D
Dave
Guest
I like this reply.
Note I think all pollititions are idiots, its all about voting the better one in.
Dave.
Help Support Nissan Navara Forum:
I like this reply.
Note I think all pollititions are idiots, its all about voting the better one in.
Dave.
Krank,
Like I said, I'm not too sure of the figures and I'm not in the business of making guesses, however I do know for sure that the taxes from cigarettes are a piss in the ocean compared to the associated costs to the community, even taking into account the usual levies that everybody pays and so on.
I like Tony's idea of medicare levies being based on peoples BMI and some basic medical examinations. The healthier you are, the less you pay. Unfortunately the only way to get some people to get their arse into gear is to hit them in the hip pocket (as if the prospect of a heart attack, type 2 diabetes, lung cancer or emphysema is not enough to make you want to look after yourself....)
Some of my best mates and family are smokers, and I say the same thing to them. It's not because I have a vendetta against them, it's because I care about them and I don't want the people who mean so much to me to die or be vegetables in hospital because of some stupid disgusting habit. You wouldn't wish any of those medical conditions on your worst enemies, so of course you would try and encourage people close to you to steer away from these bad habits which cause these conditions. Likewise, the people who research the effects of chronic disease do it because they get incredibly frustrated at people's inaction and they want to see a healthy population - it is not for their own benefit. Sure, whenever politicians stick their noses into anything it turns to shit, the best policies get squashed before they even get to parliament or senate.
We speak about the government as though it's this big faceless cloud of bullshit, but remember that public servants & contractors (the people who do the research and legwork behind most of the policies) are apolitical, in other words, they do their work same regardless of who's in power. The difference lies in how (or if) their work is implemented by the politicians. You'll find that most people who work in government policy development actually hate politicians, because the politicians generally throw their work in the bin if it doesn't help their chances at re-election. Anyway i'm getting slightly off topic now...
Like I said, I'm not too sure of the figures and I'm not in the business of making guesses, however I do know for sure that the taxes from cigarettes are a piss in the ocean compared to the associated costs to the community, even taking into account the usual levies that everybody pays and so on.
I like Tony's idea of medicare levies being based on peoples BMI and some basic medical examinations. The healthier you are, the less you pay. Unfortunately the only way to get some people to get their arse into gear is to hit them in the hip pocket (as if the prospect of a heart attack, type 2 diabetes, lung cancer or emphysema is not enough to make you want to look after yourself....)
Some of my best mates and family are smokers, and I say the same thing to them. It's not because I have a vendetta against them, it's because I care about them and I don't want the people who mean so much to me to die or be vegetables in hospital because of some stupid disgusting habit. You wouldn't wish any of those medical conditions on your worst enemies, so of course you would try and encourage people close to you to steer away from these bad habits which cause these conditions. Likewise, the people who research the effects of chronic disease do it because they get incredibly frustrated at people's inaction and they want to see a healthy population - it is not for their own benefit. Sure, whenever politicians stick their noses into anything it turns to shit, the best policies get squashed before they even get to parliament or senate.
We speak about the government as though it's this big faceless cloud of bullshit, but remember that public servants & contractors (the people who do the research and legwork behind most of the policies) are apolitical, in other words, they do their work same regardless of who's in power. The difference lies in how (or if) their work is implemented by the politicians. You'll find that most people who work in government policy development actually hate politicians, because the politicians generally throw their work in the bin if it doesn't help their chances at re-election. Anyway i'm getting slightly off topic now...
K
Krankin
Guest
Here's a thought.
At $6 per day, or $2190 a year (that's the taxes collected by the government on a pack of cigarettes in the example given) is more than enough to pay for a plain casket and a simple cremation.
Just line 'em up. They're holding their tickets in their hand, and puffin' away on 'em, so they're really easy to spot. Let 'em go for one year so the bill's covered then push 'em in the oven.
