highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
Anything it does that's biased to force people to choose something. Not just anything.
For example taxes only on some things.
Having signle item taxes is the government saying "This is bad. So we're going to charge you more." This is immoral. Also it's costing your government money.
It's the WORST of both worlds.
You keep ignoring the fact that you are charging smokers more for DECREASING the cost to NHS.
It's like charing people who DON'T use the roads.
|
I haven't side stepped it at all. You took a study from Holland reported on an obscure British website to try and prove your point, I acknowledged that and shown you how the figures were not applicable at all because Britain works in a very different way to Holland. Then I went on to demonstrate how even if they are cheaper concerning medical bills they are still far more expensive than healthy people when you take in all considerations. Smokers pay for themselves, you pretty much have to accept this because the evidence exists, they cost £5bn to treat per year and provide £10bn in taxes, and the tax done not immoral IMO because it is like half the other taxes out there.
And also it is only "immoral" for those who are socialist... Are you a socialist Kasz? Because a capitalist wouldn't say it is immoral to charge people more for a more expensive service.
-edit-
My girlfriend (who is a doctor for the NHS) wants me to make the arguement that any small tax that goes to creating a better quality of life for the people that pay it cannot in any way be immoral, and is no more immoral than any other tax the government collects.
|
A) So it's not immoral to tax someone for being muslim if it goes to healthcare?
B) Those other costs are completly irrelvent to the government.
C) the differences between the UK and holland wouldn't effect the prices of this stuff.
|
A) You enjoy taking things I've said out of context don't you? It's not this first time you've done it by far. I mean what direct costs do muslims incur for the government? Shall I start making tenuous arguements based on taking things you've said out of context? Hey everyone, Kasz says that if you don't smoke you should die at an earlier age anyway because it is cheaper for the government.
B) No they are not. Not by any means
C) You don't seem to understand that Holland and UK are different places. You can't deny that the government make a net gain of smokers at any rate. Whether they cost more or less than old people. And old people are supported by numerous other taxes, mostly national insurance though like rest f the NHS. And besides you don't seem acknowledge the fact that NHS is a humanitarian organisation and even though they get taxes of smokers and old people costs money it's part of their ethics to try to get people to live longer and more comfortably, which this tax on cigarettes allows them to do.
|
A) I took exactly what you said in the context you said it.
B) Yes they are. Those costs are personal costs only. Sick days and the like.
C) You are suggseting here that the government makes money off those who smoke to give others healthcare. So. In this situatation... your healthcare is being paid by someone who makes the same money as you but smokes. Is this fair? Or even someone who makes less money then you!
Because you know. Smoking taxes are actutually some of the most regressive taxes out there since the poor smoke in much greater numbers then the rich. People aren't being forced to pay for their treatment. They're being forced to pay for EVERYBODYs treatment.
These people would be better off with no cigarrette tax and be excluded from NHS from smoking related situations.
