The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

Uncle Teddy Will Provide (And The ODE Nod Approvingly)

To further waste my time mocking the student daily at a school where I haven’t been a student in over two years (what does that say about me?), let me opine for a moment on today’s ODE Editorial. Essentially, they’re in support of taxing stupid poor people more, and in support of making sure the government provides for the upper-middle class.

I’m usually the last to trot out “what about the poor” as a reason for anything, but let’s think about this logically for a second. One of the primary reasons given that native Oregonians have an almost pathological aversion to the sales tax is that it’s “regressive”, coming down harder on those who make less. Well, guess who buys the most cigarettes? Poor people! So if you ostensibly care about helping out the “less fortunate” or whatever the hell, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to go heavily taxing something they buy in disproportionate numbers. Especially when that tax is going to be used to subsidize the health care of people making $70,000 a year.

That’s right $70,000 a year, that’s 1.12 times Oregon’s median four-person family income. If you’re making $70,000 a year, it hardly seems reasonable for you to expect the state to pick up any of your bills, let alone your health insurance.

  1. Andy says:

    LoL – so the new definition taught at UO of supply and demand is when government creates an arbitrary, discriminatory fine that the targets have to pay if they make a decision concerning their bodies. Gee, wouldn’t it seem perfectly reasonalbe if abortions were subject to a one million dollar tax? Hey – you’d still be “free” to obtain one! How’s that for supply and demand?

    Yup, since the general public is way too stupid to make decisions concerning their health, the government should make them for us. Great idea Blaser!

  2. Timothy says:

    Also, it should be noted, that the tax applies only to packaged cigarettes, the enterprising smoker can look into his or her own solutions.

  3. Timothy says:

    Blaser: Dude, I’m not making the income stuff up. I also don’t think smoking is some sort of moral failing.

    I also don’t give a shit about that fact, really, because that’s not anybody’s business other than the smokers. But the sorts of people who propose increasing the per-pack cigarette tax by $0.85 to socialize healthcare are exactly the people who want to “help the poor” or whatever the hell. I fail to see how targeting a tax at exactly the demographic you value more than other demographics is really helping.

    And niedermeyer, no one feels sorry for you. If you choose to pay hand over fist so tobacco companies can slowly kill you, stand in the rain for all I care. It is your choice, and you pay for the consequences.

    So it shouldn’t be up to the bar owner? These things should be mandated by the state? It’s a legitimate beef, I think, because the business owners have no say in whether or not smokers can stay indoors.

    Next I

  4. Ian says:

    I think it is a pretty gross generalization to say that poor people smoke more than others

    I disagree.

  5. Blaser says:

    I think it is a pretty gross generalization to say that poor people smoke more than others, especially if you consider the fact that you have to have some sort of disposable income in order to afford cigs in the first place.

    And niedermeyer, no one feels sorry for you. If you choose to pay hand over fist so tobacco companies can slowly kill you, stand in the rain for all I care. It is your choice, and you pay for the consequences. Next I’ll hear you arguing that my alcoholic band teacher in middle school should have been allowed to bring his jack and coke to class, so that he wouldn’t have to wait to sneak out on his lunch break for a fix.

    It is not about what’s fair, it is about stupidity. If you are stupid enough to light up and hand over your hard earned money to taste that sweet tar, it means that you will hand over more if the state puts a tax on it. Shout out to Andy: how’s that for supply and demand!

  6. ApathyPersonified says:

    ROFL

    Talk to Shadow. He may be able to do it.

  7. Niedermeyer says:

    Oh, and a big shout-out to the CRs for their “Where’s Ted?” bumper sticker. It’s a question I’ve long wanted the answer to. Hell, if you print out a few “Give it to Niedermeyer, he’s a sneaky little shit” stickers, I might even make a campaign contribution.

  8. niedermeyer says:

    This is the Emeralds idea of a no-brainer. Fuelling the misguided idea that health care is a “human right” while simply sticking the bill on all those dumbasses who have to go stand in the rain whenever they want their fix. It’s been said before, and I’ll say it again: Smokers are the only minority that can be discriminated against at will. Up till now, the measures have been linkable to smokers “crimes” (ban on indoor smoking to prevent second-hand smoking deaths), and though they have already been overly onerous (at least 200 ft from any public building) they make some sense. This measure is wholly arbitrary and unjust, as there are no links being presented between the supposed need for this money, and its source. The real lesson here is that we need a smokers lobby to buy state reps off with trips to Hawaii.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.