(Wash.) Cigarette tax boost sought

[Newsjock]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/212823_cigarette19.html?dpfrom=thead

Cigarette tax boost sought
GOP lawmaker wants to raise the rate by more than $1 per pack

By DAVID AMMONS
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OLYMPIA -- A Republican lawmaker wants to increase the state cigarette tax to $2.50 a pack.

The proposal would deter thousands of young people from taking up the smoking habit and raise an additional $300 million per biennium for health care, Rep. Rodney Tom of Medina said yesterday.

His plan, which will be scheduled for a hearing by the House Finance Committee, would boost the cigarette tax by more than a dollar from the current $1.425 per pack. That rate was set by the voters in 2001, when the rate was boosted 60 cents a pack to expand the state's subsidized health coverage for the working poor.

The new rate would put the state tax at $25 a carton, the highest rate in the nation.

more

[fnottr]

1. ...and they say only Dems try to pass taxes like these n/t

[truthisfreedom]

2. bah hah!

i'm all for it, but it's excellent that a thug is presenting it!

[Rush1184]

3. grrr.....

Cigs are already too expensive!

[Toots]

22. You got that right... they probably cost this country more than any other

single item. As your health care cost continue to spiral out of control you can put a good portion of the blame on cigarettes.

[DoNotRefill]

4. WooHoo!!! Let's shift MORE of the tax burden to the poor!!!

Oh, wait.....

You may not like smoking, but don't fool yourself...this is a regressive tax measure.

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

5. I disagree

I disagree. If we can come up with some cold hard numbers that smokers (which I am) cost the helthcare system then I am all for making the tax match the burden that smokers place upon the system.

[DoNotRefill]

8. So...

you support increasing the tax burden on poor people even when there isn't universal health care?

Picking on lower class vices to put sin taxes on is regressive, and anti-Democratic.

[FuzzyDicePHL]

10. It's not like it's FOOD

or clothing or something essential. Seems like it's a tax burden not on the poor, but the orally-compulsive.

[mrbill]

12. does beer count as food?

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

17. What socio-economic group is most likely to smoke?

And is smoking an addiction or not?


It's a regressive tax.

[0rganism]

19. And which socio-economic group is likely to smoke cheaper cigarettes?

The cheaper the cigs, the higher the effective tax rate.

This tax isn't just a passively regressive flat consumption tax, it's an actively regressive per-item duty, charged primarily to an addicted population. Vicious, vicious, vicious.

[sandnsea]

9. Real help to stop smoking

If they gave smokers free patches and other things to stop smoking, I'd be all for taxing cigarettes. But poor people who smoke don't get any real help to quit and don't get any medical coverage from the taxes either. Half the time these taxes don't even go to health care. Alot of that money the states got a few years ago went to everything but health care. It's just a tax on the poor, that's all.

[saigon68]

14. The Tax In Wisconsin goes to Build PRISONS

In which the Democratic leaning unions employ their members.

And the Republican leaning Konstruction Kompanies profit from building these monstrosities.

And thousands of Black and Brown men wile away their time, stamping out license plates.

ITS A GROWTH INDUSTRY DON'T YOU KNOW !!!

[jus_the_facts]

16. EXACTLY.....I smoke and haven't had any health insurance for 20 years...

....so there's NO WAY I've cost anyone JACK SQUAT in healthcare costs! :grr:

[Massacure]

20. $7.18 per pack in medical cost, and lost job productivity.

http://groups.msn.com/FreedomFromTobaccoQuitSmokingNow/reasonstoquit.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=148334&pgmarket=en-us

[orleans]

6. I Quit!

...well, maybe not yet...

but soon....

maybe

I guess I have to think about it for awhile
(i'll ponder it over some coffee and a cigarette)

[mrbill]

7. hope they have indian smoke shops in the neighborhood......

