doug: that's exactly the point of my last post about socialist "value
scales".
norm
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:4694] Re: Re: Re: yet another US electile d
Michael Perelman wrote:
True enough, but don't the adverse consequences of tobacco hit the
working-class
harder? So, discouraging smoking by taxes might have positive
consequences over the
long run.
Shouldn't people decide for themselves whether to smoke? Do you think
you
Doug, the question was one of the welfare effects of the taxes. The
question you ask makes any answer more complex. Bombarding a child with
advertisements makes rational decision making somewhat unclear. If, I
were to assert that high cigarette taxes were a legitimate way were a
legitimate
MP
Doug, the question was one of the welfare effects of the taxes. The
question you ask makes any answer more complex. Bombarding a child with
advertisements makes rational decision making somewhat unclear. If, I
were to assert that high cigarette taxes were a legitimate way were a
: Re: Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction
commentary
Doug, the question was one of the welfare effects of the taxes. The
question you ask makes any answer more complex. Bombarding a child with
advertisements makes rational decision making somewhat unclear. If, I
were to assert
Doug Henwood wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
True enough, but don't the adverse consequences of tobacco hit the
working-class
harder? So, discouraging smoking by taxes might have positive
consequences over the
long run.
Shouldn't people decide for themselves whether to smoke? Do you
Just by the by. Cigarette ads are banned in Canada. In fact the government
spends a bundle on negative advertising re smoking. Smoking is also banned
in many buildings. I believe the stringency of restrictions varies from
province to province. In a small city near me, smoking is even banned in
ley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sunday, November 19, 2000 7:45 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4646] Re: Re: Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction
commentary
. . . I am of two minds about tobacco taxes. On the one hand it m
Ken says:
Be serious. THe idiotic policy implication does not follow at all. Smoking
decreases the quality and length of life for the smoker and others. The
point of the argument is to refute the claim that there should be a charge
against tobacco companies and users because smokers cost the
We are hoping to be number one in the world for sin taxes. With all the
revenue coming from cigs, gambling, gas, and liquor we will soon be
hopelessly dependent upon sin. Of course politicians have no problem with
this since they just love contradictory policies. They can virtuously
condemn sin
G'day Yoshie,
Hey, sin taxes hit the working class harder than the rich. So why
not chuck tobacco taxers out of the window, too?
Legalise all drugs, and then tax 'em all, I reckon. Once you get the coke,
ecstacy, and acid revenues in, you'd be distributing the tax load much more
fairly, I
True enough, but don't the adverse consequences of tobacco hit the working-class
harder? So, discouraging smoking by taxes might have positive consequences over the
long run.
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Hey, sin taxes hit the working class harder than the rich. So why
not chuck tobacco taxers
G'day Michael,
I don't say prices don't convince some to quit the habit, but, by and large,
smokers are addicts, and that rather defeats price elasticity. Also, as the
public assault on smoking has been so concerted for so long, it is hard to
say how much of the decline in smoking is down to
You are correct. Prices do not cause people to stop smoking very often.
They do discourage people from beginnging to smoke.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:16:40AM +1000, Rob Schaap wrote:
I don't say prices don't convince some to quit the habit, but, by and large,
smokers are addicts, and that
. . . I am of two minds about tobacco taxes. On the one hand it may to
some
extent discourage use. But surely governments are hypocritical to condemn
its use and then profit from its sale. The huge suits for health care are
in
my opinion a total farce.
mbs: chances are the tax rates exceed
Max, you are correct in your first point below. Hypocracy abounds on all
sides.
With regard to health costs, the health costs for smoking comes at the end
of life. Those costs are high regardless of whether the person dies young
or not. John Shoven, 20 years ago?, said that smoking deaths
Message -
From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 6:40 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4646] Re: Re: Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction
commentary
. The huge suits for health care are
in
my opinion a total farce.
. . . Researchers paid
Actually, Gore did drop most of his gun control rhetoric by the end of the
campaign. Remember, he actually attacked Bradley from the gun rights side
of the debate during the primary because Bradley wanted to register all
guns. Gore could have gone farther in repudiating the gun control folks,
Nathan has a point. Part of the problem was that Gore try to redefine
himself too many times, and ended up being unconvincing, except to a
relatively small number of people. If he had been half performer that
Clinton is, he could've pulled it off easily.
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 07:05:47PM
. . . I tend to be pretty skeptical of gun control as a solution to crime
in any
case, since economic factors are far more important. And it's a little
too
late to get all the guns off the streets in any case. So if progressive
Dems did want to play "Survivor" among the various Democratic
, November 18, 2000 8:13 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4627] Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction commentary
. . . I tend to be pretty skeptical of gun control as a solution to
crime
in any
case, since economic factors are far more important. And it's a little
too
late to get all the guns off
. . . I tend to be pretty skeptical of gun control as a solution
to crime in any
case, since economic factors are far more important. And it's a little too
late to get all the guns off the streets in any case. So if progressive
Dems did want to play "Survivor" among the various
G'day Yoshie,
Hey, sin taxes hit the working class harder than the rich. So why
not chuck tobacco taxers out of the window, too?
Legalise all drugs, and then tax 'em all, I reckon. Once you get the coke,
ecstacy, and acid revenues in, you'd be distributing the tax load much more
fairly, I
23 matches
Mail list logo
