#I'm back
33 messages in this thread
Kevin,
Lucky I don't believe everything I read<g> otherwise I'd starve<bg>. Personally
I don't care whether anything is (allegedly) healthy or not. I eat what tastes
nice, and have a lot less days sick than the people who are picky about whether
something is healthy or not<bg>
I smoke, I drink, eat meat, sit in front of computer screens for hours ie all
the things Big Brother doesn't want us to do<g> and never suffer any
ill-effects
Adrian
Adrian,
I know what you mean. My sick days are next to nothing. My last trip
to the doctors was to get my shots for the first trip down to the Philippines.
But they still say that we are the ones that are dragging down the health care
system. About the only things I stay away from are the new wonder inventions
like Nutrasweet. They keep popping these things out and tell us that they are
good for us. Better then the real thing. Remember when smoking was good for
us, now they condemn us for doing it. I wish they would get it through their
head that they can't improve on mother nature. One thing I know is if they say
it is good for you then it isn't.
Kb
As a diabetic, I take in a lot of Nutrasweet but it's no big deal. I'm not
sure about tobacco, but sugar will definitely kill me.
In point of fact, the one thing I can prove is that smoking is not dragging
down anybody's health care system. If their own figures on premature deaths are
correct, few smokers live to be as old as nonsmokers. According to the U.S.
Social Security Administration, they actually make a profit on smokers because
they die before they fully exhaust what they put into the system and thus leave
surpluses.
As I say, though, they may be right. My father started smoking at 13, quit
at 81, and lived another 6 years, so there might well be hope for me yet.
I don't know about you but I find Nutrasweet tastes awful. I can't drink or
eat anything that has Nutrasweet in it. They say that it taste just like sugar
but it don't taste like the sugar I use. I don't know about the States but
here in Canada they have taxed cigarettes right out the window. It now costs
just about seven dollars for a pack of cigarettes. In fact some stores ( I
know of one in Edmonton) have quit selling cigarettes because of the security
factor. It is the target of theives now, I find it hard to support my habit
and I make good money. I can imagine the people that are borderline poverty.
I am getting really tired of being treated like a second class citizen because
I smoke.
Kb
Well, live close to a Native Reserve. They don't pay Canadian federal
taxes. The Iroquois have one heck of a cigarette business in southern Quebec
because their reservation is in both Canada and the U.S.
For years I wondered why every time I came through from Canada to the US at
a particular crossing in New Brunswick U.S. Customs insisted on checking all of
my American cigarettes for tax stamps. I mean, who would buy cigarettes in
Canada and bring them into the U.S.? Turns out that an Indian Reserve not far
from the crossing was doing a land office business selling American cigarettes
untaxed by any and all….
According to Conventional Wisdom, the higher you price cigarettes the less
people will smoke, which kind of makes light of what medical folks call a major
physical addictive substance (sort of like those ads that say, "Can't smoke? No
problem? Just chew Wrigley's gum!") Since Europe and Japan tax and price
cigarettes at high levels as well (although I think Canada may have the world
record) and smoke like everybody did in the Forties, I find this unsupported
logic, but, oh, well….
I've gotten a few deals from my native friends from time to time. But they are
limited in the amount of cigarettes they can buy at one time. As to moving
closer to a reserve well I enjoy smoking but not enough to give up my job to
buy cheap cigarettes. The way they are going it is going to be cheaper to
smoke pot then cigarettes. I got my T4 yesterday and found out that I paid
close to 30 grand in taxes and that really chokes me up. That is just income
tax so when you add in all the other taxes that I have to pay you can see when
politicians have such nice pensions.
Kb
Well, a lot of those taxes really do go for services not paid for out of
pocket, such as medical, and nations do need trade reps, foreign embassies,
things like that, and there ain't no free lunches. Naturally at least ten
percent of all taxation goes for waste, abuse, and frills for the Highest, but
if you can keep it to 10% in this day and age you're probably ahead of the
game. On paper I'm going to be paying close to 43% in federal and state taxes
under Clintonomics, but I have a superb tax man and somehow I wind up paying
far less in the end. Still, I have to pay horrendously for things I should not
have to pay for in a civilized country, such as comprehensive medical coverage
for me and my family as well as a percentage to pay for all the folks who can't
afford it, and that's out of pocket. I would wager that, benefit-for-benefit,
service-for-service, we aren't paying that much different per year.
Just keep thinking of Denmark. They are at a 62% AVERAGE income tax rate.
The Swedes actually have a Maximum Income after which it's 100% OR MORE taxed.
And their service levels are no better than yours.
The rationale behind high cigarette taxes isn't to raise money; it's to get
you to quit smoking.
