Opinions on tobacco taxes?

[Tyler Generation]

In the local stores in my town in Northern Kentucky some right wing crybaby goes around putting up fliers about how Governor "Tax and Spend"(yes, it really is written that way:eyes:) Beshear wants to raise taxes more on cigarettes.

I don't really have any sympathy towards smokers on this. It's not a necessity, it's a luxury item. Most of all if you don't want to pay the taxes, quit smoking.

Thoughts?

[boobooday]

1. They're stupid because

In many cases they use tobacco taxes to fund progams, but if your wish comes true, everyone will stop smoking, and then what will they tax for children's healthcare, etc?

[Tyler Generation]

2. I didn't say I wished everyone stopped smoking anywhere in my post

I said if they do want to pay them they should stop. I want cigarettes to be taxed as much as possible.

[marketcrazy1]

lets tax

the fuck out of alcohol too!!! why this has not been done is beyond me!! say 50 cents a can for beer, 10 bucks a liter for hard liquor and maybe 2 bucks a bottle for wine! that would generate billions in revenues!!!

[Statistical]

11. Why not a 35% tax on fast food.

Nobody "needs" fast food.

35% tax on fast food.
35% tax on junk food.
35% tax on jet skis
35% tax on ATV
35% tax on non-commercial boats
35% tax on all vehicles over $20,000 (base models)
35% tax on expensive clothing
35% tax on jewelry
35% tax on leisure activities (clubs, bars, sports events, etc)

Like the OP said. If you want to stop paying the tax stop doing it.

[Kalyke]

17. Now you're talking.

Obesity is the No. 1 cause of early death in this country (well, that and the fact that we have no national health care).

Smoking is blamed for a lot, but considering the Europeans smoke and drink a lot more than we do while still living longer, I think the causes of our demise have more to do with lack of exercise, diet and the inabilities to pay for healthcare.

[dysfunctional press]

23. why 'fast food', and how would you define it?

for instance- what's the problem about a salad at mcdonald's?

btw- what do you define as "expensive" clothing?

and- your tax is EXTREMELY regressive.

[Statistical]

28. I guess I should have used a :sarcasm tag

I wasn't serious but any of those could be considered a sin tax by some future congress.

None are a good idea in my opinion but it is strange same people who think smoking tax is a good idea suddently get upset if their sin is under the tax.

Actually none of those taxes are regressive using the thinking of the OP. People can choose not to purchase any of these "wants" and instead focus on "needs". An American could pay 0% tax under such a system regardless of income.

Personally I don't think the govt should use taxes to force people to change. There are much more effective tools then trying to raise money off things you don't like.

[Hannah Bell]

34. actually, in general it is taxed higher than most consumer items.

sin taxes are popular.

[Zhade]

36. Okay!

NT!

[Vincardog]

3. IF everyone stopped smoking children's health care, etc could be funded by the savings in everyone'...

health care cost's.

[Statistical]

4. excedpt obseity now contributes more to health $ then smoking,,, fat tax next? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

39. not the case, according to studies. smokers die younger, on average.

& they pay about $400/yr (on average) extra in taxes for the privilege.

longer lives would = higher health costs, w/o the off-setting taxes.

& of course, no tobacco use = no tobacco jobs.

[Vincardog]

43. have you ever paid for a day n the cancer ward? WTF are you talking about

longer lives would = higher health costs? Prove it. Healthier people cost less.

[Hannah Bell]

45. 1) yes, i work in a hospital. 2) here you go - just for starters: NEJM.

"Lippiatt estimated that a 1 percent decline in cigarette sales increases costs for medical care by $405 million among persons 25 to 79 years old.2

Manning et al. argued that although smokers incur higher medical costs, these are balanced by tobacco taxes and by smokers' shorter life spans (and hence their lower use of pensions and nursing homes).3

Leu and Schaub showed that even when only health care expenditures are considered, the longer life expectancy of nonsmokers more than offsets their lower annual expenditures.4"

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1052


3) if you know that the biggest chunk of medical $'s is spent by the elderly in the final years of life, it might make more sense to you.



The point being, the case for smoking resulting in overall "savings" isn't so clear.

Myself, i think it's irrelevant, "savings" isn't my goal.

[seabeyond]

5. you really do NOT want opinion, now do you. ..... n/t

[kiva]

6. So let's raise the taxes on all luxury items.

Liquor. Legalize all drugs, then tax them unmercifully. All entertainment--movies, concerts, sporting events. All music downloads. Raise taxes on internet services, unless you can prove that you need to get online to perform your job. Probably many more things that don't come to mind at the moment.

