own merits, hurt themselves we need a nanny state to stop them?
I was not aware that cigarette taxes made it illegal to smoke cigarettes.
And on another point the effects of cigarettes, and pollution negatively effect all people.
I have one question do you and why do you oppose taxes that save lives money and expand the economy?
Is it because of your hate for the "nanny" state?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:12:38 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:02:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 9:57:42 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
You left out Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that aim to reduce certain activities by making them more expensive. These taxes not only provide governments with revenue but they help the economy. Cigarette taxes are one example which save the economy billons yearly in lowered health costs. Other examples of things that could be taxes and included as Pigovian would be taxes on alcohol, sugar, unhealthy food, pollution, soda, stock transactions, tanning beds, plastic bags etc. etc. etc.

So if someone want, on their own merits, hurt themselves we need a nanny state to stop them?
I was not aware that cigarette taxes made it illegal to smoke cigarettes.
And on another point the effects of cigarettes, and pollution negatively effect all people.
I have one question do you and why do you oppose taxes that save lives money and expand the economy?
Is it because of your hate for the "nanny" state?

You misunderstood the argument. When you have a goverment saying no do not to do this or that, we wont let you that = a nanny state. Nanny states are unsustainable, and well frankly strip your freedoms. Also it is possible a cigarette tax would hurt state economies, http://news.google.com...

Also cutting the tobacco tax would curb smuggling. http://reason.org...

In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

That's why I am against them.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:37:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:12:38 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:02:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 9:57:42 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
You left out Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that aim to reduce certain activities by making them more expensive. These taxes not only provide governments with revenue but they help the economy. Cigarette taxes are one example which save the economy billons yearly in lowered health costs. Other examples of things that could be taxes and included as Pigovian would be taxes on alcohol, sugar, unhealthy food, pollution, soda, stock transactions, tanning beds, plastic bags etc. etc. etc.

So if someone want, on their own merits, hurt themselves we need a nanny state to stop them?
I was not aware that cigarette taxes made it illegal to smoke cigarettes.
And on another point the effects of cigarettes, and pollution negatively effect all people.
I have one question do you and why do you oppose taxes that save lives money and expand the economy?
Is it because of your hate for the "nanny" state?

At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
You misunderstood the argument. When you have a goverment saying no do not to do this or that, we wont let you that = a nanny state.
Again putting taxes on something is not the government saying you cant buy those goods. Where did you get that ridiculous idea?
At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Nanny states are unsustainable, and well frankly strip your freedoms.
Nanny states are unsustainable? So far your definition of a nanny state is a state that has taxes on certain goods how that is unsustainable is beyond reason.
I'm also all for the government stripping your freedom to poison everyones air and water.
At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Also it is possible a cigarette tax would hurt state economies, http://news.google.com...
Next time you post a link try to read the article instead of just the title. The links states that cigarette taxes hurt tobacco companies, which is a good thing given that cigarette smoke causes cancer not only for those smoking but for everyone.
But I'm guessing at you think tobacco companies are more important then people
At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Also cutting the tobacco tax would curb smuggling. http://reason.org...
Who cares?

At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:

In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...
Did you even read the article? Ill quote from it, "smokers do smoke fewer cigarettes when cigarette prices rise. Economists estimate that, on average, a 10 percent increase in the retail price of cigarettes results in a 4 to 8 percent decrease in the number of packs sold."
Nowhere in the article does it say or show that increased cigarette taxes results in more cigarette related diseases

At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
That's why I am against them.
Do you have a logical or intelligent reason to be against them? Or do you just have sources that you didn't read?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:40:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.

...im sure i could find a statistic saying banana prices, from South America, rise when terrorist attacks go down in the Middle East. According to you, that's causation....
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:42:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.
Speak English plz
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:44:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:42:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.
Speak English plz

Translation (I think): It is logical. If I found that people buy macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:46:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:44:31 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:42:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.
Speak English plz

Translation (I think): It is logical. If I found that people buy macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.

