|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 6:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| schwa wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Where exactly are Koreans going to smuggle those cheap cigarettes from? North Korea? Myanmar? |
Not sure where from but smuggled smokes are definitely on the govt radar & already happening, just on the potential of a price bump:
"Cigarette smuggling soars on plans for price increase"
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2013/04/488_133219.html
The govt also has reasons for keeping smokes & soju affordable for millions of very low-paid bluecollar workers. |
Your last statement is certainly true, especially for soju. Smuggling of cigarettes in Korea, though, increased pretty near as much last year without any tax hikes as it has and will this year.
Is it possible they're just smuggling them out of warehouses before the excise taxes are paid on them rather than smuggling them in from other countries?
People cheat. How many restaurants advertising they serve Korean kimchi are actually serving Chinese kimchi?
But that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All the arguments I raised are arguments that are raised by journalists and politicians. They are not molehill arguments.
| Quote: |
| There are too many "I think's" |
You're right. I should have wrote, based on history, there is a strong Your other arguments, which as always rely on GROSS exaggeration, just don't hold water. tendency for certain things to occur if you take this action.
Hezbollah smuggling smokes for cash to blow up Israelis with sounds like a crazy Mt. Everest argument EXCEPT IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
| Quote: |
| Government's will get theirs. |
Yeah, it's not like most democracies have a conservative party that is reflexively anti-tax. It is not like there are democracies that are swimming in debt and facing economic cataclysms.
| Quote: |
| Your other arguments, which as always rely on GROSS exaggeration, just don't hold water. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/weekinreview/31saul.html?_r=0
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/businesses-fear-tobacco-tax-job-loss-90617884.html
Sorry, but these aren't "Out of nowhere" arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
All the arguments I raised are arguments that are raised by journalists and politicians. They are not molehill arguments.
| Quote: |
| There are too many "I think's" |
You're right. I should have wrote, based on history, there is a strong Your other arguments, which as always rely on GROSS exaggeration, just don't hold water. tendency for certain things to occur if you take this action.
Hezbollah smuggling smokes for cash to blow up Israelis with sounds like a crazy Mt. Everest argument EXCEPT IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
| Quote: |
| Government's will get theirs. |
Yeah, it's not like most democracies have a conservative party that is reflexively anti-tax. It is not like there are democracies that are swimming in debt and facing economic cataclysms.
| Quote: |
| Your other arguments, which as always rely on GROSS exaggeration, just don't hold water. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/weekinreview/31saul.html?_r=0
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/businesses-fear-tobacco-tax-job-loss-90617884.html
Sorry, but these aren't "Out of nowhere" arguments. |
What journalists--always experts on the subjects they cover, right?---and politicians--there's a trusted source--are arguing cigarette taxes should not be raised due to smuggling?
Your half-baked political commentary doesn't even rise to the level of sophmoric, and businesses always protest any increased government regulation, so I'll take that with a grain of salt.
The Times article is interestin, but it's point is the opposite of yours. The reporter is implying cigarettes should be banned, period, and that's not happening because government is a stakeholder in tobacco products.
So are you for banning cigarettes completely? That's OK by me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aine1979 wrote: |
Raising taxes on cigarettes seldom has a substantial impact on the number of smokers. For example, in the UK, cigarette prices have increased five fold in the last 15 years, and yet that, combined with a nation-wide indoor smoking ban, has seen only an approximate 5% drop in the number of smokers.
|
According to the Economist, raising taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, "Sin taxes" is particularly useful for funding welfare and medical services. It has worked particularly well in Scandinavia. If more people smoke so much the better. 
I would make sense that people should pay a high price for debauchery and that the money goes to services like medicine that in the long run can improve productivity etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
markness
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Aine1979 wrote: |
Raising taxes on cigarettes seldom has a substantial impact on the number of smokers. For example, in the UK, cigarette prices have increased five fold in the last 15 years, and yet that, combined with a nation-wide indoor smoking ban, has seen only an approximate 5% drop in the number of smokers.
|
According to the Economist, raising taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, "Sin taxes" is particularly useful for funding welfare and medical services. It has worked particularly well in Scandinavia. If more people smoke so much the better.
I would make sense that people should pay a high price for debauchery and that the money goes to services like medicine that in the long run can improve productivity etc. |
Same should be done for fast food then, as it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Really, any activity that isn't working towards increasing your lifespan and inflicting the least amount of costs on the state for your medical care should be heavily taxed or made illegal.
| Quote: |
| o are you for banning cigarettes completely? That's OK by me. |
I am, because in 10-40 years, people will realize what idiots they were for doing so and never consider it again. Why? Because the same problems that cropped up with alcohol and narcotic prohibition will happen with tobacco. I'd also laugh, because within the space of a year, the loss of tax revenue would result in many a state government around the US going bankrupt amid disastrous budget shortfalls as well as having to throw massive numbers of people in prison for possession of tobacco.
Seriously, given the disastrous history of those two social experiments, why do you consider a repeat of such a policy a sound idea? Why do you believe that things will be magically different? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Really, any activity that isn't working towards increasing your lifespan and inflicting the least amount of costs on the state for your medical care should be heavily taxed or made illegal.
| Quote: |
| o are you for banning cigarettes completely? That's OK by me. |
I am, because in 10-40 years, people will realize what idiots they were for doing so and never consider it again. Why? Because the same problems that cropped up with alcohol and narcotic prohibition will happen with tobacco. I'd also laugh, because within the space of a year, the loss of tax revenue would result in many a state government around the US going bankrupt amid disastrous budget shortfalls as well as having to throw massive numbers of people in prison for possession of tobacco.
Seriously, given the disastrous history of those two social experiments, why do you consider a repeat of such a policy a sound idea? Why do you believe that things will be magically different? |
My god, man, can you do nothing but fabricate exaggerations?
Higher taxes on cigarettes has decreased smoking. It's working. Case closed.
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Those that can't afford to, keep crying those crocodile tears. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| My god, man, can you do nothing but fabricate exaggerations? |
Cruise over to the animal abuse thread and you'll have your answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maitaidads
Joined: 08 Oct 2012
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't really read too much of this thread, but I walked to the park near my office at lunch where they let the highschool kids free for a couple of hours, and I was surprised how few of them smoked. Back in 95, that would have been a total ashtray, but it seems like these kids get that smoking is lethal, costly, foul, and unattractive. I do smoke on occasion, but it appears that regulation is working and younger people are educated on the sorrows, are broke, care about their health, or just don't want to partake. The few that did were kind of gross and definitely not the cool kids of yore.
Even the young junkies that work in pizza parlors aren't going to go nuts for a pack of Camels. Drugs will always be on the table- since they're fun- but removing cigarettes from the equation won't be that damning since there isn't much to be missed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Really, any activity that isn't working towards increasing your lifespan and inflicting the least amount of costs on the state for your medical care should be heavily taxed or made illegal.
| Quote: |
| o are you for banning cigarettes completely? That's OK by me. |
I am, because in 10-40 years, people will realize what idiots they were for doing so and never consider it again. Why? Because the same problems that cropped up with alcohol and narcotic prohibition will happen with tobacco. I'd also laugh, because within the space of a year, the loss of tax revenue would result in many a state government around the US going bankrupt amid disastrous budget shortfalls as well as having to throw massive numbers of people in prison for possession of tobacco.
Seriously, given the disastrous history of those two social experiments, why do you consider a repeat of such a policy a sound idea? Why do you believe that things will be magically different? |
My god, man, can you do nothing but fabricate exaggerations?
Higher taxes on cigarettes has decreased smoking. It's working. Case closed.
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Those that can't afford to, keep crying those crocodile tears. |
So, cigarette crime, to the point where its funding terrorism, is a fabricated exaggeration?
Cigarette taxes have increased crime and helped fund terrorism and organized crime. That is a fact. Clearly they aren't working. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Really, any activity that isn't working towards increasing your lifespan and inflicting the least amount of costs on the state for your medical care should be heavily taxed or made illegal.
| Quote: |
| o are you for banning cigarettes completely? That's OK by me. |
I am, because in 10-40 years, people will realize what idiots they were for doing so and never consider it again. Why? Because the same problems that cropped up with alcohol and narcotic prohibition will happen with tobacco. I'd also laugh, because within the space of a year, the loss of tax revenue would result in many a state government around the US going bankrupt amid disastrous budget shortfalls as well as having to throw massive numbers of people in prison for possession of tobacco.
Seriously, given the disastrous history of those two social experiments, why do you consider a repeat of such a policy a sound idea? Why do you believe that things will be magically different? |
My god, man, can you do nothing but fabricate exaggerations?
Higher taxes on cigarettes has decreased smoking. It's working. Case closed.
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Those that can't afford to, keep crying those crocodile tears. |
So, cigarette crime, to the point where its funding terrorism, is a fabricated exaggeration?
Cigarette taxes have increased crime and helped fund terrorism and organized crime. That is a fact. Clearly they aren't working. |
They are working--that's a fact. Clearly you refuse to understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Really, any activity that isn't working towards increasing your lifespan and inflicting the least amount of costs on the state for your medical care should be heavily taxed or made illegal.
| Quote: |
| o are you for banning cigarettes completely? That's OK by me. |
I am, because in 10-40 years, people will realize what idiots they were for doing so and never consider it again. Why? Because the same problems that cropped up with alcohol and narcotic prohibition will happen with tobacco. I'd also laugh, because within the space of a year, the loss of tax revenue would result in many a state government around the US going bankrupt amid disastrous budget shortfalls as well as having to throw massive numbers of people in prison for possession of tobacco.
Seriously, given the disastrous history of those two social experiments, why do you consider a repeat of such a policy a sound idea? Why do you believe that things will be magically different? |
My god, man, can you do nothing but fabricate exaggerations?
Higher taxes on cigarettes has decreased smoking. It's working. Case closed.
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Those that can't afford to, keep crying those crocodile tears. |
So, cigarette crime, to the point where its funding terrorism, is a fabricated exaggeration?
Cigarette taxes have increased crime and helped fund terrorism and organized crime. That is a fact. Clearly they aren't working. |
They are working--that's a fact. Clearly you refuse to understand. |
They are working to fund terrorism and organized crime. Clearly you refuse to acknowledge that there is more to this issue than just reducing smoking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 12, 2013 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Really, any activity that isn't working towards increasing your lifespan and inflicting the least amount of costs on the state for your medical care should be heavily taxed or made illegal.
| Quote: |
| o are you for banning cigarettes completely? That's OK by me. |
I am, because in 10-40 years, people will realize what idiots they were for doing so and never consider it again. Why? Because the same problems that cropped up with alcohol and narcotic prohibition will happen with tobacco. I'd also laugh, because within the space of a year, the loss of tax revenue would result in many a state government around the US going bankrupt amid disastrous budget shortfalls as well as having to throw massive numbers of people in prison for possession of tobacco.
Seriously, given the disastrous history of those two social experiments, why do you consider a repeat of such a policy a sound idea? Why do you believe that things will be magically different? |
My god, man, can you do nothing but fabricate exaggerations?
Higher taxes on cigarettes has decreased smoking. It's working. Case closed.
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Those that can't afford to, keep crying those crocodile tears. |
So, cigarette crime, to the point where its funding terrorism, is a fabricated exaggeration?
Cigarette taxes have increased crime and helped fund terrorism and organized crime. That is a fact. Clearly they aren't working. |
They are working--that's a fact. Clearly you refuse to understand. |
They are working to fund terrorism and organized crime. Clearly you refuse to acknowledge that there is more to this issue than just reducing smoking. |
You want to make more to the issue than there is simply because you smoke, and you're looking for excuses to oppose making smoking more expensive.
Less people are smoking--that's good. Government gets tax money for social services, education, etc.--that's good. Police can track cigarette smuggling back to terrorists and shut them down--that's good.
It's all good, except for smokers, such as yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun May 12, 2013 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You're familiar with the term "jumped the shark"? Well, what we have here now is a new, but similar, version of it: steeled the rail! In this thread and the animal abuse one, 'Rails has really lost it. From now on, every time I see an incredibly asinine assertion made online, I'll just say, "Wow. That poster's really steeled the rail." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun May 12, 2013 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
You want to make more to the issue than there is simply because you smoke, and you're looking for excuses to oppose making smoking more expensivPolice can track cigarette smuggling back to terrorists and shut them down--that's good.
It's all good, except for smokers, such as yourself. |
Less people smoking- That's bad- reduce tax revenue and increased burden on Social Security and other services. Are you aware that when you look at ALL factors, smokers are a net gain for society?
But you're just looking for an excuse to rag on them because you don't like smoking.
| Quote: |
| Police can track cigarette smuggling back to terrorists and shut them down--that's good. |
Police are shutting them down after they've made their money and use it to bomb Israeli children and to help finance 9/11. That's bad.
| Quote: |
In this thread and the animal abuse one, 'Rails has really lost it. From now on, every time I see an incredibly asinine assertion made online, I'll just say, "Wow. That poster's really steeled the rail."
|
So smuggled cigarettes being a massive source of organized and terrorism crime revenue due to excessive taxation isn't a problem? It's some made up fantasy?
There is report after report about rampant spikes in crime due to smuggled cigarettes. In fact, that tax revenue that you are all making a big deal about isn't even being collected because vendors are selling smuggled cigarettes.
Sorry, but these aren't "Wild, crazy problems". These are real problems. Ones that are directly caused by the government's attempt to engage in social engineering.
Why don't people learn from history? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