What, you think that you "need" these things? No, they are luxuries.

[marketcrazy1]

9. thats it

TAX EVERYTHING BUT FOOD,SHELTER, HEALTH CARE/DRUGS AND CLOTHING!!! :sarcasm:

[kiva]

20. Seems to be the logical extention of what the OP says.

If something is a luxury, it should be taxed. Of course there's always the possibility that the OP's opinion of a luxury is something he/she doesn't care about, so it's fine to tax THOSE luxuries.

[TahitiNut]

24. There's a difference between a 'principle' as an excuse and a 'principle' that's a principle.

:shrug:

Too many folks seem to regard "principles" as some buffet of excuses for rationalizing a stance at which they arrive by walking a far different walk than they talk.

[kiva]

60. Yes, some principle are easier than others.

I like your expression "buffet of excuses".

[Zhade]

38. Since when did movies, the internet, or concerts give you cancer?

NT!

[kiva]

59. The OP wasn't about cancer, it was about taxing luxuries.

If a luxury is defined by something you don't need to survive, then all of those things are luxuries.

[Captain Hilts]

7. I favor them because smoking among teenagers has great price elasticity. The higher the price...

the less they smoke.

[Winterblues]

18. Whoop..there it is.

Make smoking as hard/expensive as possible so children will not start.

[Statistical]

8. Sin taxes are hypocritical

To reduce something you regulate or legislate it not tax it.

People say smoking taxing is good because people will stop smoking.

The assumption is that taxing is done to prevent an action?

Why not a tax on murder or rape then? Works for smoking why not other crimes?
Why do we tax income? Is it to encourage people to make less money?

Of course not.

Politicians tax a small group because the majority will look the other way. PERIOD.

By making it an "us vs them" situation people say exactly what the OP did.

Just don't be upset someday when there is tax and nobody complain about it because it your and not the majorities .

[MajorChode]

40. You can't compare smoking to "crimes"

Taxes are legitimately used to encourage or discourage certain actions.

The problem I have with "sin" taxes is they disproportionately affect the poor and they are really just means to produce revenue rather than legitimate methods to discourage certain activities. If the revenue from "sin" taxes were used to offset other regressive taxes like fuel taxes or to produce rebates for health insurance, then they might serve a purpose. However this is never the case. Instead state governments raise revenue from "sin" taxes so they can cut more taxes on the wealthy and make taxation even more regressive.

[Statistical]

47. Why discourage it?

Smoking.
If you think it is bad then outlaw it.

There is no purpose to tax it other than to raise money. Period.

Now I personally don't think we should outlaw tobacco.
I don't smoke but I don't think the govt should decide what is good or bad.
There are plenty of stupid/bad things so once we decide on one we should decide on all.

Take doughnuts for example. No nutritional value and leads to obesity & diabetes.
If you wanted to stop the "doughnut threat" which would be more effective
1) ban doughnuts and other high fat/high sugar foods
2) put a doughnut tax in place.

Of course the ban would reduce consumption MORE so why would you tax it instead?
DING DING DING

The goal wasn't to get rid of it. The goal was to raise revenue by picking on a minority group.
The whole "they came for the jews but I wasn't a jew" mentality. I am sure everyone knows the poem I am talking about.

[MajorChode]

63. False analogies don't help your argument

You didn't read what I wrote very well. I clearly stated I didn't agree with a tax that unfairly targets lower income groups.

Doughnuts DO have nutritional value. They may not be good for someone who already consumes too many calories and is overweight, but they are food that is essential to everyone. Tobacco is not essential, does indeed have no nutritional value, is addictive, and is unhealthy under all circumstances. You want to draw false analogies to support your case and in doing so you fail right out of the gate.

[cynatnite]

10. Even when I smoked I had no complaints about the high taxes...

tax it more, IMO. Anything to discourage it is a good thing, IMO.

[zorahopkins]

12. At The HIGHEST Possible Rate

Tobacco taxes should be at the highest possible rate.

Tobacco corporations are responsible for pushing their poisonous products onto the market. They should be forced to pay a very high tax in order to do so.

If people want to purchase those products, they, too, should pay a very high tax.

[TahitiNut]

21. Then how about doubling the taxes on alcoholic beverages??

They're toxic, too. They're not essentials.

