Options
Looks like it passed.
rwheelwright
Posts: 3,296 ✭
I feel bad for all the NY tobacconists.
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Features/CA_Feature_Basic_Template/0,2344,3197,00.html
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Features/CA_Feature_Basic_Template/0,2344,3197,00.html
0
Comments
We all need to put the politicians and government in jail because they are the ones stealing from hard working people! It drive me crazy how much taxes they collect from everything!
For years this state has been run by halfwit morons.
As for fast food tax, I believe NY is trying to pass that. They are also trying to tax soda, online purchases including downloads, etc... Gov. Paterson even had a no salt law passed after acknowledging that he doesn't know why it should be passed or have any facts as to the health benefits.
One other State actually passed a law like this (Virginia, I think) and IIRC, Amazon made good on their threat and pulled out of that State.
So all you tobacco shops out there - C'MON DOWN TO SUNNY FLORIDA!! Play golf all year round, and enjoy the fact that Florida has no income tax!!
Ugh, like Reagan once said, The philosophy of Gov't is this - If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
That said, I am against most taxes on principal. I could not, however, in good conscience support taxing cigarettes and leaving other forms of tobacco alone. Things move along gradually far too often. To steal a line of reasoning from those who support the 2nd; first they tax cigarettes. I don't care because I don't smoke cigarettes. Then they tax chewing tobacco. I don't care because I don't chew tobacco. Then they tax pipe tobacco. I don't care because I don't smoke a pipe. Then they come after cigars. I care because I smoke cigars, but I don't have much of a voice because all the other tobacco users are already SOL. Think they are going to fight this one? Sin taxes are a devisive measure indeed. Often pushed as a way to promote health, morals, etc. In actuality they are a money grab. If enough people do stop using the product taxes go up again because the revenue base has decreased. I am not naive enough to think that we can get rid of taxes. However, I still believe in personal freedoms. If you want to tax something, I can wrap my head around that, as much as I might not like it. But, tax everything at the same rate.
It is too easy to go after minority groups, especially unpopular ones on money grabs. The smaller the voice, the less opposition. What if the govt. wanted to hike up the taxes on, oh say something like water? How many people would go for that? Not too many, I think. Good old Ben Franklin, founding father, perhaps satanist, possible serial killer, and notorious whoreophile, had this great quote: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is an armed sheep contesting the vote." I don't condone satanism, whoremongering, murder, serial or otherwise, and don't suggest people resist tobacco taxes with lethal force. However the basic premise behind the quote holds true. Far too often (as if there is an acceptable level) those who can't fight back effectively are abused by the "democracy". I prefer, as I hope many others do, prefer liberty.
The reasoning behind it is that tobacco and alcohol are unhealthy for you and should not be used. If that reasoning were to be used across the board, then perhaps there should be a tax on junk food, soft drinks, tanning beds (though there is one now), and anything else that people use.
Additionally, though this raises money on the short term, it kills off jobs, livelihoods, and commerce. In the long run, they're killing their golden goose. While this is still happening, state government is pointing a finger at you like you're a retarded 2 year old telling you not to do anything fun while their other hand is in your pocket, taking yo' money.
I personally believe it is NOT a political move, in that, without financial benefit, the very few who would change their stripes in order to vote for a candidate just because they support this measure. It is a finacial move by one of the worst financial units in the US. Maybe the problem is just as you state, that we have no political persons who won't view this as a poor decision. Whether it helps overall public health, which it won't, individuals are free to make their own decisions. I have no desire to dirty myself by engaging in professional politics. However, suspending that for a moment, if I were to engage in such activities I would surely address it as a poor decision.
I am a strong 2nd supporter, to be sure. I think that others who support liberties that may be marginalized take a look at what such organizations have done. The idea that the few cannot win is not always true. There are candidates who have taken strong positions on what the media would have us belie is the "unpopular" side of things and have WON because there are so many people out there who want a voice, who are maybe otherwise not even likely to vote, and do so because they are so glad to see someone standing up for what is right! my suggestion would be to do SOMETHING, because if no one does, no one will ever know for sure.
You are certainly correct in that is will hurt everyone, all the while helping no one, aside from those collecting revenue. However, buying from somewhere else will only benefit you until those other places adopt similar legislation. I don't believe that is our only choice, nor our best one. But that is merely my humble opinion.
come to think of it, banks are totally awesome. without them i would not be able to have all the great stuff i have worked hard for.
unlike government, banks do not arbitrarily take "X"% of my income simply because i earn it. (income tax)Banks to dont take "X"% of every purchase just because i make that purchase (this cigar tax) . Banks cannot make a rule that have to spend my money in a specific way (like government did with mandatory health insurance)
if the bank buys the government then the bank is violating rights.... ironically the governments job is to protect rights. but we all know that the government is not doing its job. the government is actually violating rights all the time.