Unintended consequence or deliberate attack on the poor and elderly? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2024, 08:58:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Unintended consequence or deliberate attack on the poor and elderly? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: IS the Michigan cigarette tax a deliberate attack on the poor and elderly?
#1
Deliberate attack
 
#2
No the Michigan government just screwed up.
 
#3
other -explain
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 17

Author Topic: Unintended consequence or deliberate attack on the poor and elderly?  (Read 3370 times)
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« on: June 06, 2006, 07:25:38 PM »

I've got an idea: don't buy cigarettes...

Of course this wasn't a "deliberate attack on the poor and elderly".  Don't be silly.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2006, 08:00:31 PM »

Before the tax was passed it was pointed out that it would affect the poor and the elderly the most.

It seems to me that it's an entirely voluntary tax.  It's not as if they got into a back room and were like "I KNOW, LET'S TAX THE PANTS OFF OF THE POOR AND ELDERLY LOL".

Of course it's going to hit the poor and the elderly the most: it's a sales tax.  All sales taxes do.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2006, 09:28:36 PM »

Lets take an example; Rich man earns $100,000 per year. Poor man earns $10,000. Both men smoke a pack a day. At $2.00 per pack the annual tax for both men is $730. The effective tax rate as a percentage of income is as follows:
Rich man  0.73%
Poor man  7.3%

Its odd to see so many Democrats supporting such a regressive tax.

Let's take another example.  Rich man earns $100,000 per year.  Poor man earns $10,000. Rich man smokes a pack a day.  Poor man doesn't smoke.  At $2.00 per pack the annual tax for the rich man is $730.  The annual tax for the poor man is $0.  The effective tax rate as a percentage of income is as follows:

Rich man  0.73%
Poor man  0%

This tax is such a self-inflicted thing that I honestly don't care.  You're acting as if it's involuntary for someone to smoke a pack a day and that this is a universal tax.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2006, 09:38:46 PM »

As I said, I'm ambivalent about it overall; I do not like the regressive nature of it, but I oppose it much less than the general sales tax. Unlike general sales taxes, which discourage people from taking an action beneficial to the economy, at least this one discourages people from doing something harmful.

But the thing about it is that it's not really a regressive tax.  It is in the sense that poor people pay a higher percentage of their total income than rich people do, all things equal, but the amount you pay can also be controlled by how much you buy.

A cigarette tax is not something that I would actively pursue, but it also is not something that I particularly care about.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.