New Tax on Indoor Tanning Goes into Effect--I found this odd....

[MaggieMae]

Economists doubt that sin taxes greatly affect the behavior of most Americans, especially when the amounts tacked on are quite small (as they usually are). Demand for things like cigarettes and soda is relatively inelastic. That means modest increases in price don’t greatly influence most people’s behavior. In other words, a penny-per-ounce soda tax, which has been proposed in New York, is unlikely to deter people from supersizing their Sprites.

Old habits, especially bad ones, die hard.

This underscores why the real value of sin taxes is their ability to generate cash. After all, taxes that truly succeeded in changing behavior would be self-defeating. If a cigarette tax forced all puffers to quit, there would be severe withdrawal symptoms not only for smokers — but for states that relied on the tax for revenue.

“On some level, politicians want these taxes to affect behavior,” said Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who studies state and local taxes. “But they’re kind of in trouble if it works too well. If it’s actually effective in changing behavior, governments lose that revenue source and have to figure out what else they can start taxing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html

Yep. So once again we have to ask whether or not the goal is to reduce skin cancer, or pay for the healthcare bill. They cannot have it both ways. Sheez.

Why can't they? By reducing the risk of skin cancer, you ultimatley reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare for said skin cancer. Federally funded healthcare would not cost as much, requiring less of an influx of revenue from policy holders and tax payers. Agreed?

While I disagree with Chanel's article on puffers who continue to smoke, the statistics proving otherwise, I do agree that once the windfall from the tobacco company lawsuits is depleted, several states are going to have to come up with other forms of revenue to replace it (my own included). But as far as the tax itself on cigarettes, it's like any other tax that may not be useful in the long term. Some politicians think that a huge tax on gasoline would force people to conserve and/or buy more fuel efficient cars. But what if everyone did? Just as if everyone quit smoking, the additional tax would soon become ineffective because they wouldn't be buying as much gas.

 

[Meister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html

Yep. So once again we have to ask whether or not the goal is to reduce skin cancer, or pay for the healthcare bill. They cannot have it both ways. Sheez.

Why can't they? By reducing the risk of skin cancer, you ultimatley reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare for said skin cancer. Federally funded healthcare would not cost as much, requiring less of an influx of revenue from policy holders and tax payers. Agreed?

While I disagree with Chanel's article on puffers who continue to smoke, the statistics proving otherwise, I do agree that once the windfall from the tobacco company lawsuits is depleted, several states are going to have to come up with other forms of revenue to replace it (my own included). But as far as the tax itself on cigarettes, it's like any other tax that may not be useful in the long term. Some politicians think that a huge tax on gasoline would force people to conserve and/or buy more fuel efficient cars. But what if everyone did? Just as if everyone quit smoking, the additional tax would soon become ineffective because they wouldn't be buying as much gas.

When gas went sky high a few years ago, there was less consumption, and the government was thinking of filling the void by raising the gas tax even more. I really doubt our politicians are the brightest America has to offer.

 

[drsmith1072]

I see nothing wrong with people attempting to make other people become aware of the damage.
I see everything wrong when our government is doing it.

So where were you when reagan promoted his and his wife's say no to drugs campaign which is basically what you are complaining about NOW?

As said before, the government has been used to engage in this type of interferrence and involvment in the past and yet when it benefitted or fit into what the right supported they had NO problems with it. So why the concern NOW?

That would fit if the government put out health announcements about the dangers of high exposure to UVA and UVB... but that is NOT what is being done here... it is expanding the tentacles of taxation, power, and increased government intrusion into the lives of people who are not doing illegal acts.... if they really wanted to 'help' they would make tanning beds illegal... but we ALL know this is not about helping people or anything else of the sort... this is big nanny government at it's best

Who do you think paid for that campaign as the government tried to persuade people to not use drugs?? Face it, if you were against government interferrence and influence then you would be against it in ALL forms not just those that happen to occur under a democratic president.

 

[chanel]

How about warning labels Maggie? Aren't they supposed to protect us from our own stupidity. "Caution: Eating McDonald's Could Make You Fat." Anyone who doesn't know that isn't going to be dissuaded by a sin tax. In fact, they most likely aren't even using their own money.

Oh and anyone who thinks that politicians actually "care" about people who might burn in a tanning bed, is very, very naive. This is about generating revenue as all taxes are. And it's not going to work.

The government has more interest in seeing us die young. Enter: Health Czar.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why can't they? By reducing the risk of skin cancer, you ultimatley reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare for said skin cancer. Federally funded healthcare would not cost as much, requiring less of an influx of revenue from policy holders and tax payers. Agreed?

