• Ban on smoking in public places + high cigarette tax
    197 replies, posted
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36425140]b) Taxing smoking higher isn't an alienation of rights either. It's soft pressure to abandon certain bad behaviour.[/QUOTE] And do you have any sources to prove its effectiveness? Because if smoking taxes were effective, you'd think they wouldn't bring in such a ridiculous amount of tax revenue. Like, if people stopped smoking, nobody would be paying that smoking tax.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425127]Yeah extremist values like individual liberty and non-interventionist government. fucking EXTREME! because liberals turn into suicide bombers all the time and not authoritarians who think they know what's best for everyone else, totally[/QUOTE] 'because liberals turn into suicide bombers all the time and not authoritarians who think they know what's best for everyone else, totally' ? Where's the argument? "Yeah extremist values like individual liberty and non-interventionist government." Yes. These values aren't even widely accepted in a great deal of Europe, where there's taxation on cigarettes and public smoking bans. Same thing for several US states. Libertarianism isn't a popular ideology at all, especially when you count the entire world, and not just the Western countries. It's an extremist one.
FYI, smoking taxes in the US raised ~$17,000,000,000 in 2009 alone. That number continues to increase dramatically every year (i.e. MORE people are smoking.) [url]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403[/url] Does that sound like people are quitting to you? Because it sure as shit sounds like they're still smoking and you're just exploiting their addiction for money. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36425182]Yes. These values aren't even widely accepted in a great deal of Europe, where there's taxation on cigarettes and public smoking bans. Same thing for several US states. Libertarianism isn't a popular ideology at all, especially when you count the entire world, and not just the Western countries. It's an extremist one.[/QUOTE] Yeah except your smoking tax is wholly ineffectual. It doesn't work. Your authoritarian bullshit may be widespread. That doesn't mean it works. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Which is it, GenPol? If you're trying to help people quit, then you won't make any real tax revenue once people quit. Or if it's about wringing them for money under the guise of helping them, you're just greedy as hell and corrupt to boot.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425200]FYI, smoking taxes in the US raised ~$17,000,000,000 in 2009 alone. That number continues to increase dramatically every year (i.e. MORE people are smoking.) [url]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403[/url] Does that sound like people are quitting to you? Because it sure as shit sounds like they're still smoking and you're just exploiting their addiction for money. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Yeah except your smoking tax is wholly ineffectual. It doesn't work. Your authoritarian bullshit may be widespread. That doesn't mean it works.[/QUOTE] "Your authoritarian bullshit may be widespread" - Yeah, because obviously a great deal of the EU states and US states are authoritarian because they banned smoking in public. "Does that sound like people are quitting to you? Because it sure as shit sounds like they're still smoking and you're just exploiting their addiction for money." Correlation doesn't imply causation. One has to control for external variables. And there are studies which tested this hypothesis. And guess what? It's backed up by all the evidence up to date. Source: org.elon.edu/ipe/gallagher.pdf
[QUOTE=GenPol;36425284]Correlation doesn't imply causation. One has to control for external variables. And there are studies which tested this hypothesis. And guess what? It's backed up by all the evidence up to date.[/QUOTE] I didn't imply any causation. I implied your taxes aren't working. Your reference implies no direct relationship between tax rate and smoking, even if it expounds the virtues of bullying poor people into doing what you want. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Lemme questions your logic here: Let's say your smoking tax works. Uh oh! What about all that money that went to NASA? Everyone has stopped smoking, so the tax is moot! Now how are you going to get that same revenue again?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425367]I didn't imply any causation. I implied your taxes aren't working. Your reference implies no direct relationship between tax rate and smoking, even if it expounds the virtues of bullying poor people into doing what you want. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Lemme questions your logic here: Let's say your smoking tax works. Uh oh! What about all that money that went to NASA? Everyone has stopped smoking, so the tax is moot! Now how are you going to get that same revenue again?[/QUOTE] "Let's say your smoking tax works." Except it does, and it has been proven to work scientifically, according to all the evidence up to date: org.elon.edu/ipe/gallagher.pdf "Your reference implies no direct relationship between tax rate and smoking" Oh, it does. "Uh oh! What about all that money that went to NASA? Everyone has stopped smoking, so the tax is moot! Now how are you going to get that same revenue again?[/QUOTE]" It's very easy. Implementing a decentralized economic submission system somewhat similar to the market one and putting the means of production under the common ownership, successfully using the surplus value to fund such programs.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36425405]"Your reference implies no direct relationship between tax rate and smoking" Oh, it does.[/QUOTE] Then you shouldn't have a hard time citing that part directly rather than throwing a hundred-page thesis out and saying "proof!" [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36425405] It's very easy. Implementing a decentralized economic submission system somewhat similar to the market one and putting the means of production under the common ownership, successfully using the surplus value to fund such programs.[/QUOTE] I hope you realize that communism does not work prior to obtaining a massive surplus of resources and infrastructure the likes of which no one has at current. What's going to happen when you run out of something? How are you going to fix that problem and with what money? [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Because pseudo-communist nations are doing a [I]great[/I] job responding to the fuel crisis right now! And China isn't about to experience a population-drop of biblical proportions by 2050 or anything like that.