Here's one for you:
My smoking keeps your taxes low....still want me to quit?
I am really sorry to hear that more States believe that higher taxes on cigarettes are their cure for a balanced budget. The irony is them telling me how sick the cigarettes will make me, but they somehow mysteriously cure their budgets! It amazes me that they don't look at States such as California, New York, Massachusetts and such and see the amount of debt these States are in, only because they believed that the smokers were so dumb they would continue to keep paying higher and higher taxes and wouldn't be creative enough to find cheaper alternatives.
Who is really winning here? My money is on the smoker who is not paying those expected windfall taxes. Why else would the thruways, Mass turnpike, highways and golf courses be for sale in these States now. I think that since the smokers paid for the golf courses through their generous MSA contributions, these white elephants should be given back to the smokers. They just might be able to show the people running those States what it is they should do so to turn a profit!
“Moreover, these taxes are regressive and they put the burden of balancing state budgets on the very poorest of the state's citizens.”
It’s okay, however, even if they are regressive, if their purpose is, 1. to get smokers to quit, and 2. to use the funds to fund anti-smoking advertising campaigns to get them to quit.
“The editorial is right. If these government programs are so critical - and if they benefit all of society - then we should not be singling out smokers to bear the burden of paying for them.”
But onerous taxes are okay if, again, they benefit smokers by muscling them into quitting or if the funds are used to finance anti-smoking advertising campaigns.
“So not only do these cigarette tax proposals represent poor public policy, they also represent political cowardice.”
No political cowardice with you, doctor. But bullying, perhaps:
“As I have argued before, if smokers are to be asked to shoulder the burden of a tax increase, then the revenues should be used for purposes related to smoking and smokers themselves should stand to potentially benefit directly from the programs and services offered.”
BUT IT’S NOT QUITE LIKE THAT, IS IT, DOCTOR? In fact, you want to steal money out of a smoker’s pocket in the hope that separating him from some of the money he uses to buy cigarettes will convince him he shouldn’t buy cigarettes. But your theft is benign, since it’s for the bastard’s own good. Besides, you’re going to use part of the money you’ve stolen to wheedle him into quitting by advertising campaigns. Call it benign thuggery.
“Using a "sin" tax on cigarettes to pay for anti-smoking education and prevention programs, research and treatment of smoking-related diseases, and smoking cessation services makes sense and represents fiscally sound policy that is also equitable.”
Boy, there’s a beauty! First of all, non-smokers are already parasites on smokers, or haven’t you been paying attention? And notice, again, that you tax a smoker in order to correct his behavior, when his behavior is none of your goddam business unless you can prove a burden (that is, a financial burden on society, not a spiritual burden on your own grieving do-goodism). And as far as smoking-related diseases go, do they occupy a separate category that the cure or amelioration of which wouldn’t benefit all of mankind, smokers and non-smokers alike? I don’t think so.
You quote: “Unfortunately, many of these same programs advocate for tobacco taxes under the misguided notion that high prices will economically coerce poor smokers to quit. If we are to believe our own science, that smoking is addictive, we must recognize the extent to which the primary result of highly priced tobacco products further impoverish a substantial portion of low-income tobacco users.”
And you comment: “Thus, it could accurately be argued that cigarette tax increases have as a primary effect the further impoverishment of already low-income smokers. The policy will therefore exacerbate existing health disparities related to income, which is opposed to one of the main goals of the Healthy People 2010 objectives for the nation.”
Doctor, if you’ve had second thoughts about your proposal of November 11th, you should say so:
“In contrast to the FDA legislation’s interventions, which have not been shown to have any impact on smoking (and which would actually increase it), two interventions which have been conclusively show to reduce smoking are:
“1. Increasing the price of cigarettes through substantial cigarette tax increases; and
“2. Anti-smoking advertising campaigns using the mass media (such as the ‘truth’ campaign).
“My proposal would combine these two interventions.”
So, do you now repudiate the above November 11th proposal? If you do, you should say so, since there’s no shame involved in honest mistakes, and it’s always nice to start a new year with a clean slate.
.
Mike wrote:
"By tying critical government programs to cigarette tax revenues, policy makers are actually making these vital programs - and thus the state budget and economy - dependent upon continued high levels of cigarette consumption."
Not true.
First, no government programs are dependent upon cigarette tax revenue (as many other sources of government revenue are available to maintain funding for any truly vital programs).
Second, increasing cigarette tax rates reduces cigarette consumption.
Finally, the cigarette tax rate should be high enough to cover the government's portion of healthcare costs due to smoking. To accomplish this, at least a $3/pack cigarette tax rate is needed at both the state and federal levels.