No, I don't really agree with your point, VaYank.

We all die eventually. That means that whether or not someone dies of Skin Cancer or another form of Cancer or something else entirely different, there will be health related costs associated with their dying so one way or another, the costs are going to be paid.

Now, maybe if you could show that the cost of dying from Skin Cancer is much more expensive than dying from Lung Cancer, Heart Disease or Emphysema or many other diseases that could be the case. The cost of Health Care will not fall all that much due to this tax.

Unless, of course, you think the President has discovered the "Fountain of Youth" and we will never die.

Immie

Good....can we work together on removing ALL of the taxes on my cigarettes that are SUPPOSED to deter people from smoking and also help pay to treat those dying of lung cancer, heat disease and emphysema?

The sad truth is that there ARE cures for cancer. But it's too lucrative a business to treat it and not cure it. A lot of heart disease is genetic and not caught until the person has symptoms bad enough to get help. But a lot of damage can also be done over the years to the heart because of poor choices only. It really takes a humongous amount of abuse before it finally gives up.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, they can tax your smokes more than they do, and you will pay them just like you always do. The funny part about it is that you won't question it, because it's from the government.

There's a helluva lot about "the government" that I hate, not the least of which is the myriad operating rules of the IRS. I think "the government" has become a bloated behemoth created over the years by BOTH PARTIES, representing ALL POLITICAL IDEALS. Every president who comes to office manages to create these little sub-agencies that promote his campaign agenda (and Obama is no exception, but he's certainly not the rule either). Bush (yes, boys and girls, we've gone all this time without mentioning Booooooooooooosh), created agencies to promote marriage (tax writeoffs), to promote abstinence, funding for church-affiliated drug counseling while level-funding independent rehabilitation. The list is endless, and I could go back through all presidents for the past 40 years, but that's not my point. You need to stop lumping everyone into neat little packages, such as if you have a D as part of your political philosophy that somehow translates into being sheeple for anything government does. And it's simply not true.

None of my posts have mentioned an "R" or a "D", Maggie....I have been saying "government" all along, and "politicians" all along. Anyone from any party needs to be asking questions and they are not, if they don't and are being led around....they are the sheep.

Really? I was responding to this comment:

The funny part about it is that you won't question it, because it's from the government.

Where you assume that I, personally, fall within your broad characterization.

 

[drsmith1072]

So tax the irresponsible seniors for their errors and leave the rest of us out of it.

So when are republicans going to make that part of their mainstream platform and drive those seniors away from their party? Since the right is allegedly against socialized medicine except when they think that they can get some votes out of it, my guess is that will NEVER happen. LOL

Well, I think the Republicans are banking on the senior vote this year because they managed to confuse so many of them over alleged cuts to Medicare. And there is STILL disinformation being put out there about those cuts, which will come from the Medicare Advantage Program, which takes funding from the basic Medicare program and subsidizes private insurers to cover such added health costs as eye exams, hearing aids, dentures, etc., not covered by regular Medicare.

Exactly, so they will not make it part of their mainstream campaign because they would lose votes. Just shows how desperate they are for votes despite their false bravado concering the tea party and it's alleged benefits.

 

[MaggieMae]

WOW more avoidance, imagine that. Fact is that you made a comment about generalizations that showed you to be a hypocrite as you avoided responding to the content of the post. How about you try responding to the content instead of hiding behind you hypocritial rants about generalizations?? Or that level of honesty too much to ask of you??

Dr. Smith and Dr. House. Please call in Nurse Betty to arbitrate. Patients are dying of boredom as you try to one-up each other.

You are correct and I apologize for allowing myself to be taken off topic by a troll whose only intent was to attack me personally. I should have realized he wasn't here for a serious debate the first time he chose to attack me as he ignored the content of my posts. I will try to remember that in the future.

There's only one way to deal with someone like pretend Dr. House (and a few others here), and that's to take one whack, then ignore 'em. You'll find they CAN'T STAND IT when they don't get the attention. Then you know you've won anyway.

 

[MaggieMae]

News flash Maggie, the problem with drugs is NOT the cost. Also, Constitutionalists are not running around trying to legalize drugs. You are.

Oh really? The whole idea behind legalizing drugs is to stop the criminal activity which would happen if those drugs were readily available, and cheaper, in a free market. The last bill I recall that was introduced to legalize marijuana was a joint proposal by Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul.

...and the whole purpose of making drugs illegal or controlled substances is to protect people from abuse and adverse consequences. This is really just about you getting a cheaper high isn't it?

