Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Actions like this are probably just going to push citizens to start growing and raising their own crops for personal use. Same with the brewing of alcohol. I'd like to see what the government tries to do when they add on a tax to tax you for having a garden.

Ahtman wrote:

reds8n wrote:Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?

That's why we have unions.

That's odd because here, in the US, unions mean just as much if not more coercion.

Exactly.

Ahtman wrote:

reds8n wrote:Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?

That's why we have unions.

That's odd because here, in the US, unions mean just as much if not more coercion.

News reports appear to indicate that it's more without unions you just don't work. full stop.

reds8n wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

reds8n wrote:Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?

That's why we have unions.

That's odd because here, in the US, unions mean just as much if not more coercion.

News reports appear to indicate that it's more without unions you just don't work. full stop.

What? That is very poorly phrased (no offense). I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

Ahtman wrote:

reds8n wrote:Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?

That's why we have unions.

That's odd because here, in the US, unions mean just as much if not more coercion.

Depends on where you want your coercion coming from. The union that fights for your "rights" or the company that fights for its bottom line. Both are going to be pushing you around. I'll agree though that some bad unions can be pretty awful (automotive for instance, or any union that was just a mob front back in the day). Remember though, unions came into existence because employers rarely have the workers interests in mind, they aren't just some pointless plague on capitalism.

ShumaGorath wrote:Remember though, unions came into existence because employers rarely have the workers interests in mind to the extent unions do , they aren't just some pointless plague on capitalism.

Fixed. Companies want well for their employees, without them they are nothing. But when unions get too high on the hog you have situations like with GM. A company is like a living being, it is best in its natural state unharmed and not messed with. When unions come along and start putting so much pressure on the bottom line, the company doesn't function as well.

Also remember without corporations there would be no jobs and no unions. To me unions like the automakers union are like a parasite rather than symbiote, but this time around when the parasite kills its host its going to realize what it has done and that it cant function alone.

To me unions like the automakers union are like a parasite rather than symbiote, but this time around when the parasite kills its host its going to realize what it has done and that it cant function alone.

Tell that to coal miners. Wallmart workers. Pre union construction crews. Federal laws have largely filled the void that unions once did, but no, it's not in the companies interests to want well for their employees. It is in the companies interests to grow the company, which may or may not have anything to do with the safety and health of their employees. Unions that grow too large can certainly be a problem, as are poorly directed ones. However they exist for a specific reason and that reason is the dehumanizing nature of capitalistic enterprise which turns humans into commodities.

China has no unions, I'm sure chinese workers love living in their factories (and yes, those conditions are illegal under chinese law). Any nation without unions also has poor workers rights. The workers right to organize and demand a "fair" deal is paramount in any humane society, the specifics of what is fair is the issue. The automotive unions demand way too much and were allowed to become too powerful. Their demands of representation became a burden to the companies and caused their workers to actually lose out.

Its a balancing act.

JD21290 wrote:its easier said than done, not being able to afford them will cause problems, and also result in alot more crimes as to stealing to get money for them, pretty much like illegal drugs.

Fixed your post.

I don't understand why they are increasing the tax on cigarettes. If the US gov't wants to really do some good, they need to raise the tax on alcohol. Get more tax revenue, discourage the use, decrease the number of DUI/DWI accidents, decrease insurance costs caused by said accidents.

Do injuries from DUI's account for more money than the health care costs of smokers? If so, fine, a tax increase may be in order. If not, then you're just making gak up.

I don't think all social benefits or harms can be reduced to accountancy values.

Isn't that how they do it in Tort law? If I cut off your arm and you sue me, they calculate the value of your arm for compensation purposes.

ShumaGorath wrote:I'll do that as soon as you stop implying I think that the dutch are somehow nonhuman crab people, rather than the obvious intent of my comments being the comparison between different health systems.

What material differences do you suggest would result in significant cost differences in the treatment of smokers between the Dutch and US systems? Simply arguing they're different isn't really good enough.

Except those same studies are incomplete and provide a null answer to the issue. All they show is that it costs the healthcare system less because they live half as long. Direct costs are not the only factor. Someone with AIDS costs the system less too. Should we rescind the laws about syringe safety? Maybe drop the blood screening for donors? Both would "save money" according to the same studies you keep posting.

You claim you get it, but clearly you don't. If you got it you wouldn't be claiming anything as silly as an analogy with syringe safety. So I'll say it again, the argument that cigarettes should be taxed because they cost the health system more money is bad because studies have shown they cost the health system less.