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425432]Then you shouldn't have a hard time citing that part directly rather than throwing a hundred-page thesis out and saying "proof!" [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] I hope you realize that communism does not work prior to obtaining a massive surplus of resources and infrastructure the likes of which no one has at current. What's going to happen when you run out of something? How are you going to fix that problem and with what money? [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Because pseudo-communist nations are doing a [I]great[/I] job responding to the fuel crisis right now! And China isn't about to experience a population-drop of biblical proportions by 2050 or anything like that.[/QUOTE] Here you go: "V. Conclusion The hypothesis of this paper was that the youngest age group (18-24) would see a decrease in the percentage of people smoking if taxes were increased. The parameter estimate for the TAX variable in the 18-24 year old group (Model 2.1) did indicate that increases in taxes would decrease the percentage of people smoking and thus upheld that hypothesis. However, the TAX variable, though negative, did not prove to be significant for any of the other age groups." A piece of advice for the future: Scroll to the "Conclusion" paragraph. "I hope you realize that communism does not work prior to obtaining a massive surplus of resources and infrastructure" Never advocated communism here.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36425549]Here you go: "V. Conclusion The hypothesis of this paper was that the youngest age group (18-24) would see a decrease in the percentage of people smoking if taxes were increased. The parameter estimate for the TAX variable in the 18-24 year old group (Model 2.1) did indicate that increases in taxes would decrease the percentage of people smoking and thus upheld that hypothesis. However, the TAX variable, though negative, did not prove to be significant for any of the other age groups."[/QUOTE] It's cool because you didn't read the last sentence. The study only concluded an indeterminate effectiveness on an age-range of six years, and the tax would theoretically be completely ineffectual on any other age group. The hypothesis was confirmed admittedly on a technicality in that [I]someone[/I] would stop smoking, but the reality was that it wouldn't broadly discourage smoking whatsoever. e.g. it doesn't work. With this in mind, would you advocate the high tax rate solely for the 18-24 age group, considering that is the ONLY group it displayed even a [I]limited[/I] effectiveness on?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425602]It's cool because you didn't read the last sentence. The study only concluded an indeterminate effectiveness on an age-range of six years, and the tax would theoretically be completely ineffectual on any other age group. The hypothesis was confirmed admittedly on a technicality in that [I]someone[/I] would stop smoking, but the reality was that it wouldn't broadly discourage smoking whatsoever. e.g. it doesn't work. With this in mind, would you advocate the high tax rate solely for the 18-24 age group, considering that is the ONLY group it displayed even a [I]limited[/I] effectiveness on?[/QUOTE] It reduced the total number of smokers, due to the fact that it reduced it for one of the age groups while didn't have virtually any effect on others. However, there was still an effect on other age groups - it was just very small.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36425642]It reduced the total number of smokers, due to the fact that it reduced it for one of the age groups while didn't have virtually any effect on others. However, there was still an effect on other age groups - it was just very small.[/QUOTE] Did you even read your own source? It had an absolutely negligible effect on all other age groups. As in what effect there was fell within the margin of error. As in, it was probably coincidence that there was an effect at all. Once again: With this study in mind, should the tax only apply to 18-24 year olds, considering it is ineffective at deterring smoking in any other age group?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425686]Did you even read your own source? It had an absolutely negligible effect on all other age groups. As in what effect there was fell within the margin of error. As in, it was probably coincidence that there was an effect at all. Once again: With this study in mind, should the tax only apply to 18-24 year olds, considering it is ineffective at deterring smoking in any other age group?[/QUOTE] It should apply to 18-24 year olds in an extensive manner, and it should become astronomical for older age groups (or rather according to the wealth and income), to see if it would reduce smoking this time. A hypothesis to be tested.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36425733]It should apply to 18-24 year olds in an extensive manner, and it should become astronomical for older age groups (or rather according to the wealth and income), to see if it would reduce smoking this time. A hypothesis to be tested.[/QUOTE] The hypothesis was already tested. It returned negative results. Now you're pretending you gotta' test it again because you can't possibly have been wrong. You're just calling extortion a "test." [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Extortion of seniors, no less.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425751]The hypothesis was already tested. It returned negative results. Now you're pretending you gotta' test it again because you can't possibly have been wrong. Now you're just calling extortion a "test." [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Extortion of seniors, no less.[/QUOTE] No, it hasn't been. A 80-95% tax rate on cigarettes hasn't been tested for older age groups. I don't see any point of debating with people who don't read the sources, and who keep spurring out common logical fallacies instead of debating. I can only debate with those who have the skeptical and analytical tools required for such debates.