Yep, that's it.

Sorry to deflate your fantasy, but I tried marijuana once in the 1970's and I finally knew what was meant by "getting stupid." At least with alcohol, I could stumble around, but smoking dope held me captive in a chair until it wore off. Never again.

 

[drsmith1072]

I see nothing wrong with people attempting to make other people become aware of the damage.
I see everything wrong when our government is doing it.

Except they don't. Unhealthy lifestyles become the norm. There's also the embarrassment factor. I wouldn't walk up to some stranger and say "Hey, you could drop a few pounds and your blood pressure would probably drop..." That doesn't even work within my own family. We just pretend not to notice.

Maybe instead of saying people i could have used businesses like Weight Watcher, Jenny Craig.....
But just like Dave stated....if it was about our health, the government would just outlaw....right?....but they would rather keep the cash cow.

In case you missed that is the way everything works in politics these days. Why do you think republicans didn't do anything REAL about SS, immigration and medicare when they were in power?? It's because if they actually solved the problems then they could no longer use them as a political tool to gain votes. It's basically the same reason that republicans CHOSE to make the tax cuts temporary so IF someone chose not to extend them and let them expire then the right wingers could claim that person supported raising your taxes and rally voters against them.

I am not saying one wrong justifies another I am merely saying that perhaps you should look to your own side with the same microscope that you put the dems under? Maybe you will learn something.

 

[MaggieMae]

I see nothing wrong with people attempting to make other people become aware of the damage.
I see everything wrong when our government is doing it.

Except they don't. Unhealthy lifestyles become the norm. There's also the embarrassment factor. I wouldn't walk up to some stranger and say "Hey, you could drop a few pounds and your blood pressure would probably drop..." That doesn't even work within my own family. We just pretend not to notice.

Maybe instead of saying people i could have used businesses like Weight Watcher, Jenny Craig.....
But just like Dave stated....if it was about our health, the government would just outlaw....right?....but they would rather keep the cash cow.

Maybe what the government should do is subsidize weight loss programs.

[Ducking from incoming...]

 

[Meister]

Except they don't. Unhealthy lifestyles become the norm. There's also the embarrassment factor. I wouldn't walk up to some stranger and say "Hey, you could drop a few pounds and your blood pressure would probably drop..." That doesn't even work within my own family. We just pretend not to notice.

Maybe instead of saying people i could have used businesses like Weight Watcher, Jenny Craig.....
But just like Dave stated....if it was about our health, the government would just outlaw....right?....but they would rather keep the cash cow.

In case you missed that is the way everything works in politics these days. Why do you think republcians didn't do anythign REAL about SS, immigration and medicare when they were in power?? It's because if they actually solved the problems then they could no longer use them as a political tool to gain votes. It's basically the same reason that republicans CHOSE to make the tax cuts temporary so IF someone chose not to extend them and let them expire then the right wingers could claim that person supported raising your taxes and rally voters against them.

I am not saying one wrong justifies another I am merely saying that perhaps you should look to your own side with the same microscope that you put the dems under? Maybe you will learn something.

Ummmm, I haven't put a side to this except the people, and the government...No D's, no R's....government and politicians, smitty.

 

[saveliberty]

Except they don't. Unhealthy lifestyles become the norm. There's also the embarrassment factor. I wouldn't walk up to some stranger and say "Hey, you could drop a few pounds and your blood pressure would probably drop..." That doesn't even work within my own family. We just pretend not to notice.

Maybe instead of saying people i could have used businesses like Weight Watcher, Jenny Craig.....
But just like Dave stated....if it was about our health, the government would just outlaw....right?....but they would rather keep the cash cow.

Maybe what the government should do is subsidize weight loss programs.

[Ducking from incoming...]

Taxpayers subsidize, governments borrow. Make it retroactive to 1/1/10. I've lost 35 lbs.

 

[Meister]

Except they don't. Unhealthy lifestyles become the norm. There's also the embarrassment factor. I wouldn't walk up to some stranger and say "Hey, you could drop a few pounds and your blood pressure would probably drop..." That doesn't even work within my own family. We just pretend not to notice.

Maybe instead of saying people i could have used businesses like Weight Watcher, Jenny Craig.....
But just like Dave stated....if it was about our health, the government would just outlaw....right?....but they would rather keep the cash cow.

Maybe what the government should do is subsidize weight loss programs.

[Ducking from incoming...]

That is your post, Maggie, not mine.

 

[Immanuel]

News flash Maggie, the problem with drugs is NOT the cost. Also, Constitutionalists are not running around trying to legalize drugs. You are.

