Congress proposes 20,000% tax on cigars

Discussion in 'Politics' started by BaronVonBigmeat, Aug 1, 2007.

  1. BaronVonBigmeat
    Offline

    BaronVonBigmeat Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +160
    http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/17/Business/Cigarmakers_in_a_pani.shtml
     
  2. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    "I'm not sure in the history of man, since our forefathers founded the country in 1776, that there's ever been a tax increase of 20,000 percent,"

    This guy has trouble with basic math.

    Any time Congress taxes something that hasn't been taxed before, the percentage increase isn't only greater than 20,000, its INFINITE.
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,509
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    You didn't do well in math did you?

    Lets go slow , just for you.... if something is not taxed that is zero percent, If you then tax it 5 percent that is a 5 percent increase.....
     
  4. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258


    LOL! That's hilarious! Go back and read the first post. If you can't figure out why you just made yourself look like an idiot, get back to me.
     
  5. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Sorry Spider I'm afraid it is you that is not the math genius. Tax is a percent of the item being purched itself. Meaning if an item itself is $100 and now a tax is put on it say of $10., that isn't an infinite increase that is an increase of 10%. the item costs $110 now thus the tax rate is 10%.
     
  6. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    OK, then why don't you explain to me how the figure of "20,000%" was obtained, genius?

    If you can't figure it out, I'll come back and show you.




    OK - I have to go.



    So I'll explain it for you.


    The present maximum tax for a cigar is 5 cents. NOT 5 percent, 5 cents, They want to raise the maximum to 10 dollars.

    That's a $10.00 / $0.05 = 200 fold increase, or a 20,000% increase.

    Now replace the $0.05 by a $0.00, what do you get? Infinity (assuming the limit is taken from the right)


    You see, the word "percent" isn't an actual unit of measure in and of itself, it always refers to a percent OF something. The writer of the linked article is referring to the percent of the TAX itself - and that's what I used to get infinity - you guys are referring to the percent of the TAX BASE - the value the tax is based on.

    Both are correct statements, which is why the term "percent" is misleading.

    If you raise a 5 cent tax on a 50 cent item to 10 cents, the tax has increased by 10% of the tax base, but it has increased by 100% of the tax itself.

    Considering the writer in the link was using percent of the tax itself - I assumed you'd be able to figure out I was doing the same thing.
     
  7. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,694
    Thanks Received:
    11,042
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,007
    The tax on Cuban cigars is a lot higher.

    Its incarceration.
     
  8. JeffWartman
    Offline

    JeffWartman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,309
    Thanks Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago
    Ratings:
    +101
    I don't always agree with you, but you're correct on this. Not that you needed to be told that, but you're just further proving what I have been saying for a while -- RGS continues to speak out on things of which he has NO clue.
     
  9. BaronVonBigmeat
    Offline

    BaronVonBigmeat Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +160
    There's so many things wrong with this proposal I don't even know where to begin.

    * Cigar smokers tend to not be dirt poor, therefore it's not like their health costs are a burden to taxpayers;

    * If they pass this, look for a sharp increase in pipe smoking. Also, growing tobacco as a hobby will skyrocket in popularity, on par with homebrewing.

    * Cigars don't have all the nasty additives that cigarettes do

    * Cigars (and pipe tobacco) are not inhaled

    * Cigars (and pipe tobacco) are not anywhere near as addictive as cigs or dip

    * If you insist on taxing tobacco, you ought to be doing it by volume. A single cigar probably has the same amount of tobacco as a pack of cigarettes, and a pack of cigs doesn't get a $10/pack tax.

    * I fucking hate super-high tax proposals from weasels who don't have the balls to call for what they really want--out and out prohibition. And with this quasi-prohibition, we will see the mob stepping in to supply tax-free cigars, just like in NYC.
     
  10. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726

    I get the math just fine thank you. Isn't another rule though that you can't divide by zero in the first place.

    Secondly it's a tax increase. For there to be an increase doesn't there need to be a tax of some amount in the first place.

    Your original point I believe was to point out that the person was incorrect in stating there has never been 20,000% increase on anything. Which you attempted to refute with your infinite thing for taxes on things taht have never been taxed before.

    What exactley is the point? Is it that I'm suppossed to be outraged when something that wasn't taxed before now how a 5 cent tax on and thus the tax rate when up to infinite? By your argument something could have a tax of $.01 or $1,000,000 both have gone up by 'infinte' if they weren't taxed before. One is worth gettin worked up over and one isn't. You're infinte argument is comepletely irrelevant.
     

Share This Page