I realize the reason for the taxes on the cigarettes is to get me to quit. But
I don't want to quit so I shouldn't have to pay the tax.<g> The money that has
been wasted by the PC government here in Alberta is a crime. They invested
into companies without keeping track and to date we as taxpayers have lost
millions. When you add to that all the frills they enjoy the cost is beyond my
imagination. I think that they should all be shot and buried in six feet of
dung.
Kb
Well, look on the bright side. You could have been stuck with one of those
bizarre BC governments instead….
Yes things could always be worse. But they could also be a hell of alot
better. I know there isn't much we can do about it but it still chokes me up
how they play the system.
Kb
Well, Clinton's going to increase my taxes by about 20% here while the
automatic elevators in the Capitol and Senate and House office buildings still
have OPERATORS (our elected officials must not lower themselves to push
buttons) and the White House limo (and driver and maintenance) fleet has been
slashed from 121 to 111, well, no wonder everybody's so cynical.
Kevin,
I'll quit when _I_ want to and not because some do-gooder tells me to<g>
Adrian
You tell them Adrian, we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it
anymore.<g>
By the way Adrian by the sounds of previous messages I've read you are in the
UK. Its nice to see you are still willing to talk to us colonials.<g>
Kb
Kevin,
Only partly right<bg>. I am actually English, but I live in Germany. I escaped
from the UK back in July 1991<g>
Adrian
Kevin,
With logic like that, you might as well smoke!<g>
I noticed that you Canadians are going to be paying a lot more for
prescription drugs manufactured by U.S. companies. Why on earth did you all
pass a law that honors our patents?
Lynne
Because there have been a whole raft of recent very profitable Canadian
patents that we don't recognize in return, but with free trade we could have
stolen those and creamed them.
Besides, Canadians pay for most of their medical through taxes. They have
universal health insurance that's better and more comprehensive than most of
the rest of the world's.
I don't recall passing that law Lynne, but I find that they pass a lot of laws
without asking my consent. Someday when I have a few hours I'll tell you what
I think of Brian's GST.
Kb
Jack,
The one difference between you and your long-lived, smoking relatives, is
that they didn't live with the air pollution that we do. That's why I really
hate to see teenagers or young persons with cigarettes.
But I'm not in favor of taxing cigarettes to the tune of $7 to $10 a
pack, because it ain't that easy to quit! And I absolutely hate laws that
attempt to save people from themselves, on the basis of spurious reasoning that
the targeted "bad habits" are costing the nation/businesses/whatever twenty
trillion dollars a year, etc.,etc. Lynne
Yes, well, governments like to be in the business of saving people from
themselves. I wish it were a simple party or liberal-conservative thing, but
it's not. They all want to save you or limit you in one or another way and only
differ on which things they want to hit. I just saw a government-paid TV ad
that claimed (with no justification and way beyond what even the skewed
statistical model EPA used said) that 50,000 people next year will die "because
of second-hand smoke. The person smoking near you isn't just hurting
themselves, they are killing you and your children, too." So now I'm a
murderer….
At least two bills in the Calif. legislature this session, one in NY, and
one in Wisconsin sought to define smoking by a parent child abuse sufficient to
charge a parent with abuse and remove the children. That's in the land of the
free….
With enough statistics and a good PR campaign you can sell almost anything.
I think this one will work. I'm not as concerned about it as I am the fact that
it will work, and it will mean that other targets will then become both
inevitable and more numerous. The mind-set is an ugly trend.
In truth, air pollution was at its worst in the U.S. in the 19th Century and
early Twentieth when coal was the primary means of fuel. The killer London fogs
ran from the early 1800s until the last one in the early Sixties when public
outcry forced them to clean up their industry. Autopsies on even earlier
preserved remains have shown people from earlier eras also had serious lung
congestion from burning wood and coal in indoor fireplaces without proper
venting or as sole source of heat and light.
While the cigarette is a relatively new invention, cigars and pipes were
common and "in" during the 18th and 19th centuries in both Europe and America.
There is no indication of an increase in lung cancers from the much denser
second hand smoke they put out during that period, nor a major incidence of
stomach and esophical cancers associated with pipe and cigar smoking. In
general, more people are dying of cancer and heart problems because (A) our
modern age has made us chronically out of condition; we no longer even walk a
block if we can drive; (B) we are living longer thanks to modern medical
knowledge and preventive disease so we're not succumbing to all those things
that got us first. Smoking IS in fact an extra nail in the coffin, but you need
a great many nails to keep the coffin lid closed. Focusing on just the one
while ignoring the rest and all facts that don't fit in with conventional
wisdom will save few lives.
Jack,
Your historical perspective offers a good corrective for my "pop science"
theory about cumulative effects of smoking and smog. However, wasn't the
coal-burning pollution restricted more to the large cities?