From the driveway of mrbill manor it's eight miles north up the interstate and across the river to the Chickasaw reservation/truckstop/smokeshop/casino in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma voters approved a 50-cent per pack tax increase that went into effect the first of the year. This smoker got a big surprise when the prices at my friendly neighborhood indian smokeshop actually went down. Liggett-Select sub generics dropped from $17.85 per carton to $15.45 a carton. WTF? The guy behind the counter told me that the smart indian lawyers put in some fine print exempting native american cigarette vendors located within 30 miles of a state border.

I find a bit of poetic justice in giving my smoking dollars to the Chickasaws rather than the states of Oklahoma or Texas.

[radfringe]

11. cigarette taxes bring in revenue

time to ask is raising the tax is out of concern for "health" reasons or because less revenue is being generated from cigarette taxes?

Cigarettes fall into the "sin tax" category -- much easier to make up revenue shortfalls by raising such taxes as opposed to raising income, property or other similar taxes.

The last big hike in cigarette taxes send people scouring the internet for foreign outlets -- a carton of Marlboros costing $35-$45 in the US would be available through the internet sites for $15 -- quite a savings even if you figure in shipping/handling.

We now roll our own cigarettes -- cost of a carton averages out to around $10 -- this includes the tobacco and rolling tubes w/filters.

meanwhile -- fuel efficient cars are also cutting into revenue -- instead of raising the tax per gallon to make up the shortfalls -- some states are looking into a milage tax...


Big Brother Lives! States Considering Monitoring, Taxing Motorists With GPS Units
By Staff and Wire Reports -- Feb 16, 2005, 06:12
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6239.shtml

Some states are considering taxing motorists by the distance they drive, which would help them in collecting more revenue.

About 25 per cent of price paid by consumers for gas goes to the government which uses it for development and maintenance of highways. And fuel efficient cars would reduce the revenue which would make them good for drivers but bad for the roads.

Experts estimated that such cars could give up to 75 mpg in the city and about 50 mpg on highways. The rising price of gas could lead to more consumers selecting fuel efficient vehicles which would cut down the revenue, it said.

[charlie]

15. I like these revenue projections he makes

$300 million? Uh-uh. Taxing the price of smokes into a gold-plated extravagance just means people will cut back, buy out of state, use the black market, or quit altogether. Hope that figure isn't hard-coded into the budget.

[radfringe]

18. cut back...

...means people will cut back, buy out of state, use the black market, or quit altogether

that's why the need to up the taxes -- because people are cutting back, buying out of state, using black market/other sources or quitting. all these options decrease the tax revenues -- but expenses are still there and something has to be done to make up for the shortfalls -- this would mean hiking cigarette taxes or looking at other revenue generating schemes that won't overly upset taxpayers

It's similar to prohibition -- people found other ways of getting access to alcohol. The same goes for cigarettes -- in this case the cost of a pack of cigarettes is driving people to look for alternatives - legally and illegally

[dutchdemocrat]

13. Cigarettes in Holland

Are now 4 euro a pack

4 Euro = 5.22840 US Dollars

Or US$ 0.20 a cigarette.

[truthisfreedom]

21. a buck a smoke is coming.

these guys learn from drug dealers. or is it that drug dealers learn from them? 8^)

[Mizmoon]

23. "Black Market" - i.e criminal enterprises, possibly violent

when you make the stakes this high, the mob, gangs, petty and not-so-petty criminals make fortunes in smuggling and distribution.

Someone is making millions here.

[Straight Shooter]

24. Tobacco companies should be required to subsidize the price increase

Cigarettes are cheap to manufacture, cheap to distribute, relatively inexpensive to advertise, except in movies.

Which leads me to a pet peeve. Has anyone else noticed in the last few years how many leading roles in movies show people smoking? This, to me, is a clear indicator that the tobacco industry is targeting captive audiences, over and over again, with the myth that cool people smoke.

So let the tobacco companies making the big money pay for the increase. Don't shove it onto people with an addiction, because they've been psychologically manipulated into using those poison sticks. (Most people are offered their first cigarette through another smoker, and that's how the chain of addiction continues, but that's just my personal belief.)

Punish the dealer, not the addict.