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425432] I hope you realize that communism does not work prior to obtaining a massive surplus of resources and infrastructure [/QUOTE] The question here is what kind of communism do you mean - actual real based communism or theoritical communism which never really existed. Generally speaking the communism which we have seen, work best in two areas for a certain timeframe. Partially industrialised countries with good resource access - Perfect example would be pre communist Russia. Strongly devasted countries with the need to rebuild industry, which don't have access to financial injections from better off countries - East bloc countries after WW2 which didn't have access to the rebuild funds (in part because ze communist refused to let them touch them :P) And what you'll generally see in those countries is a strong and rapid rise of industrialisation which will actually partially improve the living conditions of the population. The problem happens after this initial phase is over. After that they start to lag and problems begin to show up. But from an economical standpoint - communism is actually a sort of decent interim solution for a devasted country. And would be even better if you had a functional plan of transforming the economy and policy after the boom.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36425777]No, it hasn't been. A 80-95% tax rate on cigarettes hasn't been tested for older age groups.[/quote] Yeah because you would be exploiting their addiction so hard that they'd only stop smoking because they've starved to death. You might as well send police down to their house and taze the ever-living fuck out of them every time they light up, you crazy fascist. [quote]I don't see any point of debating with people who don't read the sources, and who keep spurring out common logical fallacies instead of debating. I can only debate with those who have the skeptical and analytical tools required for such debates.[/QUOTE] The only person who didn't read the source is you. Your source wholly contradicted your argument.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425686]Did you even read your own source? It had an absolutely negligible effect on all other age groups. As in what effect there was fell within the margin of error. As in, it was probably coincidence that there was an effect at all. Once again: With this study in mind, should the tax only apply to 18-24 year olds, considering it is ineffective at deterring smoking in any other age group?[/QUOTE] Generally speaking, even if the tax only has effect on one age group, it should apply to them all. Even if you're trying to limit it in only one group the rest should be affected as well. Otherwise you'd be essentially discriminating against only one group of the population with no legal base on doing just that. Secondly the implementation of a flat tax rise is much easier than the implementation of a graded per buyer tax implementation. It's one of the reasons why insurance companies here are getting hit with fines on their plans which have 18-24 olds have much higher rates than other age gruops. And if it did increase lower one of the most crucial age groups (20-24) it's generally going to have a net effect in the coming years over all age groups since most smokers start at around that age.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36425822]The question here is what kind of communism do you mean - actual real based communism or theoritical communism which never really existed. [/QUOTE] Theoretical Marxist communism. Real-world communism is pseudo-communism. It skips all of the stages of development and expects to simply declare utopia only to find out it's entirely unsustainable over any long period of time without going through all the steps. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;36425863]Generally speaking, even if the tax only has effect on one age group, it should apply to them all. Even if you're trying to limit it in only one group the rest should be affected as well. Otherwise you'd be essentially discriminating against only one group of the population with no legal base on doing just that.[/QUOTE] You're already discriminating against smokers specifically under the guise of "helping them," what is all that different about only targeting the ones who can actually be helped? If you're really going to worry about discrimination, perhaps you shouldn't be in the business of taxing vices and exploiting addiction for profit. After all, GenPol made it very clear he gives no shits about rights in multiple threads. He feels rights are fluid; something that can be violated on a whim if it serves the greater good. So why not discriminate?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425874]Theoretical Marxist communism. Real-world communism is pseudo-communism. It skips all of the stages of development and expects to simply declare utopia only to find out it's entirely unsustainable over any long period of time without going through all the steps.[/QUOTE] Yeah - utopia communism doesn't really work. Also real world communism actually called itself an interim establishment. I remember reading a lot of old political proclamations that went something about Establishing the rule of the worker class, so that other classes can be educated and make see the benefits of communism. That essentially implies the interim period. Of course the problem is, that due to human nature ideal commuism can never be achieved of course. So that after the common initial growth periods you tended to get crashes. [quote] You're already discriminating against smokers specifically under the guise of "helping them," what is all that different about only targeting the ones who can actually be helped? If you're really going to worry about discrimination, perhaps you shouldn't be in the business of taxing vices and exploiting addiction for profit. After all, GenPol made it very clear he gives no shits about rights in multiple threads. He feels rights are fluid; something that can be violated on a whim if it serves the greater good. So why not discriminate?[/QUOTE] You're not helping smokers actually. These limitations are not curtailed in the sense of helping smokers themselves but instead limit the rise of new smokers. You are attempting to limit certain while legal, socially problematic, behaviour. And you're going to attempt to do this over a fairly long period of time. Again keep in mind that this is soft pressure not hard pressure. And generally speaking the net effect will show over 20-30 year old timeframes.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36425904]Yeah - utopia communism doesn't really work.[/QUOTE] It could theoretically work, but it requires near-limitless resources. Basically we'd have to be at least a Type I civilization on the Kardashev scale to be able to accrue the kind of surplus ideal communism would require. Once surplus is established and mechanized labor takes over (theoretically), human nature doesn't factor into it.
