Monday, March 30, 2009

WBT Redneck Caller: CigaretteTax

Continuing from the last post...

The next comment, which by now didn’t surprise me at all, was his complaint about taxes on cigarettes. Can you say “RED-NECK”? The D J's inbred response (no more surprising on any conservative talk show) was a general gripe about “sin taxes” being a way to control people... Oh, oh... hang on everyone, we have a conspiracy theory afoot... Jesus, no wonder this is a red state, people get fed all day long with these gripe wads of stupidity. If I thought it would make a difference I would have called these retards up myself to explain a few things. First of all, you get what you pay for and that applies to government as much as anything else and you can't reasonably expect to pay for a decent government without taxes – it doesn't matter how left or right the government is, the rule remains the same. The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this matter is that Democrats have the balls to raise taxes to pay upfront for their expenses while the Republicans prefer to fund their expenses by quietly borrowing money against future taxes so that “for now” they can maintain their “anti-tax” illusion despite the fact that the interest incurred on the debt means that it's going to take even more taxes to pay off Republicans expenses, dollar for dollar, than it does to pay for expenses incurred by Democrats.

Anyway, understanding that the government that provides law and order, education, infrastructure, defense and everything else we take for granted has to be payed for with taxes, the next question is where to get the taxes from. Personally, if given a choice of taking the money from the budgets that feed families or from the pockets of people who can afford cigarettes I prefer the later. So-called “sin tax” isn't a way to control what people do, it's a way to minimize the cost of government on budgets allocated for basic needs. People need food, they don’t need cigarettes and that makes the sale of cigarettes a logical and morally sound source for government revenue. If a government wanted to stop you from smoking they wouldn't make their revenue dependent on you doing it. Duh.... If the government actually wanted you to stop doing something they would simply make it illegal, such as the laws against smoking pot, or gay marriage or the push to make abortion illegal, all of these by the way, being conservative campaigns, as are almost every other push to control what people do.