Seriously, it doesn't matter if it's Kevin Rudd or Elmer Fudd (although I suspect Elmer would say "The weader of the opposition, Tony Wabbit ..." ) - they're just figureheads. The party comes up with some response to what they see as an issue that needs to be dealt with and they try to run with it.
In the long run, it doesn't really matter who the guy up front is. Kevin Rudd can speak clearly and run rings around most people in a debate. Good for him. Tony Abbot has his undies hanging in a pub in Alice Springs, there's no way Kevin Rudd can beat that.
Do either of them matter? Not really. They'll try this or that solution - sometimes decent, sometimes ridiculous, but ALWAYS at the taxpayers' expense - and it'll either work, or it'll work and be rorted until it fails (insulation, anyone?) or it'll be a bomb through either poor planning or stupid implementation.
In the long run, we'll still be here and some other idiot will be up there slanging off at the rabbits on the other side.
At $6 per day, or $2190 a year (that's the taxes collected by the government on a pack of cigarettes in the example given) is more than enough to pay for a plain casket and a simple cremation.
Just line 'em up. They're holding their tickets in their hand, and puffin' away on 'em, so they're really easy to spot. Let 'em go for one year so the bill's covered then push 'em in the oven.
Seriously, it doesn't matter if it's Kevin Rudd or Elmer Fudd (although I suspect Elmer would say "The weader of the opposition, Tony Wabbit ..." ) - they're just figureheads. The party comes up with some response to what they see as an issue that needs to be dealt with and they try to run with it.
In the long run, it doesn't really matter who the guy up front is. Kevin Rudd can speak clearly and run rings around most people in a debate. Good for him. Tony Abbot has his undies hanging in a pub in Alice Springs, there's no way Kevin Rudd can beat that.
Do either of them matter? Not really. They'll try this or that solution - sometimes decent, sometimes ridiculous, but ALWAYS at the taxpayers' expense - and it'll either work, or it'll work and be rorted until it fails (insulation, anyone?) or it'll be a bomb through either poor planning or stupid implementation.
In the long run, we'll still be here and some other idiot will be up there slanging off at the rabbits on the other side.
Matt76
Member
Even as a non smoker I am a bit amazed that so many people believe the smokers should contribute more than the rest of us (not purely on here, in the media in general). I raced motorbikes for a couple of years, and rode roadbikes for many more years, surely I was a much higher risk to the health system than smokers? Maybe I should have been taxed more? Its so easy to point out a target group and blame them, but is it really smokers responsibilty to prop up the health system?
That's a good point Matt, motorbike riders do spend a bit of time in the hospital, I used to race downhill mountain bikes but narrowly avoided hospital a few times. I get what you mean about risk, but it's a risk of a relatively small group of people, so the volume is not that big. Cost-wise, one person with chronic illness will cost many, many times more than 1 person who has an accident, because generally if you have an accident, you get taken in, fixed up, and discharged. With chronic illness, you're in and out of hospital for years, possibly for the rest of your life. And all of the tests and specialists bills are astronomical and recurring. Granted, there are people who have serious accidents who require recurring rehab and care, but the numbers are quite small in comparison to chronic disease.
Personally, I don't think smoker's can really complain about paying more tax for healthcare, I guess it's a consequence of the habit. Not that many years ago I was a P plater with a turbocharged nissan, and for that I paid a shitload of insurance because of the risk - I honestly can't see any reason why health risk calculations should be any different to that, whether it's public health or private health. To be fair though I do think smokers have the right to feel jibbed that the government aren't equally taxing alcoholics and obese people too. Relating back to my car analogy, it would be like charging a lot for insurance for a P plater with a turbocharged nissan, but not charging a lot for one with a turbocharged toyota or mazda (even though we all know that the Nissans are better of course...)
