Off topic, but I was just wondering why smokers couldn’t challenge all the “sin taxes” (or for that matter luxury taxes, etc) that single out a minority group to pay additional taxes.
I’m all for paying fair share but lately most states have realized they have a group of citizens additcted to a taxable substance with no way to defend themselves with a vote. Less than 30% of the population smokes, there’s no way they’d be able to defend themselves against a ballot initiative.
So states (and the feds) add additional taxes whenever they need to find a quick billion for some project.
Actually, there’s a logical connection between the tax on cigarettes and the future medical costs – often picked up by the state – for persons suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. Lifewise, visitors to your state don’t pay vehicle license fees, but they do in their own state – there’s a certain amount of reciprocity there.
However, there is no logical connection between a person driving with a suspended license and the cost of maintaining roads. Not necessarily even any connection between the suspended license and the cost of law enforcement.
Bad drivers should face stiff penalties and the good drivers have nothing to be concerned about. The only way to change people’s bad and dangerous habits is to attach a significant consequence to their unacceptable behavior. Bad drivers are a danger and threat to everyone else. Why should the 95% of drivers who are un-affected be concerned that they’re irresponsible behavior is now going to cost them?
Because the flippin’ politicians, slime bucket attorneys, etc. are too concerned by what the small group of offenders think instead of doing what is best for the law abiding majority. I’d be willing to bet that the collected fees never get to be used for their “earmarked” intention. They will be stolen by those same politicians long before any maintenance gets done.
driver…you may be confused on the roles of the various players in our government, so let me give you a quick little lesson…
various legislative bodies (whether federal, state or local) write and pass laws. Then judges come in and determine whether or not those laws are constitutional and how to apply those laws to various types of situations.
See, legislative bodies may in fact pass laws that run counter to our constitution. Even if those laws are the will of the majority of the people the legislative body represents, they cannot be enforceable if they are against the constitution. So, you may disagree with the court’s decision, but determining the constitutionality of laws is EXACTLY what the courts are supposed to do.
I really wish the schools would start focusing more on government and critical thinking classes. It would help out tremendously.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Off topic, but I was just wondering why smokers couldn’t challenge all the “sin taxes” (or for that matter luxury taxes, etc) that single out a minority group to pay additional taxes.
I’m all for paying fair share but lately most states have realized they have a group of citizens additcted to a taxable substance with no way to defend themselves with a vote. Less than 30% of the population smokes, there’s no way they’d be able to defend themselves against a ballot initiative.
So states (and the feds) add additional taxes whenever they need to find a quick billion for some project.
Anon – you are being too logical… ;-)
Why not auto license fees too? Out-of-state drivers don’t have to pay, so why should I?? And State income tax?
Here we go again. Judges trying to make
laws. When will it end?
Actually, there’s a logical connection between the tax on cigarettes and the future medical costs – often picked up by the state – for persons suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. Lifewise, visitors to your state don’t pay vehicle license fees, but they do in their own state – there’s a certain amount of reciprocity there.
However, there is no logical connection between a person driving with a suspended license and the cost of maintaining roads. Not necessarily even any connection between the suspended license and the cost of law enforcement.
Bad drivers should face stiff penalties and the good drivers have nothing to be concerned about. The only way to change people’s bad and dangerous habits is to attach a significant consequence to their unacceptable behavior. Bad drivers are a danger and threat to everyone else. Why should the 95% of drivers who are un-affected be concerned that they’re irresponsible behavior is now going to cost them?
Because the flippin’ politicians, slime bucket attorneys, etc. are too concerned by what the small group of offenders think instead of doing what is best for the law abiding majority. I’d be willing to bet that the collected fees never get to be used for their “earmarked” intention. They will be stolen by those same politicians long before any maintenance gets done.
driver…you may be confused on the roles of the various players in our government, so let me give you a quick little lesson…
various legislative bodies (whether federal, state or local) write and pass laws. Then judges come in and determine whether or not those laws are constitutional and how to apply those laws to various types of situations.
See, legislative bodies may in fact pass laws that run counter to our constitution. Even if those laws are the will of the majority of the people the legislative body represents, they cannot be enforceable if they are against the constitution. So, you may disagree with the court’s decision, but determining the constitutionality of laws is EXACTLY what the courts are supposed to do.
I really wish the schools would start focusing more on government and critical thinking classes. It would help out tremendously.