Now, let's compare that very simple statement to your AIDS & syringe safety analogy. I'm talking about tax justified (falsely) on grounds of externalities. Which you're comparing to regulation of a potentially dangerous product for public safety. Your analogy makes no reference to any point in my argument, not to tax, or the actual cost of cigarettes. If you're following the argument you can see instantly that the analogy makes no sense. I'm being charitable in assuming you're not following the argument, because the idea that you understand the argument but think that analogy is useful is far more damning.

And I'm saying that a net increase in total cost can be easily offset by a net increase in tax gain and per capita personal expenditure by an able bodied individual paying into the system over several decades. This is the important part. If half of the U.S. population died suddenly by your logic our healtcare woes would dissapear, except healthcare is based on the taxes payed by citizens. You can't pay taxes when you're dead.

How many taxes are paid by people between the ages of 77 and 84?

Then you should probably read what I actually post. Or just start quoting yourself so that I can see that you're not posting anything new or pertinent.

You've got cheek, I'll give you that. No substance, no coherent argument, but plenty of cheek. Well, that'll get you into some places I guess.

PanamaG wrote:Because I am so efficient I finished what I was supposed to do today early.

148 to 1517 buddy

I never said I was efficient. Besides what am I supposed to do, people keep saying stuff that's wrong.

ShumaGorath wrote:China has no unions, I'm sure chinese workers love living in their factories (and yes, those conditions are illegal under chinese law). Any nation without unions also has poor workers rights.

In fact, China has the largest union in the world, it has more than a hundred million members. Unfortunately, it's almost entirely under government control and as a result does little to improve the conditions of its workers.

And that's really what the issue is all about. Not unions are good or unions are bad. Or having more unions or less unions. It's just about having good unions and not bad unions.

Ozymandias wrote:Isn't that how they do it in Tort law? If I cut off your arm and you sue me, they calculate the value of your arm for compensation purposes.

That's like life insurance. There are accountancy values set for a life or limb, which are used in insurance cases, criminal compensation awards and disability pensions. These are usually based on some calculation of the lost earning ability plus the enforced extra expenses such as getting your bath adapted.

I was talking about putting an accountancy value on a tailgate party, or your local school's nativity play; those kind of social events which are an important part of life. I realise it's somewhat outside the topic, however everything in life isn't about the bottom line.

Ozymandias wrote:Do injuries from DUI's account for more money than the health care costs of smokers? If so, fine, a tax increase may be in order. If not, then you're just making gak up.

Let's see.....

Taken from the WHO: Smoking-related diseases cost the United States more than $150 billion a year.

Taken from the MADD site: Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public an estimated $114.3 billion in 2000, including $51.1 billion in monetary costs and an estimated $63.2 billion in quality of life losses. People other than the drinking driver paid $71.6 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill, which is 63 percent of the total cost of these crashes.

That's $185 Billion, of which about a third of that is paid by the victim and not the drunk driver. This doesn't include the increased insurance rates the people involved will also receive.

Smoking-related diseases usually come from long-term use, while any person who can get their hands on alcohol and a car can potentially cause a fatality.

Unions are an archaic institution that do nothing but hamstring honest businesses, it's past time we went back to the days when companies hired Pinkertons to "handle" any problems with the workforce!

Unions are an archaic institution that do nothing but hamstring honest businesses, it's past time we went back to the days when companies hired Pinkertons to "handle" any problems with the workforce!

do nothing but hamstring honest businesses, it's past time we went back to the days when companies hired Pinkertons

nothing but hamstring honest businesses

honest businesses

Lol, wut?

CorporateLogo wrote:Unions are an archaic institution that do nothing but hamstring honest businesses, it's past time we went back to the days when companies hired Pinkertons to "handle" any problems with the workforce!

Are you trying to say that 'honest businesses' should hire thugs to deal with workers who want more money? That seems neither honest, nor business like.

ITT I post a joke about the Pinkertons that is tangential to the current discussion and everyone thinks I'm being serious about dismantling unions D:

sebster wrote:
And that's really what the issue is all about. Not unions are good or unions are bad. Or having more unions or less unions. It's just about having good unions and not bad unions.

In many professions this is a true statement.

I think we're all forgetting the most important point.

Ironhide wrote:I don't understand why they are increasing the tax on cigarettes. If the US gov't wants to really do some good, they need to raise the tax on alcohol. Get more tax revenue, discourage the use, decrease the number of DUI/DWI accidents, decrease insurance costs caused by said accidents.

You can have my booze when you pry my bottle from my limp, unconscious body!

Hey, I'm with you there. I just think increasing the "smoking" tax is like beating a dead horse. I'd be surprised if tobacco use isn't gone in another ten years with all the restrictions put on where you can smoke, tax increases (NC is thinking of increasing the state tobacco tax), and all the lawsuits tobacco companies have been hit with.