Personally, I don't think smoker's can really complain about paying more tax for healthcare, I guess it's a consequence of the habit. Not that many years ago I was a P plater with a turbocharged nissan, and for that I paid a shitload of insurance because of the risk - I honestly can't see any reason why health risk calculations should be any different to that, whether it's public health or private health. To be fair though I do think smokers have the right to feel jibbed that the government aren't equally taxing alcoholics and obese people too. Relating back to my car analogy, it would be like charging a lot for insurance for a P plater with a turbocharged nissan, but not charging a lot for one with a turbocharged toyota or mazda (even though we all know that the Nissans are better of course...)
jayk
Member
wir35, smokers are already paying 80% tax on the cigarettes. surelly that is no different to the extra insurance you pay on ur turbo?
how much of that excise goes to treating lung cancer and emphasema? at least ur money went to the place it was meant too!
......fact is most smokers will quit b4 they die from smoking related diseases. in that time they have funded a shitload of public infrastructure!
how much of that excise goes to treating lung cancer and emphasema? at least ur money went to the place it was meant too!
......fact is most smokers will quit b4 they die from smoking related diseases. in that time they have funded a shitload of public infrastructure!
blackmortice
Member
I quite smoking bout a year ago and no you should not have to pay the xtra tax but I worked out i have spent about 75 000 on cigs thats alot of navaras
They might as well smoke right up to lights out, because it really doesn't matter if they quit before they die or not, for two reasons:
1. After extended periods of regular smoking you've already predisposed yourself to related disease
2. The death of smokers isn't what costs the tax payer money, it's the years of intensive care, surgery and medicine in the years leading up to their death that costs us. Not to mention the trauma on their family and friends.
I don't understand the motive of people who smoke, but it just all seems a bit selfish to me in this day in age with all of the awareness and warnings around. Even if you don't give a stuff about yourself, the government or other taxpayers, have a think about your family. Do you really want your kids to have to see you go through lung cancer or emphysema, with you lying on your death bed knowing that your choices have led you down this path, and the trauma that your family is going through is because of your decisions??? I sure as hell wouldn't... And damn sure I wouldn't want to see one of my family or friends lying on that bed either.
I'm no goody two shoes, I've done some really stupid shit, I've tried drugs and drank myself spastic, and I know back in the day smoking was cool and the warnings weren't really that prominent, but there's a point where you need to grow up and take responsibility for your life.
That's about all I'll say, if people haven't got my point yet and realised I'm right, they never will
lol
K
Krankin
Guest
That's about all I'll say, if people haven't realised I'm right, they never will
Oh please!
Gimme a bucket,
I'll save you some tax dollars now
D
Dave
Guest
I'm no goody two shoes, I've done some really stupid shit, I've tried drugs and drank myself spastic, and I know back in the day smoking was cool and the warnings weren't really that prominent, but there's a point where you need to grow up and take responsibility for your life.
That's about all I'll say, if people haven't got my point yet and realised I'm right, they never will
Never done any drugs bar Nicotien and Alcohol and I can assure you that illegal drugs will kill you faster then ciggies will.
You say smokers should pay extra but should you now pay for your health since you have done pills ?
Dave.
K
KraftyPg
Guest
You make a reasonable point, most (not all) illicit drugs will kill you quicker therefore you aren't a burden on the health care system for as long further evidence that smokers are more likely to use more health resources than druggies.
Imagine if the government could get away with decriminalizing (as opposed to legalizing) some of the lesser street drugs which would allow them to take tax dollars from every sale. It's not going to happen so this is hypothetical obviously but, how many of those screaming that smokers shouldn't pay more would have sympathy for the dope smoker who bitches every time his packet of weed goes up $10 because the government want to make a bit more cash for the health system which they are knowing admitting themselves into by using drugs. Going by previous statements suggesting druggies and alcoholics should pay as well probably not too many.
The only difference between legal and not legal in this argument is that legal is easily taxed, figure out a way to tax the illegal, the argument is null an void, smokers aren't the only ones picked on and it comes back to higher risk people paying more for the habit, addiction, or choices they make.
You pay more for so many different things in this world based on where you live, what you do, how much of a risk you are, even down to your race or creed, why should public health care be any different?
K
Krankin
Guest
Couple of things if i may;
There aint no such thing as LESSER street drugs,
all illicit drugs,
they're all unknowns, all have consequences and are all no good, and include ciggies and alchohol too.
end of story.
Now since this topic is going round and round,
lets be fair then.
Put MORE TAX on everything we use and abuse:
Everything we do has the ability to cause cronic health problems and long term hospital treatment,
lets put a tax on people who live in the city and own a 4WD and more if you have a bullbar and even more so if you have mods.
and here's one I'm sure will get a reaction,
more tax to the loggers who continually rip up the new bitumen road layed after the fires here,
and all our local roads they use and pothole,
and enviromental damage caused by clear felling 7 coups this season,
Fact is, smokers and drinkers are targeted cause there's big numbers and even though LEGAL its socially unecceptable,
much the same as the supposed "road safety cams",
lots of cars on the road,... CASH COW....lots of revenue.
though drivers still getting killed on these "safer" roads.
I still fail to see the real cause of the smoking health problem get a mention,
ciggie makers and the gov for not protecting its voters from this filth,
why you ask,
cause they're making shitloads of cash to feather there own nest.
There aint no such thing as LESSER street drugs,
all illicit drugs,
they're all unknowns, all have consequences and are all no good, and include ciggies and alchohol too.
end of story.
Now since this topic is going round and round,
lets be fair then.
Put MORE TAX on everything we use and abuse:
Everything we do has the ability to cause cronic health problems and long term hospital treatment,
lets put a tax on people who live in the city and own a 4WD and more if you have a bullbar and even more so if you have mods.
and here's one I'm sure will get a reaction,
more tax to the loggers who continually rip up the new bitumen road layed after the fires here,
and all our local roads they use and pothole,
and enviromental damage caused by clear felling 7 coups this season,
Fact is, smokers and drinkers are targeted cause there's big numbers and even though LEGAL its socially unecceptable,
much the same as the supposed "road safety cams",
lots of cars on the road,... CASH COW....lots of revenue.
though drivers still getting killed on these "safer" roads.
I still fail to see the real cause of the smoking health problem get a mention,
ciggie makers and the gov for not protecting its voters from this filth,
why you ask,
cause they're making shitloads of cash to feather there own nest.
DVR
Member
...............the health impacts are not entirely on the individual. Answer me this; why should my/your taxes provide medical assistance to informed people who choose to smoke knowing the health implications?
My dad recently died (Feb 28) from smoking related cancer so it’s not like I don’t know what I’m talking about, he knew the risks and chose to keep smoking. Perhaps I’d still have him around if the tax was high enough to discourage him from smoking years ago.
For those of you who do smoke. Next time you see someone else smoke, think about what it’s doing to them, and they know and are fine with it. Now don’t they look stupid?
AMEN
I won't defend illegal drugs, but sure I tried them out a few times when I was a teenager, certainly didn't abuse them though. But I very quickly grew up and got over it, took the responsible option and haven't touched any type of drug since I was about 20 or so. I don't regret trying them because now I know what it's like and I can have a bit of an idea why people get addicted to things like that, including smoking I guess.
Interesting point you make about illicit drugs and possibly legalising some of them. Some people will instantly dismiss such a thought, because they believe everything they hear about how terrible drugs are and how much of a national scourge they are, and that's good for them - whatever. But others take the time to research facts and watch informative programs rather than mindless shit like today tonight or a current affair. Fact is, deaths from illicit drugs is far, far less than either alcohol or smoking. Sure, some people fuck up their lives because of drugs and some of that stuff is bad. I think that, as bad as drugs are, part of the reason people get so fucked up on them is because A) they are so expensive because they are illegal and people resort to crime to feed their habits, and B) because it's illegal and uncontrolled people are making crap out of toilet cleaner and household chemicals in backyard sheds. Further to that, the reason why drugs cost is so high on society is because we spend so much money policing it, and addicts need to resort to crime to pay for their habit. I've had a family member destroy her life with drugs and consequently pass away because of drug related illness, so I don't know about legalisation, I haven't thought enough about it to form an opinion either way, but I do think we need to rethink how we approach the problem and stop just always copying what the retarded americans are doing.
But like you said, they won't stop people drinking or smoking because it pays some of the bills.... I'd say just as many smoke pot, so they could pay a few more bills if they legalised it, might even save a few people from ruining their lives too perhaps? Might cause a few people to ruin their lives? Who knows....but as far as I know, the people of Amsterdam still live pretty well....
Interesting point you make about illicit drugs and possibly legalising some of them. Some people will instantly dismiss such a thought, because they believe everything they hear about how terrible drugs are and how much of a national scourge they are, and that's good for them - whatever. But others take the time to research facts and watch informative programs rather than mindless shit like today tonight or a current affair. Fact is, deaths from illicit drugs is far, far less than either alcohol or smoking. Sure, some people fuck up their lives because of drugs and some of that stuff is bad. I think that, as bad as drugs are, part of the reason people get so fucked up on them is because A) they are so expensive because they are illegal and people resort to crime to feed their habits, and B) because it's illegal and uncontrolled people are making crap out of toilet cleaner and household chemicals in backyard sheds. Further to that, the reason why drugs cost is so high on society is because we spend so much money policing it, and addicts need to resort to crime to pay for their habit. I've had a family member destroy her life with drugs and consequently pass away because of drug related illness, so I don't know about legalisation, I haven't thought enough about it to form an opinion either way, but I do think we need to rethink how we approach the problem and stop just always copying what the retarded americans are doing.
But like you said, they won't stop people drinking or smoking because it pays some of the bills.... I'd say just as many smoke pot, so they could pay a few more bills if they legalised it, might even save a few people from ruining their lives too perhaps? Might cause a few people to ruin their lives? Who knows....but as far as I know, the people of Amsterdam still live pretty well....
rescue
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2010
- Messages
- 331
- Reaction score
- 0
And while we are hitting up the smokers for the extra health costs, lets bung on an extra tax to the Sri Lankans and Afghans that live here to pay for the extra boat people.
Now come to think of it all those nursing homes and retirement villages are full of old people so lets tax those over 65. Don't forget those maternity wards, baby health clinics and schools that are full of kids, better tax you for having babies as well!
Now come to think of it all those nursing homes and retirement villages are full of old people so lets tax those over 65. Don't forget those maternity wards, baby health clinics and schools that are full of kids, better tax you for having babies as well!
If you really want to throw some contentious ones up, how about:
"The Back Passage Tax" - tax every gay man with proceeds going to HIV care and research.
"The Drop Your Levi Levy" - every extra-marital session should attract a tax to cover the costs of health screening & sexually transmitted diseases
"The Kneel Before God Tax" - payable by Catholic priests. 'Nuff said.
I'm sure the rest of ya can come up with some more.
"The Back Passage Tax" - tax every gay man with proceeds going to HIV care and research.
"The Drop Your Levi Levy" - every extra-marital session should attract a tax to cover the costs of health screening & sexually transmitted diseases
"The Kneel Before God Tax" - payable by Catholic priests. 'Nuff said.
I'm sure the rest of ya can come up with some more.
K
KraftyPg
Guest
I vote we put a tax on the forum stupid comments can only be made by those paying higher tax rates. As one of those with stupid comments I'll collect all the tax dollars.
farc the goverment im a taxpayer and if i want to smoke its my choice!if they want to save money how about they do mandatory drug tests to stay on the doll! people often have to get drug tests to make money to pay for free loading drug addicts!
