Hike those cigarette taxes

[Jzero]

If increasing cig taxes correlates with decreasing smoking, then in the end the government will see no benefit from this tax. Less people paying the tax means less tax revenue generated. They can try to couch this tomfoolery in trying to fight a budget shortfall, but at the end of the day, it's liberal nanny-statesmen (and I'm a liberal non-smoker, if you can believe that) using this as an excuse to try to protect people from themselves.

As for low-income smokers, I worked for 18 months in a print shop as a cutting machine operator. As I worked, it left me plenty of time to chat with the guy who served as my packager. He would complain day-in and day-out about never having any money, and his kids needing this and his ex-wife needing that blah blah blah.
But OTOH he smoked 2 packs a day and would come in at least 2x a week bragging about how he spent $50 drinking at the bar the night before.
AND he ordered out lunch every day for $6-$8 a meal.

Occasionally he'd ask me for money-saving advice.
I'd tell him "Stop smoking, or even cut down." I tried to explain to him that for $3/pack, if he could cut down to ONE pack a day, he'd be saving $90/month.
He said he liked smoking and didn't want to cut down.

Fine.
Stop drinking. Or drink less. If you only went out boozing ONCE during the week, you'd save $200 each month.

He didn't like that. He likes going out drinking. He needs an opportunity to get away from the gf and kids and unwind.

Fine.
Stop ordering out lunch. For like $10 you could buy enough bread and lunchmeat to last you 2 weeks AND have enough money left over for a bag of chips.
He says "That's easy for you to say...you just bring in sandwiches from home."
WHAT?! DO YOU THINK THE FARKING LUNCHMEAT FAIRY COMES AND STOCKS THE FRIDGE EVERY DAY?!?!?! There's a supermarket within walking distance from the shop, GO GET SOME!
He says "Any food I leave home gets eaten by the kids before I can touch it."
Well then tell your kids not to eat it, or bring it in and leave it in the fridge at work.
"Yeah....I dunno....it sounds like a lot of work...."
I was 17 years old at the time....he was 30.

The bottom line:
Lazy, poor slobs who are too dumb to figure out that they'd be half as poor if they could learn to budget properly and control their spending will go on making lame excuses and being lazy poor slobs no matter how much advice or pushing you give them.
This also goes for spendy government officials and agencies.

 

[SuperTool]

The problem is not that people are addicted to tobacco, the problem is that the government is addicted to taxpayer money.

 

[JellyBaby]

If increasing cig taxes correlates with decreasing smoking, then in the end the government will see no benefit from this tax.

True but this is slash and burn taxation. When this well is empty they'll go into someone else's yard to dig another and take that water, too. And they'll have a "precendent" to go into that yard since they've been in so many before.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The problem is not that people are addicted to tobacco, the problem is that the government is addicted to taxpayer money.

Excellently put.

 

[Frolodo]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Awesome!!

Great post!

 

[mithrandir2001]

XZeroII wrote:
While I hate cigarettes because the smoke causes me severe pain, I don't think the gov't should boost taxes on one product like cigs to fill a budget shortfall. They should examine their spending habits instead. Taxes should also not be used as a tool to cut consumption. There are many other ways to cut consumption of a product. I think it's wrong.

The level of government spending is certainly a problem. Unfortunately, you just can't slash spending overnight. Some of the state's expenses are obligations it already made and backpedaling on them may be economically or socially destructive (e.g. imagine telling school districts that they are getting 30% less this fall because of cutbacks). So while we can minimize/eliminate shortfalls in future years by turning down the spigot, to meet today's financial needs the state needs revenue. You might as well tax things that have negative components such as smoking. This is more acceptable than boosting general sales taxes or income taxes.

I think taxes should be used to cut consumption because that creates efficiency in areas where the free market fails (which is something you don't hear often from a Libertarian but a true free market is not a perfect model). If we can agree that the government is going to tax and get itself revenue no matter what, why not get revenue from things that are less desirable? Who says what is desirable and what is not? Hey, differences in opinion will always prevail but we can make some good general decisions: for example, smoking has very negative health effects (undesirable) and green power significantly reduces emissions from fossil fuels (desirable). So you tax smoking and subsidize green power.

Tiger wrote:
The tax code in this country was never designed for use as a social engineering tool.
It's one and only purpose is to pay for government services.
The argument that smokers are only paying for their future health care needs is crap.
The number of indigent smokers needing state sponsored health care is miniscule.
The tax is beiung used to try and drive a legal business out of business.
At least have the guts to admit it.

