Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress Wants to Smoke Out Taxpayers — Again
Fox News.com ^ | Sept. 11, 2007 | J.D. Foster

Posted on 09/22/2007 4:19:26 PM PDT by SheLion

The excuse this time is to help pay for a huge expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Expanding the SCHIP program is unwise, not least as another step on the road to government-run health care.

Raising taxes to pay for more spending generally is a case of the old adage that two wrongs don't make a right. But turning to a tobacco tax hike is discriminatory and thus especially unsavory.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: 110th; pufflist; schip; sintaxes; taxincrease
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last
President Bush and Congress intend to raise the taxes to one dollar ON A PACK for the SCHIP program.

Now, if people can't afford this and quit or go elsewhere for cigarettes, where will Congress get the money they need????

Every President wants to be like President Reagan, however

"The taxing power...must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change."
Ronald Reagan - 1981

Congress Wants to Smoke Out Taxpayers — Again

1 posted on 09/22/2007 4:19:28 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe; Madame Dufarge; Cantiloper; metesky; Judith Anne; lockjaw02; Mears; CSM; ...

2 posted on 09/22/2007 4:20:25 PM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

“President Bush and Congress intend to raise the taxes”

President Bush wants to do no such thing.

As for the Dummies in Congress — they $1/pack is just the first of an infinite number of taxes they’d impose in a second if allowed to do so.


3 posted on 09/22/2007 4:21:49 PM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Am I thinking of something completely wrong, but was there something set forth in the Constitution early on stating that you can’t tax income?


4 posted on 09/22/2007 4:22:13 PM PDT by wastedyears (George Orwell was a clairvoyant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

“President Bush and Congress intend to raise the taxes”

President Bush wants to do no such thing.

As for the Dummies in Congress — the $1/pack is just the first of an infinite number of taxes they’d impose in a second if allowed to do so.


5 posted on 09/22/2007 4:22:18 PM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

...so 1.5 TRILLION dollars isn’t enough?????


6 posted on 09/22/2007 4:24:34 PM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Didn’t Bush say he was gonna veto this?


7 posted on 09/22/2007 4:24:51 PM PDT by jimboster (fROM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vetsvette
“President Bush and Congress intend to raise the taxes”

Sorry.  I miss-spoke.

8 posted on 09/22/2007 4:26:25 PM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

No you are not wrong. Also when the 16th Amendment was being debated the idea was to have a 10% cap in the amendment itself. The cap wasn’t put in because at the time the thought was that if the amendment said 10% then the income tax would eventually get to the exorbitantly high number of 10% because it would be allowed.


9 posted on 09/22/2007 4:27:50 PM PDT by Domandred (Eagles soar, but unfortunately weasels never get sucked into jet engines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
Didn’t Bush say he was gonna veto this?

One can only hope..................

10 posted on 09/22/2007 4:28:00 PM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: vetsvette
For all the non-smokers who are supposedly "un-affected", and thus would still vote Democrat; wait 'til the "Fat Tax" is implemented to help fund Socialized Healthcare.

The slippery slope continues (or boiling the frog), take your pick.

11 posted on 09/22/2007 4:28:46 PM PDT by traditional1 ( Fred Thompson-The ONLY electable Republican Candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
More nanny-state imposed taxes....We've all heard the "it's for the children" BS before, haven't we?


12 posted on 09/22/2007 4:29:46 PM PDT by RasterMaster (Rudy McRomneyson = KENNEDY wing of the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

President Bush does not support the tax increase or the proposed expansion of SCHIP. He stated during his presser Thursday that he would veto a bill on these issues.


13 posted on 09/22/2007 4:34:10 PM PDT by NautiNurse (McClatchy News report: Half the nation's families earn below the median family income)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

It’s idiots like this that are causing havoc here in “The EMPIRE” (NY)! More and more of us smokers have said “Screw it” and have headed for the Reservations to buy our Tobacco. In order to match what is paid in Tobacco taxes, if all smokers quit today, Fed Income tax rates would have to go up to about 60% .. and for the RICH .. 100%!! Even tho they’d only be able to do that ONCE.


14 posted on 09/22/2007 4:51:06 PM PDT by gwilhelm56 (White heterosexual Judeo-Christian RightWing Union Actor ... and unemployed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Maine just figured out that last year it lost $120,000,000 that is one hundred twenty million dollars (for those of you in Rio Linda ). They lost this money due to the heavy tax that they put on smokers in Maine. What is the answer to those lost revenues? Why, let’s add another dollar on the already $2 per PACK on the smokers. What do you think the end result be?

1-lots of money for gov

2-even more reduction in state income from tobacco
I think 2 is the wise answer.


15 posted on 09/22/2007 4:53:41 PM PDT by mirkwood (Percentage of Americans who do not know the words to "The Star-Spangled)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mirkwood

BTW..the answer to my tag line is 64 percent.


16 posted on 09/22/2007 4:57:54 PM PDT by mirkwood (Percentage of Americans who do not know the words to "The Star-Spangled)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: traditional1; vetsvette
For all the non-smokers who are supposedly "un-affected", and thus would still vote Democrat; wait 'til the "Fat Tax" is implemented to help fund Socialized Healthcare.

Without a doubt!


17 posted on 09/22/2007 4:58:13 PM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster
More nanny-state imposed taxes....We've all heard the "it's for the children" BS before, haven't we?

Oh yea........................


18 posted on 09/22/2007 5:01:16 PM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NautiNurse
President Bush does not support the tax increase or the proposed expansion of SCHIP. He stated during his presser Thursday that he would veto a bill on these issues.

I'm glad to hear it.  Thank you.

19 posted on 09/22/2007 5:03:25 PM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
I have no doubt that this is based upon a "static" analysis; i.e. it surely presupposes that the incidence of smoking will be unaffected by an increase in the price of cigarettes.

Admittedly, a reasonable case can be made that those who are thouroughly addicted to nicotine will pay whatever price is demanded, in order to get their fix--even if that means cutting back on necessities, such as food. (Of course, it would be very difficult to present this as a positive development.)

At the other end of the spectrum, some of those who are not yet addicted to nicotine (and who are young, and without much extra money) might be discouraged by the higher price from experimenting with cigarettes. This would, undoubtedly, be a good thing. And if Democrats wish to argue that an additional federal tax should be imposed upon cigarettes in order to achieve this desired social end, well, that is a discussion worth having.

But it would be good to be candid about the intent--and not pretend that we live in some fantasy world in which a tax increase has no impact whatsoever on overall purchases of the product that is subject to the extra tax.

20 posted on 09/22/2007 5:04:40 PM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson