Mike,
Taxing cigarettes to fund healthcare services for the poor is win win public health policy.
Raising cigarette taxes is the single most effective way that MA can further reduce cigarette consumption
(a $.60/pack increase will reduce consumption by about 6%), and a significant portion of the recipients of the funded healthcare services will be sick smokers and their families.
Your analysis appears to rely primarily upon emotion and left wing political leanings, not on the public health impact.
States with the highest cigarette taxes have the lwest prevalence of smokers, lowest tobacco-related mortality, and the strongest tobacco-control programs. The situation in states with the lowest taxes is completely the opposite.
John Stuart Mill favored indirect taxes on products that can cause harm as a matter of prudent fiscal policy. That it also has a positive public health benefit, especially for those being taxed and for the vulnerable non-smokers who live with them,is to be applauded.
Bill-
I'm glad to be now be accused of having left wing political leanings. That should balance out being accused of taking money from the Republican party!
I want to emphasize that what I'm saying here is that the policy proposal should NOT be evaluated based only on the "public health impact." I think the INTENT of the proposal is a very important aspect of the policy that needs to be evaluated as well.
And in this case, the intent of the proposal is to avoid any politically difficult method of obtaining the needed revenue, such as taxing the wealthiest citizens and corporations in the state, which I think would be the most appropriate way of obtaining the needed revenue, rather than taxing the poorest!
Bert-
Even if we accept that taxing cigarettes is a prudent fiscal policy (and I'll accept that), are you prepared to argue that the best way to make up the needed revenue is to tax the poorest citizens in the state rather than the wealthiest?
Frankly, the idea of evaluating a decision by a legislature based on its "intent" rather than its effect seems quaint. How do you determine what people have in their head when they vote one way or another? At best, you can look at what they say is their intent -- and we know politicians are reliable sources there...
As for "taxing the poor", at the risk of repeating myself: tobacco tax increases result in lower-income people, on average, spending no more on tobacco than before (because more of them quit); the supplementary tax revenue comes from richer smokers, not the poor. Granted, few millionaires smoke, so it's not exactly a "soak the rich" proposition. But neither is it "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor".
Mike,
I don't its accurate to claim that "appears to rely primarily upon" is an "accusation," but nearly all political scientists agree that imposing taxes on the wealthy to fund services for the poor is primarily supported by those whose politics are considered left of center.
If the MA tax legislation stated that the intent of the measure was to fund cigarette caused expenditures by Medicaid, then you'd criticize the bill (as you did the MN tax hike) for violating the MSA.
Besides, I don't recall any cigarette industry protection legislation (e.g. FCLAA, McCain's global bailout, FDA legislation, class action fairness act, tort reform, product liability, appeal bond caps, damage award caps, preemption laws, smokers rights laws, MSA model statute, etc) stating that its intent was to protect future revenues and profits of large cigarette companies.
Instead, many of those tobacco industry protection bills stated that the intent was to protect public health.
While I agree with you that any MA cigarette tax hike would be more beneficial for public health if some of the money was spent on smoking prevention and cessation programs, I think it critical to not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
But if you feel strongly that any cigarette tax should fund smoking prevention and cessation programs, I encourage you to urge MA legislators to increase the proposed cigarette tax by $.85/pack, and appropriate $.25/pack of that revenue for smoking prevention and cessation programs.
Bill-
I was just joking with you about "accusing" me of having left wing leanings. Nothing inappropriate about your comment. I just found it funny because my positions are simultaneously being "explained" by me being a staunch conservative, and now, by me being way to the left.
Perhaps readers will start to realize that I call things as I see them, and that I'm trying to view each issue on from a broad public health perspective, and not necessary any political ideological one.
And I agree with you that funding for the tobacco control programs should be restored - especially since it was mandated by the voters. But do you see that by pushing for a cigarette tax increase to pay for health care, the chances of restoring funding for tobacco control are now nil?
Also, I should make it clear that the actual, not the stated intention of the legislation is what is important to me. So the fact that the real intention behind the global tobacco settlement was not publicly stated does not shoot down my use of true legislative intent as a criterion to judge the merits of legislation.
Francis-
You stated that: "the idea of evaluating a decision by a legislature based on its 'intent' rather than its effect seems quaint."
I guess I'm not sure what the significance of something being "quaint" is, but let me assume that you are criticizing this criterion for assessing the merit of a public policy proposal.
Two things: First, as I said in response to Bill, the stated intention is not what I'm necessarily after - it's the true intention that I think is important. And I think there ARE ways in which we can get a clear idea of what the intent behind a policy proposal is. In fact, I'd say that in 99% of cases, the intent of policy proposals are quite clear.
Second, to see the importance of intent, consider a policy to require a moment of silent meditation in schools. Now I really have no problem with this concept or with its ultimate impact on kids. In fact, I think taking a moment of silence at the beginning of a school day is a great thing.
However, I have been a staunch critic of such legislation. The reason: because the clear intent of the proponents of these bills is to move toward introducing prayer in the public schools, and I don't think they're talking about prayers to the flying spaghetti monster!
So indeed, I think that the true intent behind a piece of legislation is an absolutely appropriate, and vital criterion that needs to be considered in judging the merits of that proposal and whether one should support it or not.
I propose a tax on perscription drugs.
Most coverage for youth involves add and adhd drugs that have skyrocketed in price since 2000. Many plans are finding that these costs outstrip what they are paying for all elderly care.
Maybe the parents of these children in distress would be encouraged to look at their children's costs vs benefits and make a more educated decision as to whether the child needs the drugs or the schools need better teachers.
Find it amusing when folks claim that increased taxes will reduce number of smokers by such and such an amount. By that rational, there should not be a smoker left in the city of New York. Raising gas tax would involve all in helping all. Gary K.
Gary must not be aware that the number of cigarettes smoked, and the number of cigarette addicts, in NYC has dropped dramatically in the past few years.
Cigarette company executives don't find it amusing, but they concur that the price elasticity of cigarettes is about -.4.
That's why they give huge campaign contributions and spend lots of money lobbying lawmakers to oppose cigarette tax hikes.
That's also why cigarette companies give huge price discounts on cigarettes as soon as the taxes take effect and slowly phase in the price hike to smokers, as they've found that minimizes the consumption decline.
Most smokers would like to break their nicotine addiction. For that reason,, increased cigarette taxes would probably be welcomed by a significant number of smokers, as it would offer them another inducement to quit.. Echoing this sentiment, an acquaintance of mine, who is a smoker, said he wishes they would raise taxes by $5 per pack.
Great blog I hope we can work to build a better health care system. Health insurance is a major aspect to many.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