The thing adams leaves out is that all taxes on goods results in less consumption of those goods, but facts aren't things adam considered
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:47:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:37:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:12:38 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:02:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 9:57:42 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
You left out Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that aim to reduce certain activities by making them more expensive. These taxes not only provide governments with revenue but they help the economy. Cigarette taxes are one example which save the economy billons yearly in lowered health costs. Other examples of things that could be taxes and included as Pigovian would be taxes on alcohol, sugar, unhealthy food, pollution, soda, stock transactions, tanning beds, plastic bags etc. etc. etc.

So if someone want, on their own merits, hurt themselves we need a nanny state to stop them?
I was not aware that cigarette taxes made it illegal to smoke cigarettes.
And on another point the effects of cigarettes, and pollution negatively effect all people.
I have one question do you and why do you oppose taxes that save lives money and expand the economy?
Is it because of your hate for the "nanny" state?

At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
You misunderstood the argument. When you have a goverment saying no do not to do this or that, we wont let you that = a nanny state.
Again putting taxes on something is not the government saying you cant buy those goods. Where did you get that ridiculous idea?

It is as you said meant to dissuade them from doing so. It is a nanny state move by trying to regulate bad habits, like taxing coke-a-cola etc. It's that simple.

At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Nanny states are unsustainable, and well frankly strip your freedoms.
Nanny states are unsustainable? So far your definition of a nanny state is a state that has taxes on certain goods how that is unsustainable is beyond reason.

"Nanny state is a term of British origin (and primary use) that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice." http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://www.oed.com...

Taxing an item for the reason it is "bad" is a nanny state.

I'm also all for the government stripping your freedom to poison everyones air and water.

interesting... very... so you wouldn't mind if I took away speech and I started to censor you because I disagreed with you? Your arguments seem very naive.

At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Also it is possible a cigarette tax would hurt state economies, http://news.google.com...
Next time you post a link try to read the article instead of just the title. The links states that cigarette taxes hurt tobacco companies, which is a good thing given that cigarette smoke causes cancer not only for those smoking but for everyone.
But I'm guessing at you think tobacco companies are more important then people

You have a narrow mind of the economy. If you regulate a whole sect of business that would decrease their of it damaging the economy and lowering job creation. the industry makes 400,000 jobs. http://www.tobacco.org...

If you limited the industry through taxes until it does - 400,000 jobs, so I care about people, this is not to mention the jobs made indirectly btw. Then the end and shrinkage of the industry would lead less stuff to tax, ending that revanue.

At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Also cutting the tobacco tax would curb smuggling. http://reason.org...
Who cares?

the smuggling would inevitably lead to worse tobacco products, killing the people you aim to protect. Also it leads to violence.


At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:

In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...
Did you even read the article? Ill quote from it, "smokers do smoke fewer cigarettes when cigarette prices rise. Economists estimate that, on average, a 10 percent increase in the retail price of cigarettes results in a 4 to 8 percent decrease in the number of packs sold."
Nowhere in the article does it say or show that increased cigarette taxes results in more cigarette related diseases

actually it does, it says Massachusetts has higher medical bills related to tobacco then other states with lower cigarette taxes,


At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
That's why I am against them.
Do you have a logical or intelligent reason to be against them? Or do you just have sources that you didn't read?

I read them all,do you have an argument that isnt ad homenim and narrow minded? :)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:48:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:46:48 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:44:31 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:42:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.
Speak English plz

Translation (I think): It is logical. If I found that people buy macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.

The thing adams leaves out is that all taxes on goods results in less consumption of those goods, but facts aren't things adam considered

Yes...I wonder why...Price goes up....people don't want to buy goods...simple psychology.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:48:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:40:16 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.

...im sure i could find a statistic saying banana prices, from South America, rise when terrorist attacks go down in the Middle East. According to you, that's causation....

its correlation
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:49:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:42:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.
Speak English plz

I am blocking you due to constant ad homenim and no logical or rational or constructive arguments :)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:50:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:48:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:40:16 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.