Government needs money to run; it doesn't necessary care where becuase a buck is a buck. However, if taxing one thing reduces the need to tax another - and each of these things have vastly different social value - why not greatly tax one and lightly tax the other?

I hate taxes. I don't want more of them. I'm suggesting we make substitutions. Tax cigarettes more and reduce income taxes. Tax gasoline more and reduce income taxes. Remove the tax-free status of religious organizations and reduce income taxes. I don't want to give the government more money to spend; I simply want it to pillage for its revenue in less destructive ways.

Cyberian wrote:
Is the additional tax money to be used strictly for medical treatment of smoking related illnesses?

Currently a subject of debate. The Republican governor wants the money for the general budget and the Democrats in the legislature want the money for new health care programs. I think the money should be used for the general budget because the point of the new taxes is to reduce the deficit, not increase spending.

Kranky wrote:
It's funny... you could replace "smoking" with "junk food" in your original post and all the same logic would apply. High-fat, low-nutrition foods damage health as much if not more than smoking. Would you stand behind your argument regarding high junk-food taxes?

At least junk food has caloric value and can sustain life.

But frankly, I WOULD support junk food taxes if they would fund reductions in income taxes.

Amused One wrote:
The fallacy here is that smoking costs our government more money.

Is it a fallacy or is it not? I don't know. But we DO know that smoking reduces your lifespan and it makes the last years of life less pleasant and more medically expensive. Yes, a person who dies at age 62 and never sees a dime of Social Security actually "saves" the govenment money in that regard, but I'm not a fan of SS and this is a good example of why: the system works best when people die earlier than expected. Should we say "keep cigarettes cheap because people will die sooner and take less Social Security money"? I don't necessarily consider that an ethical statement.

What you are really saying, Amused, is to privatize Social Security and senior health care (ala Medicare) and I agree with that.

But am I succumbing to Socialism? I think not. Perhaps my brand of Libertarian thinking is not "pure", but I don't see the harm in taxing cigarettes if it prevents taxation in other areas (where it can do more harm, such as steep income taxes at the high end of the income scale).

Amused One wrote:
A myth. Between 1988 and 1998 cigarette prices rose nearly 150% (200% in some states). Yet teen smoking increased by more than 73%.

I'm writing what I read in the Philadelphia Inquirer this morning. I think you'd be foolish to think that teen smoking is not negatively affected by cigarette prices. Maybe the +10%/-8% ratio is not accurate, but few products see increased demand as the price increases.

Amused One wrote:
Do you thrive on playing Mommy to the poor, uneducated masses? It's this intrusive nanny-state bullsh!t that our Founding Fathers tried to save us from.

Again, I support cigarette taxes if it reduces (or prevents) taxation in other areas. You call it nanny-state bullsh!t, but I call it loosening the noose around those who are unfairly taxed highly (high income individuals).

Amused One wrote:
I have a better idea. Why not end socialized health care so you no longer have an excuse to play god with people's personal lives and decisions?

Socialized health care is the real problem, not my infactuation with cigarette taxes. If you could buy health insurance only on the free market, then cigarette taxes would be unnecessary because insurers would make sure (as they do with auto and life insurance) that you pay according to your risk. But BECAUSE we have socialized health care, we need the expensive risks to pay more...and cigarette taxes is one method of gaining that revenue so less expensive risks are not unfairly burdened with others' poor life choices.

 

[Colt45]

you think $1 per pack is a big deal?

they charge us $0.16 tax PER CIGARETTE. (plus 13% sales tax)


They are f--king crazy SOB's milking smokers for all they are worth.


I think I'm going to start growing tobacco. anyone got seeds?

 

[Tiger]

hate taxes. I don't want more of them. I'm suggesting we make substitutions. Tax cigarettes more and reduce income taxes. Tax gasoline more and reduce income taxes. Remove the tax-free status of religious organizations and reduce income taxes

It has never, ever, happened,.....ever. It never will because politicians love spending money.
Every year for five years we heard "if you pass the local option sales tax we can reduce property taxes". It passed two years ago, property taxes still went up, spending went up with them. You know as well as I do as soon as the tax is implemented the mental midgets will find new and ingenious ways to blow it. It's genetic.