:shrug:

[Statistical]

29. Alchohol via DUI also kills and maims a huge number of Americans (n/t)

[Thothmes]

48. Do you really think that the tobacco corps would pay

the taxes out of their profit margin? No they will add it to the price of the cigarettes Don't these taxes hit the poor and minorities disproportionately.

[panader0]

13. Fuck that.

I smoke and drink beer and the costs of these things are already 3/4 taxes or more. What is your vice? Ding Dongs? Tax them.
You say you favor not taxing Drugs for health, You mean the legal, big pharm drugs? They are the worst by far, and every one comes with a caveat saying they may cause impotence or death or diarrhea. Tax the rich.

[LanternWaste]

14. As a smoker, I'm more than o-k with it...

As a smoker, I'm more than o-k with it. Chances are, I won't be able to pay the medical bills my habit will likely induce in a few more years, so yeah-- I'm o-k paying a little more in the here and now, knowing full well that society will be paying 80% of the bill for my bad decisions a few more miles down the road...

[Sanctified]

15. I don't smoke but I disagree with tobacco taxes the majority of smokers are below poverty level.

So you are basically taxing the poor, if you want to raise state revenue it would be wiser to do it on true luxury items that the wealthy enjoy. Maybe slap a $1,000,000 tax on yachts and airplanes or a $10,000 tax on Luxury vehicles and my personal favorite is 25% tax on clothing that costs over $150.00. Now the argument usually falls into cigarettes are bad but I say Yachts and Airplanes are worse, a cigarette kills the person who smokes and maybe someone around them but the latter kills the environment.

[Obamanaut]

26. No smoke, less tax, more discretionary dollars for the "below

poverty level." Then with no smoke, health improves. Win - win.

[sohndrsmith]

16. I'm still trying to figure out why the gov't chooses to legalize and

tax two of the most dangerous drugs available, restrict others (quasi-legal, on their terms) and criminalize others. nicotine is a severely addictive, lethal drug, and alcohol can be exceedingly dangerous and addictive too. Doctors prescribe addictive drugs and if people end up becoming addicted/dependent on them, they're breaking the law (if they acquire these drugs more than the law allows)...
So I don't get the whole regulation/legalization/etc. - basically the cherry-picking of what people are allowed to use, ingest or acquire.

Seems even more goofy to have government benefiting off or taxing such an addictive drug (nicotine) that is one of the leading causes of heart and lung disease in a country where health care is so completely inaccessible for so many.

I know my argument is way over-simplified, and I know and understand many of the counter-arguments, but I find the whole issue confusing. I'm not saying that I'm a proponent for "legalization" or not... I just don't get what seems to be massive hypocrisy in much of the issue.

[TahitiNut]

19. The REGRESSIVE tax that (so-called) progressives love.

Sometimes principle isn't even skin-deep. :puke:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Its very regressive

look at the demographics of smokers and their income levels

[PeaceNikki]

46. Yup. Whatever your opinions on smoking, regressive taxes suck.

:thumbsdown:

[GentryDixon]

25. This is an issue in my state.

The "sin tax" needs to include all the cola products the faithful gulp down in this state. And maybe even diapers!

I am not a smoker, but I do pay an inordinate amount of tax when I visit my state liquor store, part being over 12% school lunch tax.

[The Straight Story]

27. Such attitudes do help with the stereotype of dems - they like to raise taxes

Who suffers the most from these taxes? What are the taxes used for and if we use them for things like schip what happens when people quit smoking and the funds dry up?

Tax makeup more, we don't need it people want it. The list could go on.

Or how about a better tax system all together?

People like to pick on things like smoking because it is easy to ride on the band wagon of public opinion. More people across all classes drink, why not triple that tax if the idea is to raise money?

[Obamanaut]

31. The only ones who "suffer" from tobacco taxes are the smokers.

You mention a better tax system. Have you considered the fair tax that "some say" is a panacea for all our current woes.

[The Straight Story]

32. Actually more than just smokers suffer

Less people smoking so less people stopping into stores for smokes and picking up other items, job losses at cig plants and tobacco farmers lose money.

It is always easy to tie something to something bigger and see the ripple effect.

:)

[Obamanaut]

33. The examples in your post show ill effects from the LOSS of the

tax on tobacco. What I responded to was the question "Who suffers the most from these taxes" so that if the taxes continue, the examples you cited are non existant. Who suffers the most from the taxes as they exist? People who can afford them the least, that's who.