...im sure i could find a statistic saying banana prices, from South America, rise when terrorist attacks go down in the Middle East. According to you, that's causation....

its correlation

Prove the correlation between medical costs going up and taxes on ciggs going up. Prove the direct correlation there.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:59:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:47:36 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:37:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:12:38 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:02:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 9:57:42 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
You left out Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that aim to reduce certain activities by making them more expensive. These taxes not only provide governments with revenue but they help the economy. Cigarette taxes are one example which save the economy billons yearly in lowered health costs. Other examples of things that could be taxes and included as Pigovian would be taxes on alcohol, sugar, unhealthy food, pollution, soda, stock transactions, tanning beds, plastic bags etc. etc. etc.

So if someone want, on their own merits, hurt themselves we need a nanny state to stop them?
I was not aware that cigarette taxes made it illegal to smoke cigarettes.
And on another point the effects of cigarettes, and pollution negatively effect all people.
I have one question do you and why do you oppose taxes that save lives money and expand the economy?
Is it because of your hate for the "nanny" state?

At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
You misunderstood the argument. When you have a goverment saying no do not to do this or that, we wont let you that = a nanny state.
Again putting taxes on something is not the government saying you cant buy those goods. Where did you get that ridiculous idea?

It is as you said meant to dissuade them from doing so. It is a nanny state move by trying to regulate bad habits, like taxing coke-a-cola etc. It's that simple.
Yep and it saves money lives and expands the economy. So I ask again why are you against saving money, lives, and expanding the economy?


At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Nanny states are unsustainable, and well frankly strip your freedoms.
Nanny states are unsustainable? So far your definition of a nanny state is a state that has taxes on certain goods how that is unsustainable is beyond reason.

"Nanny state is a term of British origin (and primary use) that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice."
So tell me again why saving money and lives is unsustainable.

At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I'm also all for the government stripping your freedom to poison everyone's air and water.

interesting... very... so you wouldn't mind if I took away speech and I started to censor you because I disagreed with you? Your arguments seem very naive.
I was not aware that you talking results in other people getting cancer. Could you try to at least think before posting is that to hard to ask?

At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Also it is possible a cigarette tax would hurt state economies, http://news.google.com...
Next time you post a link try to read the article instead of just the title. The links states that cigarette taxes hurt tobacco companies, which is a good thing given that cigarette smoke causes cancer not only for those smoking but for everyone.
But I'm guessing at you think tobacco companies are more important then people

You have a narrow mind of the economy. If you regulate a whole sect of business that would decrease their of it damaging the economy and lowering job creation. the industry makes 400,000 jobs. http://www.tobacco.org...

You are the one who posted a source and lied about what it said. Its ironic that you post a source that actually disagrees with what you are saying.
Production/consumption of cigarettes causes cancer and costs the economy hundreds of billions of dollars. People employed by tobacco companies would add more to the economy if they found different jobs
At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
If you limited the industry through taxes until it does - 400,000 jobs, so I care about people, this is not to mention the jobs made indirectly btw. Then the end and shrinkage of the industry would lead less stuff to tax, ending that revanue.
Broken window fallacy. You don't care about people you care about tobacco companies.


At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:

In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...
Did you even read the article? Ill quote from it, "smokers do smoke fewer cigarettes when cigarette prices rise. Economists estimate that, on average, a 10 percent increase in the retail price of cigarettes results in a 4 to 8 percent decrease in the number of packs sold."
Nowhere in the article does it say or show that increased cigarette taxes results in more cigarette related diseases

actually it does, it says Massachusetts has higher medical bills related to tobacco then other states with lower cigarette taxes,

I quote form your article, "Harvard economist Kip Viscusi estimated that the state of Massachusetts incurred greater medical costs for smokers than for nonsmokers"
I repeat next time you source something try reading it.


At 2/14/2012 10:21:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
That's why I am against them.
Do you have a logical or intelligent reason to be against them? Or do you just have sources that you didn't read?

I read them all,do you have an argument that isnt ad homenim and narrow minded? :)
If you read them then how come they all say the opposite of what you said they say? So either you are a lying or you didn't read them
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 12:04:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:50:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:48:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:40:16 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.

...im sure i could find a statistic saying banana prices, from South America, rise when terrorist attacks go down in the Middle East. According to you, that's causation....

its correlation

Prove the correlation between medical costs going up and taxes on ciggs going up. Prove the direct correlation there.