It seems to me now that you can't get away from particulate stuff, no
matter where you settle. Omaha has its bad days; you can't see the mountains
on many days in Denver; Iowa farmlands get smog from the interstate highways;
and downtown San Francisco is more and more often obscured by haze (not fog),
despite the winds off the ocean every night. Lynne
Well, the one advantage San Francisco has is the odd confluence of currents
just off the coast about 5 miles out from the mouth of the bay that causes the
fog to roll in and the old inland air to be flushed.
The problem with coal is twofold; first, it tended to be burned
inefficiently in iron stoves within rooms which allowed the particulates to
circulate indoors where they were pretty well trapped through the winters. Coal
furnaces spewed it into the air; that was the source of London's killer fogs.
Coal has an additional problem in that it is a perfect container for radon
gas, which is released where it is burned or crushed and which most in
government rank as equal to smoking in lung cancer cause (many places in the
U.S. where there are major coal deposits underground have radon building up in
their basements from the weight of the house on the bedrock!).
The point is, it just isn't all that simple.
Kevin,
I just wish governments would let people make their own decisions rather than
acting the role of 'nanny'<g>
Adrian
They don't want us to make our own decisions. They are afraid that if we do
then we might discover that we can do it better then them. I find that most of
our leaders here in Canada all have that look in their eyes. You know, you
look in their eyes and you can see the back of their head. Now that slimebag
has retired. I don't even get the satisfaction of voting the S.O.B out of
office. Now after trying his best to destroy my country is going to be sitting
back collecting a ridiculously high pension that the taxpayers have to pay.
Kb
Science fiction writer and colleague of mine Ben Bova once suggested that if
we required all of our legislatures to live in army-style barracks, eat
standard military-type food in food lines, and take smelly school busses to and
from sessions and be paid only living allowances while in session and the rest
of their pay only when they adjourned we would have lean and efficient
government. The problem is that neither the parliamentary nor American
legislative systems were ever designed to be professions; now they are that and
little else.
I would be satisfied if when they travelled they stayed in normal hotels and
ate normal food. To have a 140 thousand tab for a six day jaunt to Europe is
way out of line. I should have stayed in school and became a politician, but
then again I can't be that slimy.
Kb
Yes, our Congresswoman, who was Queen of Junkets, was beaten in the party
primaries here by a fellow who ran radio ads that sounded like Robin Leach
promoting "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." They were wonderful.
"Mrs. Byron! You and your entire family and staff flew to Paris on the
Concorde, stayed at the Ritz in a set of luxury suites for two weeks while
seeing the Paris Air Show, ate only in the finest restaurants, and even stopped
off in Barbados on the way back using a luxury government plane for the return.
How DO you DO it?"
"Simple," a mock-Byron voice answers. "I'm a Congresswoman."
She still can't figure out why she lost. She did get her revenge, though.
Her control of many key party constituencies in this extremely large district
(it covers 3 media markets and takes in more distance than Edmondton to
Lethbridge) allowed her to deny the winner party support on election day and so
he lost to his right-wing Republican challenger.
So what's her penalty? She's now a $150,000 a year "consultant" to a
Washington think-tank designed for out of office Democrats, waiting until the
next election….
That commerical sounds great. Our Preimer went to France spent a bundle and
wouldn't even tell us what he did there. All he said that it was government
business. Government business that included his family and friends. But
unfortunatly the slimebag retired before the election came up. Now the dirtbag
of a PM did the same thing, just like rats abandoning a sinking ship. A
sinking ship that they scuttled.
Kb
Well, you won't have the PM to kick around much longer (you'll have a new
one to kick around) so I expect Mr. Mulroney to go on a nice world tour when
the weather improves unless the Conservatives replace him in a hurry.
Well to tell you the honest truth Jack kicking wasn't exactly what I had in
mind. I can't see anything good that he has done. Time magazine had a short
story on him and it was so off the mark it mad me sick.
Kb
Well, Maggie Thatcher's unemployed now and there's nothing really to keep
her in England….
Kevin,
Not just Canada. All politicians are the same devious….. irrespective of
nationality
Adrian
I think they all attended the same school SLIME-U.
Kb
After all, most of government is devoted to controlling behavior. Tax laws
are written that way. A simple indexed sliding percentage of income would more
than pay the bills, do away with a ton of tax paperwork, and be very efficient,
but tax law, particularly income tax law, is not really designed to raise money
(secondarily only). That's why you get a tax credit for buying this and a tax
deduction for doing that. It's the way government controls economic behavior.
The spillover to social behavior controls is obvious and inevitable. Note that
conservative and liberal governments are the same in this regard; they only
want to influence behavior in different ways.