[L0oniX]

30. Fuck tobacco ...smoke pot.

[Zhade]

35. Triple them. It's a deadly addiction. If people quit because it's too expensive, awesome.

NT!

[Dreamer Tatum]

37. It's economics, not public policy

Demand for drinks and smokes is relatively insensitive to price, so they're easy to tax. Ditto for gasoline (though I think we got a hint of where the assumptions break down) and gambling.

You can always grow your own.

[TheKentuckian]

41. They've raised the tax multiple times in the last few years

If they want more revenue then legalize and tax all drugs, whores, and gambling. I'll support it though if you'll trade it for getting rid of the regressive general ass sales taxes and nationalizing public utilities. If the goal is a backdoor attempt to control individual behavior then you can screw off. Government's role isn't to protect us from ourselves.
If nanny staters don't like cigarettes then they shouldn't smoke.

I call this the scape goat and political coward tax. It is easier to nanny state than maybe make the rich and corporations accountable, while making nanny staters proud of their "progressiveness".

[OhioChick]

42. Instead of hitting up the smokers and drinkers all of the time...

How about a tax on fast food?

[Dreamer Tatum]

44. Judging from the lines, and by the reverence most people seem to have for it

I would tax the piss out of coffee.

Talk about revenue!

[Chemical Bill]

49. I don' like regressive taxes.

OTOH, I don't like cigarettes. I like the ban on ads, and think that it should go farther, to include even in-store ads, maybe even brand names. I think there should be a difference between free speech and paid speech (like ads). Anything proven harmful shouldn't be advertised (there go car ads).

Bill

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. It's One Of The Most Abusive Taxes There Is. They Are Total Bullshit.

NJ it costs almost 7 bucks a pack. Nothing short of disgraceful.

[Dreamer Tatum]

58. Why is that disgraceful?

Why would a lower price restore grace to cigarette purchases?

People want their smokes enough to pay stupid levels of tax on them. Open and shut.

[Pastiche423]

51. They've done that twice in my area

Most smokers I know, including myself, buy our ciggs online.

That money "saved" for children's health services?

It went bye bye.

They want to pay for children's health services w/the added tobacca tax. At the same time they want people to stop smoking.

So, which is it?

It was idiotic the 1st time they tried it and it din't work. The second time they tried reminds me of Albert Einstein's quote.... "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

[varkam]

52. Huzzah for taxes that target the least educated and most impoverished of our nation!

Huzzah, I say!

[Obamanaut]

53. Isn't it just as easy for the "least educated and most impoverished"

to quit smoking or (gasp!) not even start as it is for the educated and affluent?

[varkam]

54. Not necessarily.

You have higher rates of drug abuse and mental illness among those classes of folks, and there's a lot of self-medication going on (for example, studies have shown that cigarette smoking is highly prevalent in polydrug abuse situations as well as with schizophrenic type disorders). Also there's the issue of quitting - it's fucking hard. I don't know if you've ever smoked or not, but it takes most people an average of six times to quit smoking. Also, the educated and affluent are going to have better access to smoking cessation programs and medications, such as Chantix. Further, stress levels tend to be higher among the poor then among the affluent.

That's not to say that such folks can't quit, but there's a reason smoking is significantly higher in that population - it's not just a happy coincidence.

[Obamanaut]

55. So it's a class thing. "...among those classes of folks..." nt

[varkam]

57. Yeah - of which I am one.

Class, Group, call it what you will. If you want to actually, you know, respond to any of the substantive points that I made feel free. I mean, if you can pull your head from your posterior for long enough, that is.

[ZombieHorde]

56. How about releasing non violent criminals from prison? That would save tax dollars.

[MrSlayer]

61. Fine as long as you highly tax soda, fried foods, cake, candy, salt, gasoline etc.

After all, these things are luxury items as well. No one needs soda, it's unhealthy, drink water. No one needs fried chicken, it's unhealthy, bake it instead. No one needs cake or candy, it's unhealthy, have a carrot. No one needs salt, it's unhealthy, have a plain baked potato. No one needs gasoline, it's unhealthy, ride your bike to work/school or take the subway.

Hell, let's tax fat people. After all they drain our health system more than smokers and there is a lot more of them. For every 10 pounds you are overweight you should be taxed $100, up to a max of $2000.


What's good for one unhealthy thing should be good for all, right?

Fuck regressive taxation.

[Greyhound]

62. Another false division that happens to appeal to you. Another tax to

make up for all the money the parasites are stealing from us, and you fall for it.

Congratulations.