Oh really? The whole idea behind legalizing drugs is to stop the criminal activity which would happen if those drugs were readily available, and cheaper, in a free market. The last bill I recall that was introduced to legalize marijuana was a joint proposal by Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul.

...and the whole purpose of making drugs illegal or controlled substances is to protect people from abuse and adverse consequences. This is really just about you getting a cheaper high isn't it?

The same can be said about alcohol.

Although, I would not begin using pot if it were legalized, I would be okay with legalizing it and controlling it in the same manner as alcohol.

I believe doing so would lower the crime rate (and not just because smoking/possession would no longer be a crime) as well. I am also confident it would help to reduce the jail population.

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

So where were you when reagan promoted his and his wife's say no to drugs campaign which is basically what you are complaining about NOW?

As said before, the government has been used to engage in this type of interferrence and involvment in the past and yet when it benefitted or fit into what the right supported they had NO problems with it. So why the concern NOW?

That would fit if the government put out health announcements about the dangers of high exposure to UVA and UVB... but that is NOT what is being done here... it is expanding the tentacles of taxation, power, and increased government intrusion into the lives of people who are not doing illegal acts.... if they really wanted to 'help' they would make tanning beds illegal... but we ALL know this is not about helping people or anything else of the sort... this is big nanny government at it's best

Who do you think paid for that campaign as the government tried to persuade people to not use drugs?? Face it, if you were against government interferrence and influence then you would be against it in ALL forms not just those that happen to occur under a democratic president.

And that is a public service announcement.. much along the lines of many others across all points of the spectrum... and that is good for government to make a statement while not expanding and grabbing control and expanding the arms of taxation.... A public service announcement is not interference... but nice try

Has nothing to do with a DEM president or REP president or whatever else... it has to do with the nanny state and the expansion of government into areas where it has NO business being...

As stated... if this were about 'betterment' or whatever else.. the government would make it illegal to operate these tanning beds... I would not agree with the law, but doing that would make sense... this is indeed a power grab and punitive taxation to expand

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Punishing good hard working indoor tanning owners and their customers? Who do these Socialists/Progressives think they are? They deem indoor tanning "Bad" and then go on to punish these people with punitive taxes? My God,what has happened to our country? Our Government is supposed to serve the people not attack and punish them. Shame on all who are cheering for this punitive tax. These kinds of punitive taxes are simply Un-American. This is not how our Government should behave. The indoor tanning owners and their customers are not our enemies. They're our fellow Americans for God's sake! The Socialists/Progressives have completely lost it at this point. It's time for real change. Hopefully this change will begin in 2010.

 

[Meister]

There's a helluva lot about "the government" that I hate, not the least of which is the myriad operating rules of the IRS. I think "the government" has become a bloated behemoth created over the years by BOTH PARTIES, representing ALL POLITICAL IDEALS. Every president who comes to office manages to create these little sub-agencies that promote his campaign agenda (and Obama is no exception, but he's certainly not the rule either). Bush (yes, boys and girls, we've gone all this time without mentioning Booooooooooooosh), created agencies to promote marriage (tax writeoffs), to promote abstinence, funding for church-affiliated drug counseling while level-funding independent rehabilitation. The list is endless, and I could go back through all presidents for the past 40 years, but that's not my point. You need to stop lumping everyone into neat little packages, such as if you have a D as part of your political philosophy that somehow translates into being sheeple for anything government does. And it's simply not true.

None of my posts have mentioned an "R" or a "D", Maggie....I have been saying "government" all along, and "politicians" all along. Anyone from any party needs to be asking questions and they are not, if they don't and are being led around....they are the sheep.

Really? I was responding to this comment:

The funny part about it is that you won't question it, because it's from the government.

Where you assume that I, personally, fall within your broad characterization.

You mentioned the "D"...not me Maggie.

 

[Dr.House]

Is there anything that the average American people do which many of you liberals feel is NOT worthy of taxation?

 

[drsmith1072]

Dr. Smith and Dr. House. Please call in Nurse Betty to arbitrate. Patients are dying of boredom as you try to one-up each other.

You are correct and I apologize for allowing myself to be taken off topic by a troll whose only intent was to attack me personally. I should have realized he wasn't here for a serious debate the first time he chose to attack me as he ignored the content of my posts. I will try to remember that in the future.

There's only one way to deal with someone like pretend Dr. House (and a few others here), and that's to take one whack, then ignore 'em. You'll find they CAN'T STAND IT when they don't get the attention. Then you know you've won anyway.

Good point, I will try to remember that.