And Bill, no State, read this again, NO STATE, was in as bad of a financial mess or budget deficit as they have been in since the creation of tobacco control and your higher cigarette taxes. They budget around them and they need them whether it is 50 cents a carton or $50 a carton. You promised them windfalls and we didn't give it to them so maybe it should be you bailing them out. I hear the PA turnpike is on the market too. Good job Bill.
There is only one reason to stop all excise taxes.
"Excise: a hateful tax levied upon commodities and adjudged (determined) not by the common judges of property but wretches hired by those to whom excise is paid"
-A Dictionary of the English Language, 1755
.
You know what? If people who smoke were appreciated, maybe they would be more than happy to help fund budget shortfalls, subsidize disease-care for the poor, build golf courses, and just about anything else anyone wanted.
You can't tax anyone as a symbol of blatant negative judgement against them and expect anything other than resistance. Just look at the American Revolution and go ahead and propose repeating history. Your future is clear.
.
The real questions which need to be asked;
If the tax by it's explanation is known to be targeting one group in society to the benefit of others and uses the term "coerce smokers to quit". Can this be sustained indefinitely as legal or moral?
Have any of the energetic and enthusiastic considered the repercussions, if a lawsuit convinced a judge or the supreme court the tax was in fact an illegal enterprise?
Who would be held accountable for compensating the victims and who among Public health agencies would retain credibility or an appearance of integrity, after they are linked to an illegal theft and an inspiration of bigotry?
Would the government be subsidizing the price of cigarettes, while investing taxes for decades to convince communities, there is nothing which should support hatred of people who choose to use cigarettes, to offset the slander campaigns they have been involved in.
Alternately, would the government simply be writing checks to tens of millions of people for damages likely in the 10s to 100s of trillions of dollars?
What would be the smoker prevalence after the situation was properly mitigated?
It seems pretty obvious, the writers of Boston Legal could have audiences in stitches in multiple episodes as Denny Crane goes on a campaign, to defend his right to smoke his prized Cuban cigars on the balcony of his corporate offices.
The hypocrisy and junk science employed by TC, would have the audiences looking down their noses at the old money medical charities and foundations for decades.
Bill have you ever considered you might be starting to sound like an old LP skipping and playing the same snip over and over again?
Are you old enough to remember the oft times heard saying; if cigarettes get to a dollar I am definitely quitting?
Initially researchers claimed increased taxation would make them too expensive for children and result in reduced youth smoking.
That was found to be wrong, because kids today have a lot more disposable income than what they have had in the past. Inflation has made the dollar much less valued than it once was. Increased cash paired with a lowered appreciation of that cash compared to generations in the past, means if you are to have an impact felt above the impact of inflation, the taxes would have to be extreme.
How many quit using their cars after tripling the price of the fuel?
The range necessary to convince anyone to quit would also create an interest in growing the black market. So where is the tipping point?
In Canada the lobbies recognized that a small increase of a dollar or two has no effect, so they ratcheted the move up to higher numbers, creating the ten dollar package of cigarettes.
The effect?
First and foremost every organized crime group on the planet started supplying the demand, and are likely close to providing the cigarettes serving 40% of the market today at less than one of tenth the price in the stores.
We are seeing increased smoking among youth, as they see the cigarette as a status symbol. Some can afford to smoke and others can not. So the angst to prove you are among the superior as opposed to the loosers is exaggerated.
This angst of financial competition to drive the right car, to have the right video game or phone and to prove they can afford to smoke, has moved into the realm of finding the cash by any means available, including the reality of increased crime rates.
So what benefit are you claiming?
Increased longevity produces more elderly people and more dependance.
Saving how much in healthcare expense?
First, no government programs are dependent upon cigarette tax revenue (as many other sources of government revenue are available to maintain funding for any truly vital programs).
Really? Then explain why the Arizona governor had been trying to fund and "early childhood education" program for years, but all refused any suggested increase in taxes - no matter how small - to fund it. The minute she mentioned a cigarette tax of 80-cents per pack to fund it.......it went on the ballot and was voted in. THAT was my breaking point and I stopped buying ready-made cigarettes and started making my own. I refuse to pay extortion, especially extortion that benefits ONLY those persecuting me.
Massachusetts also needed (DEPENDED)on an increased cigarette tax to fund it's new state-wide mandatory health insurance. A year later, the state was in dire need of more money and the cigarette taxes weren't enough to cover the outlay of health care costs that the majority were running up. According to the articles printed at the time, thousands were going to be losing the benefit since the state had no way to fund it.
SCHIPP is the same thing....they want cigarette taxes to increase the program and cannot increase the program without it as no one else wants to fund it.
Care to re-think that stupid statement of yours?
And don't play all dumb, you know damned well about at least the last two. You can google it all yourself and read about it again if you really want links.
Lynda is right here. If the government establishes a program based on cigarette tax revenues, then that program is dependent upon those revenues. Bottom line: if cigarette consumption falls, revenues to support that program will fall. Of course it is true that the government can find another source to pay for the program, but that's exactly my point.