No politician will ever do a one for one tax substitution.
You haven't addressed my point about the use of the tax code for social engineering, or the fact that tobacco is still a legal substance in this country. I suggest that if the idea is to pay for the health care of those who can't afford it, $.05/pack would be sufficient. Admit it, politicians see another cash cow on the horizon and they're spinning their "PC" best.

 

[JellyBaby]

mithrandir2001, your position is creaky. Our government does not have a defacto right to our pocketbooks. The country wasn't founded on the slogan of "irresponsible, excess taxation". Quite the opposite.

In this case cigarette taxes are increased but the monies taken will be placed into the state's general expense fund (or used in areas completely unrelated to smoking related health issues). Don't you see a problem with that? Why don't you expect your government to tax responsibly and only when necessary to meet their core mandates?

The bottom line is your government is abusing its power. Put a stop to it now as it's only getting worse.

 

[Vic]

Excessive cigarette taxes do not work. The problem is that the government develops a vested interest in cigarette sales. A perfect example is in WA state, which currently has the highest cigarette taxes in the nation at (no, I'm not going to look up the exact figure right now) almost $2.00 per pack. After the most recent tax increase took place at the beginning of this year, cigarette sales in WA state dropped more than 20%. This was the goal, right? To reduce smoking? And you would think that the WA state government would be happy by this, right? Wrong. They are complaining that revenue from cigarette taxes is now less than was expected and that they need to find ways to increase that revenue base (translate: they need more cigarette sales).
Someone in this thread said that this taxation was about the destruction by the government of a legal business. Sorry, that is close but wrong. This is about the nationalization and socialization of a legitimate, legal private business. 20 years from now, people will buy their tobacco products from the government, and the government will push them and advertise them.

/edit: I have another example of this, a little OT. Here in Oregon, roads funding is becoming a hot topic. ODOT is short for cash again. One state legislator, a Republican, publicly blamed the problem on the fact that newer cars that get better gas mileage....

 

[Skel]

Man, I do so miss the days when a smoke was just a smoke....

 

[Red Dawn]

The problem is not that people are addicted to tobacco, the problem is that the government is addicted to taxpayer money.

And it doesn't matter which crooked party we have in office either.

 

[satori]

JellyBaby: Don't forget that Washington state is trying to pass a tax on espressos to fund child-care... Um yeah... espresso drinkers aren't spending enough time watching their children while they run to Starbucks, so we'd better tax them to pay for more child-care... or something like that.

Main difference between these 2 is that Washington specifically targeted an area that they consider underfunded, while the Penn. cig. tax seems to be general.

Hey, how about this. Why don't they increase the cig. tax, and put it into a fund that will be used "solely" for the medical expenses of people with smoking-related problems. And if it seems like there's an excess of money in this "smokers-fund", you can send in a mail-in-rebate...

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
At least junk food has caloric value and can sustain life.

I don't know....I've seen people go for days living on nothing but cigarettes...

 

[HappyPuppy]

With all the waste we have in government, I don't understand the mentality of anyone who would be in favor of any tax (increase) at any time. A tax is a tax is a tax. It doesn't matter what group is paying it. Today you're in favor of group x being taxed, but tomorrow they are going to slap a tax on you, group y.

 

[sheselectric]

I am definitely not in favor of higher taxes on cigarettes. I recently quit smoking but the cost of cigarettes had nothing to do with it. Some people are so addicted that they'd pay anything to get their hands on them. And as pyonir pointed out, sometimes this can actually take food out of their children's mouths. Is that fair? My father smoked for 25 years, and quit when I was 16. Luckily we had enough money, but what if we hadn't? Is it fair to indirectly penalize dependents? (BTW, money had nothing to do with my father's decision to quit either.)

 

[JellyBaby]

With all the waste we have in government, I don't understand the mentality of anyone who would be in favor of any tax (increase) at any time.

Most aren't aware of the incredible waste. Our media "watchdogs" see to that.

Others seem to be manipulated into thinking throwing $10 at a cause while seeing only a $2 benefit is worth it because it's a "really good cause". Um, that $8 went somewhere folks and it sure didn't make it to the intended target.

This all ticks me off to know end because it doesn't have to be like this. I *want* to trust government. I *want* to see taxpayer dollars spent in a manner that helps all of us. But it's become clear to me this is a pipedream.

