Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

if you are going to fund the SCHIP bill, what funding source (tax) would you choose?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 12:07 AM
Original message
if you are going to fund the SCHIP bill, what funding source (tax) would you choose?
i can tell you which one they picked for the bill obama signed today. a $.61 per pack tax on cigarettes.

how shortsighted and unfuckingbelievable.

as the number of children requiring SCHIP grows each year, the funding source is basically tied to the very people that require the service, and a funding source that will absolutely diminish over time. is that how we do things now? make those that need child health care pay for it indirectly themselves? how very republican of this bill.

sorry if i am not jumping for joy over what was signed into law today. a great bill with absolutely bullshit and shaky funding.

i would suggest that if you are going to implement a service that is going to require increased funding each year, why not make it a bit more progressive and tie to a source that will grow as well over time.

how about a per minute tax on cell phone usage? that surely is not going to slow down in the foreseeable future. something like a $.005 tax per minute per call would bring in incredible revenue for the program, ensure its continued growth, would be hardly noticed by the individual and would spread the burden to just about everyone.


nah! fuck a progressive approach. we don't like smokers anyway. let them pay for it, fuck 'um. besides, i love the SCHIP program and i should love any program that someone else but me pays for, right?.

is that our position here? really, du?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. From what I can tell,
yep, that's the position here.

Whats an extra 430 bucks a year to a smoker? Besides they are in the minority.

That's what a Democracy is all about, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Actually the tie in is quite rational
Smoking and the tobacco industry externalize their costs onto society as a whole. Thus, taxing them is one way to recoup (internalize) these costs. It also provides an incentive that results in less smoking- or causes people to quit, which is beneficial to the person and to society at large.

The obvious problem of course, from an financial standpoint is that selling less and less of the taxable product reduces the revenues for the program- so supplementary revenues will be required down the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 12:45 AM
Original message
Screwing the minorities, I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Screwing the minorities, I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. regardless of what you "think is so"....
there are some facts about exactly who will pay for this.

(clue: its not the rich.)

but carry on. i think the world of firefighters and medics. even if the word "regressive" never enters their mind...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. That might make sense if I had responded to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. doesn't change the facts... n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. I responded to razor edge's post not yours. It makes a huge difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. sorry bud, my bad. i thought if someone posted on du, it was fair game for anyone to respond...
maybe your post was just something between you and razors edge. i thought you were posting on topic.

please continue...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. If you'd like to defend taxing people just because they are a minority go ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. wtf? have you read any of my posts? i am arguing for the exact opposite.
the schip bill puts the funding burden on the very people that need the service. the "lower" classes (if you do not find that term too unacceptable) who consume the vast majority of tobacco products in this country. a great bill with a terrible funding component that makes the beneficiaries of schip largely pay for it themselves.

it should be the other way around. the rich should be paying for the needs of the poor.

schip is a "feel good" bill that fucks the very people it is supposed to serve.

is that clear to you now?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. That's why I questioned your response to my post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. See here's how this works.
Razors edge makes a statement, "Besides they are in the minority." and then asks a question, "That's what a Democracy is all about, isn't it?"

to which I answered, "Screwing the minorities, I don't think so." Which means screwing the minorities is not what Democracy is all about in my opinion. Is that clear to you now?

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. i totally misunderstood your post. i apologize.
we are on the same side...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. No worries, re-reading it I can see the confusion, not my best writing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. boo .. hoo.. you got me cryin'.. for you .. hoo...
It's an oldie but a goodie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. don't cry too hard, bud. i, like you, will contribute not one penny to schip...
i, like you, do not pay cigarette taxes.

but don't let that get in your way of your hatred of smokers. or the absurdity of the funding for this bill...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corruptmewithpower Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. The only tax we really need for every purpose under government.
In a negative income tax system, people earning a certain income level would owe no taxes; those earning more than that would pay a proportion of their income above that level; and those below that level would receive a payment of a proportion of their shortfall, which is the amount their income falls below that level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. Wait sell a product that's addicting isn't a growth source?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
8. Personally, I think it should come out of the general fund.
I don't really like the "sin tax" method for philosphical reasons. And I'm not a smoker.

However, that was the tactic they used to attract broader support. I know smokers resent this, and I don't really disagree with you. However, I'm really glad this passed. Sorry to the smokers. Perhaps this rather crazy link can someday be unhinged.

Consider this, if we ever do get to some form of UHC, this program will be redundant and maybe they'll drop the tax. Nah, they'll just find something else to spend it on. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
12. I posted this earlier but got absolutely no reaction
The proceeds from the tobacco lawsuits were SUPPOSED to go for childrens healthcare BUT

the Bush DOJ decreased the amount from $130 billion to $14 billion, yet NOW they are going to get the money through the backdoor and go after the smokers.This is NOT fair.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/07/doj_officia...
>>>snip
Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum will be deposed this morning in a lawsuit seeking information about why the Justice Department drastically reduced the amount of damages it was seeking in a suit against the big tobacco companies.

Last June, following a lengthy trial, DOJ officials announced they were cutting the amount of damages they were seeking from tobacco companies, from $130 billion to $14 billion.

That decision prompted the lead attorney in the government's case, Sharon Eubanks, pictured above, to quit, saying that Bush political appointees undercut the government's case against big tobacco.

"The amount sought by the U.S. government was dictated by the political appointees of the Department of Justice," Eubanks, a 22-year veteran, told ABC News last year. "It was very difficult to work with political officials," she said, "I did not receive their support or encouragement."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
14. I am not jumping for joy, either
and I am not a smoker. I can see it how we tell smokers to keep puffing because it is for the children.

It should come from the general fund.

Better yet, it should come from the universal health care fund supported by (progressively) taxing all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-09 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
20. Raise the income tax on the very very wealthy. Raise the capital gains tax, too. (nt)
Edited on Thu Feb-05-09 02:25 AM by w4rma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 06th 2021, 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC