|
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 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 5:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
What? Because it taxes the poor? Maybe the poor will quit then and become less poor.
What percentage of Koreans smoke, T-J? It's a lot. Significantly more than the percentage of Americans who do.
|
Link?
And even if this were true, since America's population is about six times that of Korea that would mean there would be more American smokers overall even if everyone in Korea smoked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_South_Korea
"In survey conducted in 2000, 70-80% of male respondents claimed to be smokers.[3] By 2007, the results of a subsequent survey found that while the male smoking rate had fallen to 50%, it still ranked the highest among OECD countries.[2] During the same period, the smoking rate among women rose from 2 to 4%.[2] Similarly, the rate at which adolescents, primarily boys, smoke has increased in recent years.[2] Reports suggest that persistently high rates of smoking in the military contribute to the high incidence of male smoking, and negate the efficacy of anti-smoking measures, as many men start smoking during their mandatory 2-year military service.[2]"
"The economy of South Korea loses more than 10 trillion won a year in terms of health-care expenses and lost man-hours due to smoking-related illness."
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/05/117_112046.html
"Korea has the second highest number of smokers, 44.3 percent, out of the 34 OECD member countries after Greece with 46.3 percent, according to health data published in 2011." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
South Korea: 44.3%
United States: 17.9% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PRagic
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quit on the first of the year. Good timing from the sounds of it. When I was back in NY, smokes were 10 bucks a pack. Yikes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nicwr2002
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Steelrails"]
| Quote: |
True or False? Cigarettes are physically addictive
True or False? People who are physically addicted to something tend to make rational choices regarding that substance.
True or False? People who are physically addicted to something, tend to seek to satisfy that addiction over other priorities.
True of False? Nicotine/Tobacco/Cigarettes are drugs.
True or False? People physically addicted to drugs have been shown to turn to crime to satisfy their addictions/
True or False? A substantial increase in cigarette taxes will cause changes in people's behavior both smoking them and distributing them.
True or False? People who are addicted to drugs tend to have a higher rate of workplace crime and theft.
True of False? It has been demonstrated that a likely and reasonably foreseeable income in massive cigarette tax increases, is cigarette smuggling.
True or False? Cigarette smuggling is lucrative.
True or False? Cigarette smuggling is often carried out by criminal organizations.
True or False? The effects of a massive cigarette tax will be limited solely to smokers and reducing their number.
True or False? The issue of cigarette taxes should solely focus on reducing the number of smokers and not on any additional direct and indirect effects of such an action.
True or False? Cigarette taxes are the most effective way to reduce smoking.
True or False? Other methods might produce similar reduction levels, minus the potential for organized crime,
True or False? These questions above are reasonable ones to ask when determining whether the policy of massive cigarette taxes should be implemented. |
I took to the internet to answer these questions and see about disproving some of them. Especially the higher tax creates more organized crime and what not, but I must say Steelrails is right.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa468.pdf
That's just one link, but for the most part it looks like a high cigarette tax leads to the same type of crime that was seen during the Prohibition years. Looks like more education about the harmful effects of cigarettes is the way to go and let people decide if they want to smoke or not. However, I'm still against smoking in public places since that adversely affects others who do not smoke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Other countries (including the United States) have already (long ago) raised cig prices. Did that lead to organized crime? Not really. Did it save thousands and thousands and thousands of lives by reducing the smoking rate. Yes.
PS- the Cato Institute promotes libertarianism. That is its stated goal.
PPS- Not only second hand smoke but also third hand smoke is very dangerous. It hurts innocent people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_States
"The relationship between smoking rates and cigarette taxes follows the property of elasticity; the greater the amount of the tax increase, the fewer cigarettes that are bought and consumed.[16] This is especially prevalent amongst teenagers. For every ten percent increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes, youth smoking rates overall drop about seven percent.[17] This rate is also true amongst minorities and low income population smokers.[18] The rates of calls to quitting hot-lines are directly related to cigarette tax hikes. When Wisconsin raised its state cigarette tax to $1.00 per pack, the hot-line received a record of 20,000 calls in a two month time period versus its typical 9,000 calls annually.[19]
"
"In a study conducted on behalf of the New York State Department of Health, it revealed that low-income smokers (those in households making under $30,000), spent an average of 23.6% of their annual household income on cigarettes, compared to 2.2% for smokers in households making over $60,000."
