Michael-5 said:
Kasz216 said:
Michael-5 said:
| Kasz216 said:
Well first off... a lot less people smoke... not due to any sort of government regulation or taxation but because smoking has just stopped being "cool"... and the people who started before people knew how healthy it was are dieing off.
|
http://www.sharecare.com/question/do-less-people-smoke-pastd
I'm reading that it's been a 25% reduction since the 1960's, and only recently it's starting to plateau.
http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Smoking-The-Facts.htm
In UK there was a 32% reduction from 1972 to 1990.
We also agree on the 20% figure now, so do you deny that 45% of people smoked in the 60's/70's?
|
You said you thought less then 25% people smoke now compaired to 2003. Which means that if you though 100 people smoked in 2003, that 24 people smoke now in 2012.
The great reduction of smoking since the 60's, 70's came from people being made aware of how unhealthy smoking was. Newer younger generations smoked less because they found out how unhealthy it was, while addicted people smoked until they got to the point of where they died or were forced to quit because of harsh illness.
Not from cigarrette taxes. It's the same now really. Smoking reduction comes primarily from young people just not smoking as much as older people because younger people know better now/cancer is stimitized now... and old people who smoked dieing.
Education is all that changes behavior. Taxes and regulations only hurt the poor.
Well also alchoholics. <----LOL
Would the whole sugar tax apply to booze? Afterall it's quite sugary. A lot of ex-alchohlics actually drink TONS of soda per day because they feel the urge to replace all that sugar that was in their beer/liquor.
Healthy? No. Better then them going back to being alcholics though.
|
Oh, I did say that. Why did I say 2003? When did Cigarettes get that big tax? I remember they got taxed at some point in the early 2000's/late 90's.
WHOAH Cigarette tax in the USA is so little compared to Canada!
Okay, this I will agree with you on because we apparently went from a 4.45% tax in 2001 to a 8.6% tax rate in 2002, CBC says that the number of smokers is only down 3%, which is no different from the steady drop seen prior to the ban.
If anything caused a drop it's the anti-smoking labels.
------
Maybe taxing it won't reduce the number of junk food eaters, but someone else posted that Health Care is the biggest expense of the US government. Makes sense to let the people who abuse their bodies to pay for the health care which will help treat them. Don't you agree?
Why should I, a skinny healthy adult, pay for the hospital bill of a morbidly obese person? Why should I pay for someone else's mistakes?
Taxing Junk food (and reducing taxes on healthy food) will distribute that burden onto people who choose not to take care of themselves. This way, if you're poor, it's not because you're eating healthy and taking care of yourself.
|
Yes it makes sense. but there is no need for taxes to accomplish that. It would be easier and smarter to just have people pay for their own health care, or not get treatment, or pay as they go. Anything but government run and taxed health care.
