5 ms·

I wish people who smoke could be charged more, or maybe, better yet, a large national tax on tobacco. Where I work, people are asked if they smoke, if you do,

by jmclnx 3y ago

I wish people who smoke could be charged more, or maybe, better yet, a large national tax on tobacco. Where I work, people are asked if they smoke, if you do, you pay higher rates. You and I know everyone, except for a small minority, will say No to that question. So that points to a national Tax. Where I live, people travel up to 100 miles to buy tobacco products in a neighboring that has tax much less than where I am. So yes, time for a national tax I guess.

sergiotapia 3y ago
Fat people are a much larger problem (lol). I wonder how much money could be saved if 1% fat people lost weight? It's a huge problem.
- patatino 3y ago
  Do you know who is the biggest problem? The one with bad genetics, let's test everyone and charge them.
  - sergiotapia 3y ago
    Attaboy! Let's prescreen people and designated roles to them based on genetics. Terrific idea.
- skrebbel 3y ago
  It’s also extremely hard to solve. I don’t know any stats but I suspect to quit overeating is way harder than to quit smoking. That or I’m projecting :-)
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Plus smokers can switch to a vape with basically no downsides and eliminate probably 80-90% of their risk.
- xnx 3y ago
  We're in the middle of finding out. GLP-1 drugs are revolutionary and are close to "curing" obesity.
- TylerE 3y ago
  I have a pet theory that there is a link between anti-smoking campaigns and the obesity epidemic. Nicotine is a hell of an appetite suppressant.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    If your underlying problem doesn't go away but your coping method does, you usually just find a new coping method. It's almost like poor people live miserable lives and flock to anything that can provide even a minor amount of pleasure
- boplicity 3y ago
  A simple solution would be to eliminate subsidies on corn, soy, and sugar -- and transfer all of that funding to subsidies on fresh produce. Basically, subsidize many small, local farms that produce real food, as opposed to subsidizing massive corporations that farm the ingredients for cheap, processed foods. High quality produce should be cheaper than a bag of potato chips. Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, people don't even have access to fresh produce. It's a real problem. The solution is simple, though certainly not easy.
  - jmclnx 3y ago
    To add to that, when traveling, I can get a 16 oz can of Coke for about 2 USD, same size bottle of water, about 2.50 USD or so, give or take. So yes, what you said should be done. But someone I know is on Gov food assistance, if they go to a local Farm Stand, produce they buy with their card gets reimbursed, so it is free. A nice first step where I live.
Invictus0 3y ago
Have you been to Europe? Smoking is much less prevalent in America and has been declining for decades [0], clearly the policies we've implemented have been working. What you don't want to happen is a tax so egregious that it sends the whole industry underground. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1717/tobacco-smoking.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1717/tobacco-smoking.aspx
jpadkins 3y ago
The federal government has taxed tobacco probably as far back as the founding of the country. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58706#:~:text=The%20federal%20government%20taxes%20tobacco,of%2040.26%20cents%20per%20cigar https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58706#:~:text=The%20feder.... "The federal excise tax on cigarettes is just over $1.00 per pack."
postmortembees 3y ago
Punishing the people who are suffering from addiction with a tax isn't ideal. I think we might be better off with a national tax that goes towards funding the healthcare necessary to support people moving off. Want to stop smoking? Here's a clinic that will work with you to develop a plan, supply you with materials, provide the counseling and community support, all for free. And sure, if you've got that in place, dial up the costs to onboard into smoking. Prevent new addicts through price and regulation, address existing addicts with huge outpouring of support. It's expensive up front, but gets us in a healthy state long term.
- webdood90 3y ago
  > Punishing the people who are suffering from addiction with a tax isn't ideal the world lacks accountability and this perspective perpetuates it there are consequences for your actions and the majority should not suffer for the minority's idiotic habit.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    And yet we let billionaires exist with their idiotic perchance for hoarding wealth and the rest of us suffer greatly from the wealth disparity. There are consequences for their actions and the majority should not suffer for the minority's idiotic habit.
    - valval 3y ago
      Billionaires are wealthy because the companies they own stock in are successful. What are you going to do, make them sell the stock to pay someone else’s living? It’s a rhetorical question by the way -- your position is not very defensible.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    Insurance should be allowed to charge more if you smoke (though not that much more... dying early often results in less cost to the government/insurance company, not more). But tax? No.
  - 3y ago
Clubber 3y ago
Smokers get charged a hefty tax on their cigarettes this tax is federal and state taxes. They also pay more for health insurance. When I was in college, a carton of cigarettes cost $10. Now they cost $80 last time I checked. I quit smoking 5 years ago, but smokers have been taxed enough. Every few years the government wants to squeeze more blood from that rock.
- webdood90 3y ago
  hmm, if only there was a way to avoid all those taxes!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jrochkind1 3y ago
Why stop at smoking? We can charge people for health insurance based on how healthily they eat, whether they consistently wear sunscreen, how much exercize they get, how dangerous their hobbies or habits are (motorcycle? skydiving? oh boy), etc etc. In fact, health insurance in USA DID do things like that before the 2010 ACA -- but limited by incomplete information. With smartphone surveillance (hey, why not require smartphone surveillance to get a certain product), the amount of factors you could monitor and charge based on go up a lot. Except the ACA prohibited this... EXCEPT for smoking, in fact. "I wish people who smoke could be charged more" for health insurance -- in fact, they CAN. It's about the only thing the ACA allows differential pricing on. Why is smoking different to you, or to the policy-makers who decided on that in the ACA? I don't really get it.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >Why is smoking different to you, or to the policy-makers who decided on that in the ACA? I don't really get it. Smoking became the boogeyman in the early 90s. Everyone was brainwashed that smokers are weak/evil/a drain on society/less than/low class people and should be taxed until they stop being addicted somehow.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  There isn't really any positive associated with smoking, it's an industry that shouldn't exist in its current form. If we were just talking about raw tobacco then this would be a very different discussion, but we are not. All of the other things you are talking about while are health risks a don't carry an addictive and largely proven connection to cancer (maybe the sunscreen one but there is also a difference between making a conscious choice to do something instead of just not doing something). There is clearly a massive societal cost associated with Smoking that I really don't think can be applied to many other things. The closest thing I can think of would be Alcohol but even that for most people is not on the same level as Smoking. At least I would not think so.
  - prirun 3y ago
    > The closest thing I can think of would be Alcohol Overeating IMO has become a bigger problem than smoking, at least in the US.
seemaze 3y ago
Where I work (US) there is a monthly surcharge applied for smoking, which you must opt out of each year with an affidavit that you are a non-smoker.
darth_avocado 3y ago
What you’re talking about is personal responsibility. While I agree with it, I would have to say singling out tobacco users is not right. Drinking alcohol, having high sugar or fat diet, eating processed food, having a desk job, never exercising, working in a job that exposes you constantly to carcinogens, not having enough money for preventative healthcare and a lot of other things can impact your long term health, should we also start punishing those actions?
phkahler 3y ago
>> I wish people who smoke could be charged more... I wish the opposite. As it is we have private employee insurance for "healthy" people who work, and government stuff for older people who don't. I'd rather see a less judgemental system and more effort to get people to be healthier.
- valval 3y ago
  How much are we willing to pay to save people who are beyond saving?
slenk 3y ago
States have different tax rates - I used to buy cartoons across the border in another state because it was way cheaper.
slenk 3y ago
Insurance costs more, at least where I live, if you admit you smoke.
Turing_Machine 3y ago
What are you planning to do about bootlegging/organized crime? Maybe we could slap a large national tax on heroin addicts while we're at it. Show up in the ER and test positive for heroin or fentanyl? Hey, you owe $10-20-50,000 more to the IRS at the end of the year.