 

[Russ]

Main difference between these 2 is that Washington specifically targeted an area that they consider underfunded

There is no difference. Washington is a general fund state and it all goes in the same pot. The crooks in Olympia will spend it as they please, and none of it will be designated for a specific purpose because it cannot be. They pulled the same shell game with the Lotto. It's for schools! It doesn't go for schools. The proceeds just get sucked in to the same black hole, never to be seen again.

Russ, NCNE

 

[gopunk]

i don't really care... frankly i'm not concerned about second hand smoke, and i really don't give a sh!t if a bunch of people get lung cancer. not my problem.

 

[Amused]

Is it a fallacy or is it not? I don't know. But we DO know that smoking reduces your lifespan and it makes the last years of life less pleasant and more medically expensive. Yes, a person who dies at age 62 and never sees a dime of Social Security actually "saves" the govenment money in that regard, but I'm not a fan of SS and this is a good example of why: the system works best when people die earlier than expected. Should we say "keep cigarettes cheap because people will die sooner and take less Social Security money"? I don't necessarily consider that an ethical statement.

What you are really saying, Amused, is to privatize Social Security and senior health care (ala Medicare) and I agree with that.

But am I succumbing to Socialism? I think not. Perhaps my brand of Libertarian thinking is not "pure", but I don't see the harm in taxing cigarettes if it prevents taxation in other areas (where it can do more harm, such as steep income taxes at the high end of the income scale).

You don't even know if the claims of smokers cost the government more is true, yet you are fully in favor of taxing cigarettes higher?

Your logic has some holes in it.

Morality be damned. It's the very taxation of cigarettes that is immoral. It's nanny-state bullsh!t in an attempt to control people's actions. My claim is NOT to not tax cigarettes to let people die earlier. My claim is the very fiscal claims supporting taxing cigarettes is false.

Nice try, though...

I'm writing what I read in the Philadelphia Inquirer this morning. I think you'd be foolish to think that teen smoking is not negatively affected by cigarette prices. Maybe the +10%/-8% ratio is not accurate, but few products see increased demand as the price increases.

You'd be foolish to think that kids are turned off by high prices on something considered "cool" by the in crowd. Kids wear over priced designer clothes, and $150-$200 shoes... Hell, they even get part time jobs to pay for them.

Meanwhile, the CDC states that teen smoking rose 73% beteen 1988 and 1998 while the price of cigarettes more than doubled. I know a pack of cigarettes was around $1.00 in 1988. In 1998 it is was over $2.50. How can a person look at this stat, and come to the conclusion that raising prices deters teens from smoking?

When you're talking about teens, you have to forget budgets, and talk about trends. No matter how much something costs, teens will buy it if it's perceived as "cool." Good gawd, man, look how much illegal drugs cost, and teen are doing drugs far more today then when drugs were far cheaper, and less vigorously banned.

Again, I support cigarette taxes if it reduces (or prevents) taxation in other areas. You call it nanny-state bullsh!t, but I call it loosening the noose around those who are unfairly taxed highly (high income individuals).

Socialized health care is the real problem, not my infactuation with cigarette taxes. If you could buy health insurance only on the free market, then cigarette taxes would be unnecessary because insurers would make sure (as they do with auto and life insurance) that you pay according to your risk. But BECAUSE we have socialized health care, we need the expensive risks to pay more...and cigarette taxes is one method of gaining that revenue so less expensive risks are not unfairly burdened with others' poor life choices.

Wrong. You're simply taking a burden from one person, and shifting it to another. The key is easing the burden accross the board. What happens when something you do displeases enough people that they feel justified in ripping you off?

Sorry, but you haven't thought this through very much. Your ideas are about as far from libertarianism as they could be. You do not punish smokers because you oppose socialized health care.

Meanwhile, let's review:

1. You're not even sure that smokers, on average, cost our government more money. This is the very premise of your argument, and you're not even sure of it. Hell, no one is. However, when you look at the stats, you quickly see that the cost of a short term illness negates the long term care an older person would need. Moreover, the previous taxes of less than a dollor a pack resulted in billions of dollars each year in revenue. Raising the tax only makes tobacco a cash cow for the government.

2. The stats show that teen smoking rose 73% while the price per pack more than doubled. Therefore the claim that higher prices deter teens is invalid. The latest claims seem to point to the last two or three years only. Hardly long enough to see a long term effect. For all these idiots know, smoking has become passe among kids, only to become cool again in the next couple of years.