If you asked me I would ban them altogether, I don't think they even add anything positive to society.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425940]It could theoretically work, but it requires near-limitless resources. Basically we'd have to be at least a Type I civilization on the Kardashev scale to be able to accrue the kind of surplus ideal communism would require. Once surplus is established and mechanized labor takes over (theoretically), human nature doesn't factor into it.[/QUOTE] Had to google the Kardeshev scale. And yeah, we'd actually have to be something like the civilisation in star trek. Labour is not needed Everyone has access to everything resources are unlimted Of course that then starts to create problems with our psyche which isn't built for these kinds of situations. I don't even want to know what psychology effect on an entire population this would have. EDIT There's a second way from memory that ideal communism could be achieved. If people willingly locked themselves into a VR system, the energy requirements would probably be a lot less than otherwise so you could achieve something similar with far slower energy requirements. Though we're obviously nowhere near that either. Since you can essentially have unlimited surplus inside of that system as long as you fullfill the base requirements of the system - food needed to sustain brain and life of the people inside, energy to keep it running, resources for maintaining said system. And the question is also - do we want that to happen.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36426005]Had to google the Kardeshev scale. And yeah, we'd actually have to be something like the civilisation in star trek. Labour is not needed Everyone has access to everything resources are unlimted Of course that then starts to create problems with our psyche which isn't built for these kinds of situations. I don't even want to know what psychology effect on an entire population this would have.[/quote] Well, yeah, Star Trek sort of proved that. When you have everything and all needs met, your culture starts to stagnate with no strife and you start getting immensely bored. So you just sort of wander out into space looking for [I]anything[/I] interesting to look at. [quote]There's a second way from memory that ideal communism could be achieved. If people willingly locked themselves into a VR system, the energy requirements would probably be a lot less than otherwise so you could achieve something similar with far slower energy requirements. Though we're obviously nowhere near that either. Since you can essentially have unlimited surplus inside of that system as long as you fullfill the base requirements of the system - food needed to sustain brain and life of the people inside, energy to keep it running, resources for maintaining said system. And the question is also - do we want that to happen.[/QUOTE] [B]YES.[/B] Fucking transhumanism all the way. Fuck biology. Don't even keep the brain alive. Copy it, save it elsewhere and turn the shitty body into fertilizer. I will live [I]forever.[/I] [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Kurzweil it up like a muh.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36426060]Well, yeah, Star Trek sort of proved that. When you have everything and all needs met, your culture starts to stagnate with no strife and you start getting immensely bored. So you just sort of wander out into space looking for [I]anything[/I] interesting to look at. [B]YES.[/B] Fucking transhumanism all the way. Fuck biology. Copy my brain onto a computer and turn my shitty body into fertilizer. I will live [I]forever.[/I][/QUOTE] :D After that we get into a moral dillemna. Do you want to be inside that system and know it. I know I would not. At least when looking at it from multiple angles. Also reminds me of an old videogame :D Essentially a type II-III civilisation begins enforcing this transfer. A secondary group opposes. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6mZZiI4ShQ[/media] Of course by the time of the end, both sides are pretty much the same. With one being cloned brains in robot bodies and no will and the other being CPUs with no will either :P
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36425997]You dont ban something just because you dont like it.[/QUOTE] oh but thats how everyone does it
[QUOTE=Vasili;36426133]oh but thats how everyone does it[/QUOTE] Like who? Name some names.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36426191]Like who? Name some names.[/QUOTE] Socialists, Conservatives and Fascists to name a few.
[QUOTE=Robbi;36426919]Socialists, Conservatives and Fascists to name a few.[/QUOTE] (I was trying to get him to say hitler, damn it.)
[QUOTE=Lankist;36427011](I was trying to get him to say hitler, damn it.)[/QUOTE] Hey Hitler is a good example here. Due to strict Ius positivism that was implemented in the third reich ;) The Nuremberg laws just to mention a fairly broken example.
The only reason I can think of to increase tax on cigarettes is to help offset the costs heavy smokers cause in healthcare. Obviously this doesn't apply to the US.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.