So, yes, raising taxes would hurt those who *didn't quit* smoking. Those who do quit, among low income households, just got an extra 23.6% more money right back in their pocket. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
augustine
Joined: 08 Sep 2012
Location: México
|
| Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam Carolla wrote: |
| "In a study conducted on behalf of the New York State Department of Health, it revealed that low-income smokers (those in households making under $30,000), spent an average of 23.6% of their annual household income on cigarettes... |
Smokers who made under $30,000 a year spent nearly 25% of their income on cigarettes? That's a crazy stat, assuming it's correct. Enjoy the podcast, btw.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Then you assume that they are going to just save the money and use it for something good."
Careful with your language there. Where did I presume to know what the successful quitters would spend their money on?
"Odds are that money is either going to a bag of weed or a bottle of vodka or maybe lottery tickets or perhaps 4th meal at Taco Bell."
This is actually hilarious. You accuse me of making unfounded assumptions and immediately follow up with...unfounded assumptions.
"At least two of those choices are just as likely to lead to shortened life expectancy, one of them increases the odds of affecting innocent people via drunk driving."
Yes, the incredibly condescending choices you listed are the *only* things a poor person could possibly spend the money they saved by not buying cigarettes on. I find your attitude towards the poor to be extremely offensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam Carolla wrote: |
"Then you assume that they are going to just save the money and use it for something good."
Careful with your language there. Where did I presume to know what the successful quitters would spend their money on?
"Odds are that money is either going to a bag of weed or a bottle of vodka or maybe lottery tickets or perhaps 4th meal at Taco Bell."
This is actually hilarious. You accuse me of making unfounded assumptions and immediately follow up with...unfounded assumptions.
"At least two of those choices are just as likely to lead to shortened life expectancy, one of them increases the odds of affecting innocent people via drunk driving."
Yes, the incredibly condescending choices you listed are the *only* things a poor person could possibly spend the money they saved by not buying cigarettes on. I find your attitude towards the poor to be extremely offensive. |
Dude, as someone who spent several years as a full time hourly wage employee I can tell you some things
1) People who are poor smoke a lot. And they don't care much for the sanctimonious people who are taxing the crap out of their smokes and acting like they're all trying to "protect them."
Sorry, but I think they'd have more of a beef with the person taxing them, rather than what I said.
2) Poor people are honest and real. 9/10 would be like, "Hell yeah, that's what we'd do." Because in order to deal with the sanctimonious jerks who jack up the prices on smokes and then order them around while they're waiting their table or bagging their groceries, you either gotta smoke, drink, or be stoned.
Nice try to be sanctimonious. But the poor know who is really on their side. It's the guy not trying to triple the price of their smokes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nicwr2002
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cigarette smuggling is prevalent, it just isn't reported on the news because it doesn't provoke ratings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 15, 2013 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Adam Carolla wrote: |
"Then you assume that they are going to just save the money and use it for something good."
Careful with your language there. Where did I presume to know what the successful quitters would spend their money on?
"Odds are that money is either going to a bag of weed or a bottle of vodka or maybe lottery tickets or perhaps 4th meal at Taco Bell."
This is actually hilarious. You accuse me of making unfounded assumptions and immediately follow up with...unfounded assumptions.
"At least two of those choices are just as likely to lead to shortened life expectancy, one of them increases the odds of affecting innocent people via drunk driving."
Yes, the incredibly condescending choices you listed are the *only* things a poor person could possibly spend the money they saved by not buying cigarettes on. I find your attitude towards the poor to be extremely offensive. |
Dude, as someone who spent several years as a full time hourly wage employee I can tell you some things
1) People who are poor smoke a lot. And they don't care much for the sanctimonious people who are taxing the crap out of their smokes and acting like they're all trying to "protect them."
Sorry, but I think they'd have more of a beef with the person taxing them, rather than what I said.
2) Poor people are honest and real. 9/10 would be like, "Hell yeah, that's what we'd do." Because in order to deal with the sanctimonious jerks who jack up the prices on smokes and then order them around while they're waiting their table or bagging their groceries, you either gotta smoke, drink, or be stoned.
Nice try to be sanctimonious. But the poor know who is really on their side. It's the guy not trying to triple the price of their smokes. |
Poor people are honest and real, but also so dumb the only things they can spend their savings on is fast food and booze? Yes, you're quite the champion of the poor. You're obviously trolling. Your agenda is you like smoking, you don't want higher cigarette prices. Stop pretending otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Botasky
Joined: 12 May 2013
|
| Posted: Wed May 15, 2013 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A box of smokes in Ireland will set you back �9.40/$12.10/KRW13,500 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Wed May 15, 2013 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The fun thing about all of this is that cigarette prices are going up regardless of what some on here think should happen. And after that, I am fully confident the number of smokers will decline - perhaps even sharply. Anyone care to wager a beer on that? I will still be here in 3 to 5 years. And I'll be happy to dig this thread back up. |
|
| 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