3. If socialized health care is the problem, why the hell do you want to fund it even more? Do you REALLY think they will lower taxes in other areas if they raise taxes on tobacco? If you do, PLEASE pass what ever the hell it is that your smoking over here. I sure could use a break from reality...

Ask yourself this: Where was our tax break after the huge tobacco settlement? Where were our tax breaks after the huge increase in taxes over the last two decades?

Answer: The never materialized because any time taxes are raised on one portion of society with the pretext of helping another portion, the other portion NEVER, and I mean NEVER gets the breaks they were promised.

You've been had. Admit it and move on.

 

[vash]

Here is my problem with taxing without representation and this tax sounds like it. This also falls into the taxing of expresso in Seattle.

Taxes, generally speaking, are against something you use/need and are put toward the same thing. "Sin" taxes follow this model quite well: if you buy gasoline, taxes are put toward the upkeep the roads, highwaysk, etc. If you pay for liquor or cigarettes, the taxes you pay for that help support the health costs related to addiction to those items.

This is why I'm AGAINST that kind of raise in taxes in Penn. Why are you just tax cigarettes, to fund what some lawmakers made a mistake on? It'll be a huge mistake to just tax cigarettes to help the current economic shortfall? What will that cause? Will it cause a lot of people to stop smoking? NO. Will it cause a lot of people to go out of state and buy large quantities of cigarettes and resell to their buddies? YES.

In the current economic shortfall, all taxes should be raised, for EVERYONE, not just for small group of people whom smoke? I, for one, would be totally against this kind of tax if I was in Penn, even though I'm not a smoker.

vash

 

[satori]

Russ: Wow, I wasn't aware that it would go into a general fund. All the article's I've read about it directly linked the 10-cent increase with child-care. From the Seattle Times:

They expect the tax could raise $7 million to $10 million a year to pump more money into child-care-teacher wages, help low-income families afford quality care, and increase the amount of high-quality child care in Seattle.

 

[Miramonti]

AmusedOne
You're using an arguement from a highly criticized Czech study a couple of years ago that says smokers save their govt. money because they die sooner. It also isn't completely valid because the study was biased and wasn't very well accepted over there. (not to mention some heads rolled ).

I think that excess taxation for cigarettes is wrong. Unless it is used to directly pay for burdened health costs that smokers create then its wrong.

We know tho that fed and state governements would practically collapse without the cigarette taxes (they'd certainly freakout for a while). Preventing or discouraging people from smoking is the last thing they want to do. Not only does it generate taxes from sales and pay for their overblown budgets, the manufacturers supply $$millions in political campaign contributions to keep them in office.

This is one of the biggest hypocracies in our country today - condemn smokers but exploit their habits for every dollar they can possible get (without forcing them to quit).

 

[Russ]

satori,

That's what you getting for placing any stock in something that appears in The People's Republic Of Seattle Times. They simply print whatever the politicans tell them. BY LAW, the money must go on to the general fund. It is in our state Constitution exactly what can, and cannot, be deemed "designated funds". This does not qualify.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jjsole
AmusedOne
You're using an arguement from a highly criticized Czech study a couple of years ago that says smokers save <STRONG>their</STRONG> govt. money because they die sooner. It also isn't completely valid because the study was biased and wasn't very well accepted over there. (not to mention some heads rolled ).

I think that excess taxation for cigarettes is <STRONG>wrong.</STRONG> Unless it is used to directly pay for burdened health costs that smokers create then its wrong.

We know tho that fed and state governements would practically collapse without the cigarette taxes (they'd certainly freakout for a while). Preventing or discouraging people from smoking is the <STRONG>last</STRONG> thing they want to do. Not only does it generate taxes from sales and pay for their overblown budgets, the manufacturers supply <STRONG>$$</STRONG>millions in political campaign contributions to keep them in office.

This is one of the biggest hypocracies in our country today - condemn smokers but exploit their habits for every dollar they can possible get (without forcing them to quit).

Um, no, I've seen this argued ever since the government started raising taxes on tobacco to ridiculous levels. That was almost a decade ago. The Czech study came much later.

The point is, NO ONE wants to admit the undeniable numbers here. If the government admits to them, they look evil. If the tobacco companies admit to them, they look evil. And there is no way in hell the anti-tobacco folks will EVER admit to this.