The states with higher taxes have higher medical costs relating to cigarettes. That is 1 correlation.

I would like to note much if this is contrary to belief. I just think taxes should create free markets, how? Abolish sales taxes when it is unneeded. Some of these stats I disagree with. I am agaibst it as the taxes hurt the economy, jobs, and am anti nanny state. Want lung cancer? Have fun. Awareness campaigns would be more effective, as would be rehab.

Also this forum is off track.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 12:10:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 12:04:00 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:50:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:48:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:40:16 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:37:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:34:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. http://mises.org...

Simply providing two statistics is not enough...prove they are related....

It is logical, if I found that if people but... macs more often when we tax them then there is a correlation. This is not causation, merely food for thought.

...im sure i could find a statistic saying banana prices, from South America, rise when terrorist attacks go down in the Middle East. According to you, that's causation....

its correlation

Prove the correlation between medical costs going up and taxes on ciggs going up. Prove the direct correlation there.

The states with higher taxes have higher medical costs relating to cigarettes. That is 1 correlation.
No your source doesn't say that dumbass.

At 2/15/2012 12:04:00 AM, 16kadams wrote:
I would like to note much if this is contrary to belief. I just think taxes should create free markets, how? Abolish sales taxes when it is unneeded. Some of these stats I disagree with. I am agaibst it as the taxes hurt the economy, jobs, and am anti nanny state. Want lung cancer? Have fun. Awareness campaigns would be more effective, as would be rehab.
The thing is that people who dont smoke get lung cancer because of smokers . I realize that you think giving other people cancer is a good thing but in reality its not
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 12:37:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love this thread

"Taxes, are simply a tool the goverment [sic] uses to pay for the goods they provide us, and pay off debts."

This is not quite right. The government needs to spend the money into the economy before it can be taxed back out.

"In states with higher taxes on cigarettes, their medical costs ironically related to cigarettes are higher. "
States with higher cigarette taxes tend to be more liberal.
States that are more liberal tend to be richer.
Richer states tend to spend more on healthcare.
-- ooh, see what I did there?

"pollution negatively effect all people."
Man, I sure wish that rather than having extra taxes or government regulation there was a way to commodify these sorts of externalities and let the market figure out how to allocate the costs. Oh wait! http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Nanny states are unsustainable, and well frankly strip your freedoms."
Is anyone advocating for a nanny state? I'm certainly not, but I do like to know that my drinking water won't kill me.

"Also this forum is off track."
It stayed on topic for almost 3 replies. I'm not sure why you're complaining.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 2:08:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
16kadams, you forgot a regressive taxation system, although I'm sure we'd agree that that is by no way an ideal taxation system.

Taxes can also act as a deterrent to actions that the government doesn't want. Indeed things like negative externalities are dealt with (somewhat) through taxation in an attempt to reduce the no. of negative externalities.

Of course, we could attempt to discuss inequality of opportunity as reason for a progressive taxation system being justified.

I'd raise other points but as your OP doesn't directly support a particular position I'd be arguing against positions that nobody is actively advocating.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 1:11:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You left out the "user fee".

This is a form of not-so-much-taxation proposed by Minarchists where they only charge the people they directly use the government services on.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 1:12:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
By the way, it's refreshing to see a thread that informs people without taking a side.

THE EMPEROR'S SEAL OF APPROVAL
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 5:43:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Taxes are justifiable.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 7:06:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 5:43:09 PM, Contra wrote:
Taxes are justifiable.

depends on the rate, a flat tax yes, a 90% progressive tax, or any tax, no. I never said they where not justified.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 12:57:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Have you noticed that economics forums rarely hit 30 posts?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 5:34:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 12:57:19 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Have you noticed that economics forums rarely hit 30 posts?

Now its 28 two more to go...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 5:55:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 5:34:08 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 12:57:19 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Have you noticed that economics forums rarely hit 30 posts?

Now its 28 two more to go...

29
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 5:55:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 5:55:36 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/17/2012 5:34:08 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 12:57:19 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Have you noticed that economics forums rarely hit 30 posts?

Now its 28 two more to go...

29

30 I win
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross