What's new

20,000 Percent Tax Increase???

Oh dear. My world....ruined!!!! :lol:

And here my world was so nice and neat. 10 = 2 and 5 doesn't even exist.

10 must be greater than 5 because 5 does not exist....

*cough* see binary... :lol: (see my sig)

Don't read so much into it. That was the generic "you", not the specific one. I should have posted "regardless of how one FEELS about it"

Sorry for the confusion. Love the binary quote, btw.
 
*Opening potentially large can of worms*

This could be a possibility when the Cuban trade embargo is lifted.

I haven't really given much thought to the embargo. I have smoked authentic cubans on many different occasions and to be totally frank I can't begin to tell you that much difference between a good cuban and a good non-cuban. There are good and not as good cigars made both "places".
 
As I often say, one of the challenges with effectively communicating on forums such as this is the inability to properly convey tone.
 
Of course, one could look at this the RIGHT way :wink: -- the 20%-odd rate was fair, but the $48/thousand cap was just an artifact from days gone by, when a good cigar was under $5. FWIW, SCHIPS doesn't really need the rate to be changed. All it really needs to do is drop the limit.

This reminds me of when I was living in Ohio, and the sin tax proposal came around. All the wealthy suburbs surrounding Cleveland voted to approve the tax-- it was the drinking and smoking working class in Cleveland proper that rallied against it-- and fat lotta good that did.
 
Of course, one could look at this the RIGHT way :wink: --... FWIW, SCHIPS doesn't really need the rate to be changed. All it really needs to do is drop the limit.

Actually the proper way to look at is this: Don't have children that you can't afford to take care of. On your own. Not with your parents help. Not with your grandparents help. If you can't afford to take care of them don't have them. Certainly don't have them and then have the government steal from other people to pay to take care of them.

Of course, YMMV. This is MY proper way to look at it.
 
Actually the proper way to look at is this: Don't have children that you can't afford to take care of. On your own. Not with your parents help. Not with your grandparents help. If you can't afford to take care of them don't have them. Certainly don't have them and then have the government steal from other people to pay to take care of them.

Of course, YMMV. This is MY proper way to look at it.

I've always gotten a kick that this is considered the conservative view. While I think you're entirely consistent in your libertarian framework, there are those that aren't-- the ones that would say something like that in one breath and then promote an abstinence-only education and ban morning after pills in the next.
 
I haven't really given much thought to the embargo. I have smoked authentic cubans on many different occasions and to be totally frank I can't begin to tell you that much difference between a good cuban and a good non-cuban. There are good and not as good cigars made both "places".

+1 from a cigar standpoint. My Cuban cigar experience wasn't anything to write home about and in terms of taste, I prefer non-Cuban cigars...I should mention I've only had one, though, so my findings aren't exactly scientific. :rolleyes:

I guess my post was in the vein of:

1) If the embargo were to be lifted, you could find small $30 cigars (in reference to Scorpion's post), and

2) I said *when* the embargo is lifted, implying that it *will* be lifted someday, which could have aroused some political emotions within some people.
 
While I think you're entirely consistent in your libertarian framework...

You have no idea how proud I am that you made that observation. All I ever expect that I am going to be able to do is to make my point in a rational manner that is consistent with my beliefs.

You have made my day. :biggrin:
 
You have no idea how proud I am that you made that observation. All I ever expect that I am going to be able to do is to make my point in a rational manner that is consistent with my beliefs.

You have made my day. :biggrin:

Believe me-- if you had uttered a syllable of non libertarian thought, I'd have been the first to call you on it!!

Before you start trying to turn the tables, I'll remind you that it's a little harder to find inconsistency in the chaotic good framework.
 
Believe me-- if you had uttered a syllable of non libertarian thought, I'd have been the first to call you on it!!

Before you start trying to turn the tables, I'll remind you that it's a little harder to find inconsistency in the chaotic good framework.

LOL!

You know, I really only ever ask that someone has at least given some thought to their position, and can at a minimum make some semi-coherent rationale for why they believe that. Regardless of what your position is spouting a party line without at least having given a modicum of reasoning really makes one look bad.

We do not have to agree on every subject. But at least if I know you have some reason to believe what you do I can respect you for it.
 
I smoke the occasional cigar or three and find it difficult to generate any sympathy for those of us that can afford expensive cigars. If you can shell out $12 than you probably handle $15. If not, smoke cheaper cigars or quit altogether. If you don't smoke em' you won't pay the tax. There sure are more important issues to be concerned about - at least for me.

That may be fine for the occasional smoker. My daily smokes, H. Upmann robustos, cost me about $2.28 per, shipped. Like most cigar smokers in California, I buy on line to avoid the steep state taxes. I enjoy my morning cigars very much, but I am not addicted. If they were to increase in price by, say, 75 cents, to just north of $3.00 per, I probably would cut down to one or two per week -- I am a frugal smoker, and it is conceptually harder for me to justify lighting $3 on fire every morning. If our senators bothered to think things through, they could outright double the tax revenue from all cigars by raising the cap to 10 cents per, from 5, and hardly anybody would complain or change their smoking habits. Heck, they could probably triple it by going to 15 cents. But the tax, as proposed, will probably lead to lessening returns for the government, as consumers purchase fewer cigars, causing prices to escalate even more than by the tax increase (basic supply and demand -- companies will make fewer and charge more for them), to the point where daily smokers like me may see a cigar as a once-per-month luxury. Even then, if I have to pay something like $10 for a cigar I used to be able to buy for $2.28, I probably simply won't do it unless it is for some special occasion, just as I do with cigars in that price range now.
 
LOL!

We do not have to agree on every subject. But at least if I know you have some reason to believe what you do I can respect you for it.

Aah-- the difference between debate/discussion and argument. Be careful, though-- us liberals can be very sneaky and persuasive. You might just turn around and find yourself burning three or four flags a day. Don't worry too much. Once we assimilate you, we'll teach you how to do it without getting smoke in your eyes! :w00t:

On a more serious tone, I don't see too much that I can't at least can't understand a basis for in the Republican Party--I can even say that I can see where those on the right without a libertarian bone in their body when it comes to abortion are coming from. That said, I think the Administration has sold all you guys down the river, setting the country up for a 2 decade Democratic swing. I think (believe it or not) that you guys could use a few more Newt Gingriches (aaarrggh, that hurt) and a Bruce Fein or three.

I have deep familial roots in the Democratic Party-- Walt and Eugene Rostow were my cousins (that's Johnson's NSA-equivalent and a strong possibility for the Supreme Court), but we've always been able to see across parties (Eugene, in fact, was Reagan's adviser on disarmament). We're no yellow dog Democrats. I hope when the dust settles us Blue Dogs are in power.
 
Aah-- the difference between debate/discussion and argument. Be careful, though-- us liberals can be very sneaky and persuasive. You might just turn around and find yourself burning three or four flags a day. Don't worry too much. Once we assimilate you, we'll teach you how to do it without getting smoke in your eyes! :w00t:

I'm not really all that concerned about being persuaded. My beliefs are too well grounded in reason. :tongue_sm
On a more serious tone, I don't see too much that I can't at least can't understand a basis for in the Republican Party--I can even say that I can see where those on the right without a libertarian bone in their body when it comes to abortion are coming from. That said, I think the Administration has sold all you guys down the river, setting the country up for a 2 decade Democratic swing. I think (believe it or not) that you guys could use a few more Newt Gingriches (aaarrggh, that hurt) and a Bruce Fein or three.
Newt gets a bad rap from both sides. I know him personally and I believe that he would make a great President. Unfortunately I don't really think he's electable but I'd campaign for him if he were to run. That's not going to happen as long as Fred is in the hunt. Not being a republican it's pretty easy for me to be somewhat objective about partisan politics.
I have deep familial roots in the Democratic Party-- Walt and Eugene Rostow were my cousins (that's Johnson's NSA-equivalent and a strong possibility for the Supreme Court), but we've always been able to see across parties (Eugene, in fact, was Reagan's adviser on disarmament). We're no yellow dog Democrats. I hope when the dust settles us Blue Dogs are in power.
The one thing that I do know for sure is that a member of the demopublicans will be in the white house for the foreseeable future.
 
The one thing that I do know for sure is that a member of the demopublicans will be in the white house for the foreseeable future.

The chaotic good in me thinks it would be nifty to see Senator Whitehouse in the White House. Won't ever happen. I've also been waiting a very long time for a Berry-Dingell Bill (subtlety demands that name, and not the other. It's funnier this way), but nobody seems to be jumping through hoops to make that happen, either.
 
But the tax, as proposed, will probably lead to lessening returns for the government, as consumers purchase fewer cigars, causing prices to escalate even more than by the tax increase (basic supply and demand -- companies will make fewer and charge more for them), to the point where daily smokers like me may see a cigar as a once-per-month luxury.

Then you'd probably see the demise of many brick-and-mortar tobacconists, and the Connecticut shade tobacco industry would suffer as well. Then less available wrapper tobacco would increase the price of the remaining wrapper, which would raise the price of cigars again . . .
 
Then you'd probably see the demise of many brick-and-mortar tobacconists, and the Connecticut shade tobacco industry would suffer as well. Then less available wrapper tobacco would increase the price of the remaining wrapper, which would raise the price of cigars again . . .

Yet another case of government interference in a free market that causes problems. (this comment is certain to not cause any debate, LOL)
 
Top Bottom