It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Flighty
Originally posted by larphillips
No, the monster is going to look to feed elsewhere; and when it does, all of these fools who happily voted for the tobacco taxes are going to find that something THEY like to do is going to get bit eventually.
www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Well thats alcohol and tobacco done, so next they'll invent a new guilt tax to feed this hungy monster that you speak of.
Ooh, lets see....... what everyday luxuries items could we tax in these tough financial times......
How about.....
40% tax on ALL COSMETICS ( lotions, potions, bathbombs,etc etc) and ALL COSMETIC PROCEDURES like Botox, artificial suntans, plastic surgery....
None of these are necessary, so girls you'll have to cough up for the little kids in these hospitals....and other social programmes that we need money for.
It will be called a VANITY TAX.
I can just imagine TSHTF if that ever gets introduced.
It would raise absolute gazillions!!
Sorry to hear about how much tax that's been sucked out of you smokers.
I'm paying $14 for something that only costs $3 to make (cigarettes)
So I can totally sympathise.
Originally posted by Shadowflux
So why on earth would you want to support such excessive taxation? Is it because you can afford to smoke high class cigarettes and therefore don't care if you have to pay extra? Or is it that you happen to not live in the US as du Maurier are produced by Imperial Tobacco CANADA?
Originally posted by Shadowflux
I find it hard to believe that any whiskey drinking American would smoke something called du Maurier.
You do know that beer and whiskey are as addictive and dangerous as tobacco if not more so? I don't smoke one too many cigarettes and slam my car into a mini van full of kids.
Sin taxes--traditionally levied on alcohol and tobacco--are inherently regressive and disproportionately burden the poor, yet they are firmly entrenched as a practice and offer a quick fix in times of fiscal need. Opponents to this method of generating revenue cite its regressive nature and argue that sin taxes are paternalistic and bad social policy. Others disagree, contending that smokers need every incentive to quit, or that alcoholics should be required to mitigate the social costs of their habit. In recent years, a new class of sin taxes has reached deeper into popular culture than ever before, confusing the basic role of the tax system with the improper role of government as social engineer.
Originally posted by wantsome
I quit two weeks ago the government aint getting no more money from me.
I think they should go after fat people next. Have you seen the size of people recently. I went to a buffet yesterday and it looked like a bunch of cattle waiting in line. Some of these people could barely walk. I say tax them make them come in once a week to get weighed and charge them $0.50 for every lb there over wieght. Whats fair is fair.
Originally posted by Shadowflux
I heard about the e-cigs a while ago as a Japanese trend product, I thought they were neat but my brother raised a good point about them the other day. He said that the dose of nicotine is higher per e-cig than it is per normal cig which would in effect hinder any attempts at quitting smoking. I just hope we don't end up with nicotine junkies.