This bill would require approx. 22,000,000 new smokers, to generate the tax to fund this program. Willing to light up for the Children, If not the Government will have to absorb the cost if passed?
2007-10-25 07:45:08 · 5 answers · asked by tom 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"Sin" taxes are great for generating revenue. But obviously the government is put in a awkward position of apparently promoting the activity and at the same time recommending against it. The rationale they often use is by taxing the "sin" they help compensate for the effects of the "sin".
The problem is that frequently the revenue goes beyond just compensating society for the costs of the sin and in fact ends up benefiting it ! Getting revenue from taxing cigarettes for roads and children's health care has nothing to do with compensating society for the costs that smokers create.
So financially it makes great sense. But ethically it's quite questionable if we should fund children's health insurance on an activity that health experts have proven causes health problems. What an irony !
2007-10-28 08:53:15 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm a smoker...and yes, I wouldn't mind paying an extra 60 cents per pack.
2007-10-25 14:50:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, put a larger tax on alcohol.
2007-10-25 15:01:16 · answer #3 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Every bit of the Liberal agenda is apparently going to be funded by smokers. WTF is wrong with them, SMOKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!
2007-10-25 14:48:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
sure. anything for the children.
2007-10-25 14:49:06 · answer #5 · answered by Random Black Woman 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