Lawmaker wants Virginia smokers to help pay your car tax bill

Judged:

6

5

3

va_tazdad wrote:

Typical socialist entitlement mentality. Tax, Tax, Tax. Why should somebody else pay the taxes on my car?
I pay the cigarette taxes for what I smoke, but that is pure communism in its truest form!
Run this moron Del. Hope out of town and tar and feather him on the way!

Judged:

1

1

1

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
A more fundamental question would be "Why is there a tax on cars?". The answer, obviously, is that the state needs revenue. If something is done so that the state takes in revenue from another source, then why would the tax on cars continue unabated?
If, on the other hand, you ask "Why should there be an increase in the tax on tobacco products?", there are several answers. One, of course, is "The state needs the revenue." Beyond that, though, are "Increases in tobacco taxes reduce the amount of tobacco consumed," and "Increases in tobacco taxes reduce the number of kids beginning to smoke," and "Tobacco consumption creates numerous problems for the people Virginia."
The remaining obvious question is, "Why should so much of the revenue from a thoroughly justified increase in tobacco taxes be earmarked for reduction of the tax on cars?" and the clear answer to that one is "Earmarking the funds for reduction of a tax paid by the vast majority of the adult population is a likely way to get the bill passed in a tobacco-growing state." The car-tax reduction is essentially a bribe to get people to do the right thing.
It is sad that so little would be spent on smoking cessation programs, but hopeful that SOME would be.

Judged:

3

3

1

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
A more fundamental question would be "Why is there a tax on cars?". The answer, obviously, is that the state needs revenue. If something is done so that the state takes in revenue from another source, then why would the tax on cars continue unabated?
If, on the other hand, you ask "Why should there be an increase in the tax on tobacco products?", there are several answers. One, of course, is "The state needs the revenue." Beyond that, though, are "Increases in tobacco taxes reduce the amount of tobacco consumed," and "Increases in tobacco taxes reduce the number of kids beginning to smoke," and "Tobacco consumption creates numerous problems for the people Virginia."
The remaining obvious question is, "Why should so much of the revenue from a thoroughly justified increase in tobacco taxes be earmarked for reduction of the tax on cars?" and the clear answer to that one is "Earmarking the funds for reduction of a tax paid by the vast majority of the adult population is a likely way to get the bill passed in a tobacco-growing state." The car-tax reduction is essentially a bribe to get people to do the right thing.
It is sad that so little would be spent on smoking cessation programs, but hopeful that SOME would be.

Judged:

5

5

3

buyerbeware wrote:

<quoted text>So you're saying this democrat is trying to BRIBE people?

Judged:

6

5

4

va_tazdad wrote:

<quoted text>
Except for the fact that it is not justified.

Judged:

3

3

2

greg in central va wrote:

Few things have frosted my balls anymore than paying the damn tax on my vehicles. I pay it when I title the thing, I pay again when I renew my license plates( and that has gotten stupid), Again I pay when I buy a local decal and then EVERY year I pay when the personal property taxes are due. Now that the demwits are no longer a majority maybe we can entertain some fiscal sanity and remove this onerous tax once and for all. A higher tax on cigarettes (sin tax) sounds like a great deal.

Judged:

3

2

2

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
Reread above.

Judged:

3

2

2

va_tazdad wrote:

<quoted text>
As I said, not justified.

Judged:

3

2

2

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
Describing your own input are you?

Judged:

3

3

2

va_tazdad wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. Simply disagreeing with you as to the justification.

Judged:

3

1

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, okay. But you are doing so only by assertion, whereas I outlined several reasons why it IS justified. "Simply" would seem to be the right word.
Personally, I would much rather see tobacco taxes levied against the tobacco companies than at the consumer level, but other than that I don't see much reason for going with you on this one.

Judged:

4

4

2

buyerbeware wrote:

<quoted text>And if they levy taxes on the tobacco companies, where do you think they (tobacco companies) will make up that revenue loss?....pass it on to the consumer in higher prices...thus your point makes no sense.

Judged:

1

1

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
You overlook an item. As things stand, who takes the blame for the jump in the price of cigarettes if the tax passes? When a customer buys a pack of cigarettes, the tax is something directly levied against the customer and inevitably taken personally. Taxes on a corporation are less personal to the consumer.
If the tax were levied against the manufacturer, the decision of whether to bump the prices by the same amount would be made by the manufacturer instead. A decade or so ago, when Philip Morris still owned Kraft foods, tobacco products accounted for ~40% of sales and ~65% of profits. When cigarette sales dropped over the last year or two, the tobacco companies maintained their profit level by raising the unit price.
The manufacturers are the proper focus of any anger smokers may feel over the high prices, regardless of how much tax is levied against tobacco products. They have a long tradition of taking advantage of the addiction of their customer base to take excessive profits. Taxing them directly instead of through the consumer would highlight that element in the public perception.

Judged:

3

3

1

buyerbeware wrote:

<quoted text>By levying against the companies, you take OUT OF THE HANDS of the consumer, the decision to pay or not pay the tax. Smokers angry over the high price need only look to themselves to blame for the "NEED" to have the product. High gas prices? ride a bike or walk...high food prices?...grow your own. etc. etc.