k wrote:

I'm not necessarily saying that this bill is good, or necessarily that excise taxes are the way to fund schools, but I definitely take issue with the notion that individuals should only be taxed for those things that they want to pay for. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people don't want to pay for anything that benefits anyone else. The problem is that our system only works because the number of people paying is higher than the number of people taking advantage of the results.

This is targeting one set of victims to help one the government is deciding more valuable. I'd argue that smokers are more valuable. Sick kids have been flagged by darwin while smokers by their very survival defy darwin and are therefore more fit.

This is decried as unfair, constantly. Unfortunately, the logical conclusion of the argument is everyone paying for their own education, health care, police services, fire services, and on and on, and in no way is that system either humane or sustainable.

Education, health care, police services, fire services, and so on benefit EVERYONE. Healthcare only for kids only benefits cheap parents.

In short, smokers can stop smoking if the price is too high.

Price doesn't "help" an addiction. Many studies show that cigarette addiction is stronger than a heroin addiction (even though the withdrawl syptoms are much worse with heroin.)

Education carries a societal benefit that far outweighs their right to pleasure themselves while polluting my air and destroying their lungs (oh, and raising my insurance premiums, which only further demonstrates the necessary interconnectedness of a society).

Education is paid for with property tax. This is about the healthcare of children who's parents either don't want to pay for their kids health, or can't and probably represents a bad decision. Does price affect birthing rates? Education at least represents a common social good. Too many idiots running around makes for a poor democracy. Forcing others to be responsible for the health of your child has no benefit for society as a whole. If you can't care for your kid, give it up for adoption.

There's probably more people who smoke who are struggling financially than there are financially secure.

Then they've made a poor choice. A two-pack-a-day smoker probably spends upwards of $3000 a year on cigarettes. If you're making less than 30k, you shouldn't be spending 10+% of your income that way. Yes, yes, I'm elitist and smug, whatever.

Bullshit. Many of these smokers got started when cigarettes were less than 3 dollars a pack. "The first hit's free, but now you can take care of my kids!!!"??? I don't see that as worth it for the smokers who have problems of their own that the money should be used for.

RE: Senate Panel Approves Huge Tobacco Tax To Fund Child Healthcare