by jmclnx 3y ago

sergiotapia 3y ago

Fat people are a much larger problem (lol). I wonder how much money could be saved if 1% fat people lost weight? It's a huge problem.

patatino 3y ago
Do you know who is the biggest problem? The one with bad genetics, let's test everyone and charge them.
- sergiotapia 3y ago
  Attaboy! Let's prescreen people and designated roles to them based on genetics. Terrific idea.
skrebbel 3y ago
It’s also extremely hard to solve. I don’t know any stats but I suspect to quit overeating is way harder than to quit smoking. That or I’m projecting :-)
- TylerE 3y ago
  Plus smokers can switch to a vape with basically no downsides and eliminate probably 80-90% of their risk.
xnx 3y ago
We're in the middle of finding out. GLP-1 drugs are revolutionary and are close to "curing" obesity.
TylerE 3y ago
I have a pet theory that there is a link between anti-smoking campaigns and the obesity epidemic. Nicotine is a hell of an appetite suppressant.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  If your underlying problem doesn't go away but your coping method does, you usually just find a new coping method. It's almost like poor people live miserable lives and flock to anything that can provide even a minor amount of pleasure
boplicity 3y ago
A simple solution would be to eliminate subsidies on corn, soy, and sugar -- and transfer all of that funding to subsidies on fresh produce. Basically, subsidize many small, local farms that produce real food, as opposed to subsidizing massive corporations that farm the ingredients for cheap, processed foods. High quality produce should be cheaper than a bag of potato chips. Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, people don't even have access to fresh produce. It's a real problem. The solution is simple, though certainly not easy.
- jmclnx 3y ago
  To add to that, when traveling, I can get a 16 oz can of Coke for about 2 USD, same size bottle of water, about 2.50 USD or so, give or take. So yes, what you said should be done. But someone I know is on Gov food assistance, if they go to a local Farm Stand, produce they buy with their card gets reimbursed, so it is free. A nice first step where I live.

