Posted on Sep 29, 2021
House Dems Propose $100 Billion Tax Hike Targeting The Poor - Washington Free Beacon
1.21K
76
33
13
13
0
As usual it will be the poor and the middle class who bear the burden... they may be voting for the Democrats but they are not the ones funding their campaigns...
House Dems Propose $100 Billion Tax Hike Targeting The Poor - Washington Free Beacon
Posted from freebeacon.com
Taxes
Budget
Money
Democrats
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 6
Suspended Profile
Y’know what? I don’t care. I really don’t. And I say this as someone who grew up in poverty AND has been a smoker much of my life. Consuming tobacco is a choice, a choice that costs the public far beyond what is spent on that pack or carton. Same with alcohol. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
More appropriate headline: "House Dems Propose $100 Tax Hike Targeting Extremely Unhealthy Tobacco Habits"
Smoking has countless, documented, adverse effects on someone's health (and those people around them). I see no problem at all with this measure that is meant to improve public health. It may very well help reduce other government spending, notably Medicaid costs of providing healthcare for people with smoking-related health issues.
Smoking has countless, documented, adverse effects on someone's health (and those people around them). I see no problem at all with this measure that is meant to improve public health. It may very well help reduce other government spending, notably Medicaid costs of providing healthcare for people with smoking-related health issues.
(4)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
SFC Casey O'Mally - I live in the public health world. I don't need lectures from you on how it is or isn't defined.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
LTC Kevin B. I live in the public. And if you believe that my personal decisions regarding my personal health gives you a right to tax me, then yes, you DO need a lecture. And more than one.
Your existence "in the public health world" (which, by your definition, includes everyone, since you get to decide that we are all part of your collective and therefore you have the right to tax us all based on individual outcomes - which means we are all part of "public health") means exactly two things when it comes to deciding my taxes. The first is Jack. I will let you guess what the second is.
I know how public health is defined. I even stated that is how public health is defined. I was pointing out the problem with this definition. We have allowed the two concepts to become conflated so that you can argue "public health" and everyone thinks you are discussing an outcome for everyone (like when discussing air quality or water quality) within that locality when what you are really discussing is INDIVIDUAL outcomes for a sub-set of people (such as tobacco users or the obese) within a locality.
The definition is the definition. But people tend to use "public health" to hide what they are really discussing and to increase buy in from the trusting / naive / ignorant (as you APPEAR to be doing here with your public health argument). It is not inaccurate. But it is deceptive.
Your existence "in the public health world" (which, by your definition, includes everyone, since you get to decide that we are all part of your collective and therefore you have the right to tax us all based on individual outcomes - which means we are all part of "public health") means exactly two things when it comes to deciding my taxes. The first is Jack. I will let you guess what the second is.
I know how public health is defined. I even stated that is how public health is defined. I was pointing out the problem with this definition. We have allowed the two concepts to become conflated so that you can argue "public health" and everyone thinks you are discussing an outcome for everyone (like when discussing air quality or water quality) within that locality when what you are really discussing is INDIVIDUAL outcomes for a sub-set of people (such as tobacco users or the obese) within a locality.
The definition is the definition. But people tend to use "public health" to hide what they are really discussing and to increase buy in from the trusting / naive / ignorant (as you APPEAR to be doing here with your public health argument). It is not inaccurate. But it is deceptive.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
SFC Casey O'Mally - Your "opinion" on this topic is duly noted. And, I recommend you stick to putting words in your own mouth, rather than trying to put them in mine. Enjoy RP.
(1)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Boy the right is digging deep trying to discredit something that the majority of Americans, on both sides, support.
(3)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
Washington Free Beacon
RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may