Invictus0 3y ago

Have you been to Europe? Smoking is much less prevalent in America and has been declining for decades [0], clearly the policies we've implemented have been working. What you don't want to happen is a tax so egregious that it sends the whole industry underground. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1717/tobacco-smoking.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1717/tobacco-smoking.aspx

jpadkins 3y ago

The federal government has taxed tobacco probably as far back as the founding of the country. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58706#:~:text=The%20federal%20government%20taxes%20tobacco,of%2040.26%20cents%20per%20cigar https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58706#:~:text=The%20feder.... "The federal excise tax on cigarettes is just over $1.00 per pack."

postmortembees 3y ago

Punishing the people who are suffering from addiction with a tax isn't ideal. I think we might be better off with a national tax that goes towards funding the healthcare necessary to support people moving off. Want to stop smoking? Here's a clinic that will work with you to develop a plan, supply you with materials, provide the counseling and community support, all for free. And sure, if you've got that in place, dial up the costs to onboard into smoking. Prevent new addicts through price and regulation, address existing addicts with huge outpouring of support. It's expensive up front, but gets us in a healthy state long term.

webdood90 3y ago
> Punishing the people who are suffering from addiction with a tax isn't ideal the world lacks accountability and this perspective perpetuates it there are consequences for your actions and the majority should not suffer for the minority's idiotic habit.
- fragmede 3y ago
  And yet we let billionaires exist with their idiotic perchance for hoarding wealth and the rest of us suffer greatly from the wealth disparity. There are consequences for their actions and the majority should not suffer for the minority's idiotic habit.
  - valval 3y ago
    Billionaires are wealthy because the companies they own stock in are successful. What are you going to do, make them sell the stock to pay someone else’s living? It’s a rhetorical question by the way -- your position is not very defensible.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  Insurance should be allowed to charge more if you smoke (though not that much more... dying early often results in less cost to the government/insurance company, not more). But tax? No.
- 3y ago

Clubber 3y ago

Smokers get charged a hefty tax on their cigarettes this tax is federal and state taxes. They also pay more for health insurance. When I was in college, a carton of cigarettes cost $10. Now they cost $80 last time I checked. I quit smoking 5 years ago, but smokers have been taxed enough. Every few years the government wants to squeeze more blood from that rock.

webdood90 3y ago
hmm, if only there was a way to avoid all those taxes!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jrochkind1 3y ago

Why stop at smoking? We can charge people for health insurance based on how healthily they eat, whether they consistently wear sunscreen, how much exercize they get, how dangerous their hobbies or habits are (motorcycle? skydiving? oh boy), etc etc. In fact, health insurance in USA DID do things like that before the 2010 ACA -- but limited by incomplete information. With smartphone surveillance (hey, why not require smartphone surveillance to get a certain product), the amount of factors you could monitor and charge based on go up a lot. Except the ACA prohibited this... EXCEPT for smoking, in fact. "I wish people who smoke could be charged more" for health insurance -- in fact, they CAN. It's about the only thing the ACA allows differential pricing on. Why is smoking different to you, or to the policy-makers who decided on that in the ACA? I don't really get it.

Clubber 3y ago
>Why is smoking different to you, or to the policy-makers who decided on that in the ACA? I don't really get it. Smoking became the boogeyman in the early 90s. Everyone was brainwashed that smokers are weak/evil/a drain on society/less than/low class people and should be taxed until they stop being addicted somehow.
nerdjon 3y ago
There isn't really any positive associated with smoking, it's an industry that shouldn't exist in its current form. If we were just talking about raw tobacco then this would be a very different discussion, but we are not. All of the other things you are talking about while are health risks a don't carry an addictive and largely proven connection to cancer (maybe the sunscreen one but there is also a difference between making a conscious choice to do something instead of just not doing something). There is clearly a massive societal cost associated with Smoking that I really don't think can be applied to many other things. The closest thing I can think of would be Alcohol but even that for most people is not on the same level as Smoking. At least I would not think so.
- prirun 3y ago
  > The closest thing I can think of would be Alcohol Overeating IMO has become a bigger problem than smoking, at least in the US.

seemaze 3y ago

Where I work (US) there is a monthly surcharge applied for smoking, which you must opt out of each year with an affidavit that you are a non-smoker.

darth_avocado 3y ago

What you’re talking about is personal responsibility. While I agree with it, I would have to say singling out tobacco users is not right. Drinking alcohol, having high sugar or fat diet, eating processed food, having a desk job, never exercising, working in a job that exposes you constantly to carcinogens, not having enough money for preventative healthcare and a lot of other things can impact your long term health, should we also start punishing those actions?

phkahler 3y ago

>> I wish people who smoke could be charged more... I wish the opposite. As it is we have private employee insurance for "healthy" people who work, and government stuff for older people who don't. I'd rather see a less judgemental system and more effort to get people to be healthier.

valval 3y ago
How much are we willing to pay to save people who are beyond saving?

slenk 3y ago

States have different tax rates - I used to buy cartoons across the border in another state because it was way cheaper.

slenk 3y ago

Insurance costs more, at least where I live, if you admit you smoke.

Turing_Machine 3y ago

What are you planning to do about bootlegging/organized crime? Maybe we could slap a large national tax on heroin addicts while we're at it. Show up in the ER and test positive for heroin or fentanyl? Hey, you owe $10-20-50,000 more to the IRS at the end of the year.