But if they are expecting the majority of those existing smokers to reach their 70's, 80's and 90's before they die prematurely of smoking related diseases, thats a good source of revenue for a very long time.
Of course it is true that the government can find another source to pay for the program,
I maintain that this depends on the program. As seen here in Arizona, should cigarette taxes not support the governors pet program, then I seriously doubt anyone else will care to fund it since they didn't want to fund it from the start. This program IS solely funded via cigarette taxes.
THAT is why I refuse to support it. They throw me out of restaurants, threaten my job and housing and then want me to pay for "overpriced daycare" (which is really what this program is since it's for infants to 3 year olds) for their weakling offspring? KMA!!!
LyndaF
From the Telegraph
"According to formerly classified government records released today by the National Archives, in 1956 Macmillan dismissed the health risks posed by smoking as "negligible, compared with the risk of crossing a street".
"The enthusiastic pipe, cigar and cigarette smoker, it seems, was unconvinced over the scientific data emerging from the pioneering work of the epidemiologist Richard Doll, which had already established a firm link between smoking and cancer."
"Expectation of life 73 for smoker and 74 for non-smoker."
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...den-
836762.html
That of course was in the 50's, they had to soup up the study to cover the 12,000 deaths from the Great London Smog.
"For his part, Macmillan continued to smoke, and apparently suffered no ill effects. He was forced to stand down as prime minister in 1963 when he was wrongly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Macmillan lived another two decades – eventually dying a month short of his 93rd birthday"
Kevin wrote:
"Bill have you ever considered you might be starting to sound like an old LP skipping and playing the same snip over and over again?"
Vital health and economic facts (especially those that a vocal minority continuously attempts to discredit/denounce) deserve to be repeated over and over and over again.
Cigarette tax hikes are necessary to hold cigarette smokers, excessive drinkers and other high risk product consumers fiscally accountable for the government healthcare services they impose.
In the US, an average $3/pack state cigarette tax and a $3/pack federal cigarette tax would:
- cover most (but not all) government healthcare expenditures caused by smoking,
- reduce adult cigarette consumption by about 35%-40%, and
- reduce youth cigarette consumption by about 70%-80%.
That's a win, win, win.
But I agree that cigarette taxation has its limits, as the many fiscal and health benefits of cigarette tax hikes appear to diminish after the retail price surpasses $10/pack.
"Cigarette tax hikes are necessary to hold cigarette smokers, excessive drinkers and other high risk product consumers fiscally accountable for the government healthcare services they impose."
Bill
Could I just point out that I have not used the health service in 23 years, nor do I go to any bar, club, cafe or any enclosed public place any more , nor will I smoke in the street.
I don't drink, eat junk food and I'm not overweight.
Wouldn't you say that I'm due for a rebate if thats what the taxes are really for?
I've just realised that that is not quite true.
On a sunny day last summer I was walking past a cafe, it had tables outside with tableclothes and ashtrays on every one,then I saw a little sign in the window that said Smoking Encouraged, so I knew I was welcome.
Their coffee and homemade cake was delicious.
Cigarette tax hikes are necessary to hold cigarette smokers, excessive drinkers and other high risk product consumers fiscally accountable for the government healthcare services they impose.
Bill, if overall health care costs are bought under control and brought down to more reasonable levels, do you believe then that cigarette taxes should be reduced accordingly? And do you believe other sin taxes should be indexed accordingly too?
As I see it, the issue of health care costs is a bigger one than of cigarette taxes. One affects 5x as many Americans directly. While people should have their own specialties, I don't like how people assume the worst case--especially when (I assume) they likely believe the administration has plans to reduce health care costs/waste and make it affordable in other ways(generic drugs etc.)
There are hundreds upon hundreds of things blamed for all sorts of illnesses. Only a small minority of the population suddenly dies without warning (not talking about accidents) -- a quick and/or painless and/or peaceful death.
75% of the population DON'T smoke. Discounting the quick deaths, then about 75% of the population are incurring healthcare costs due to any number or combination of lifestyle choices that have been attributed to facilitating illness.
But no, kinds like Bill can, with a straight face, declare this neat list of those who burden the others with tobacco (especially tobacco), alcohol and "other high risk products."
Except, depending on the interests of medical groups "other high risk products" covers just about everything else the public consumes or engages in. So Bill's list really only constitutes two things.
Bill, until 75% of the population dies suddenly, quietly, and neatly in bed your biased (and irrational) targetting of tobacco for punitive taxation is fundamentally flawed. In fact, the non-smoking public should then be subsidizing smokers if you subscribe (which you do) to the philosophy that no one should pay more than the other. How can 25% of the population be costing the "rest of society" at 75% more??
Won't even bother going into statistics about how many of those 25% are victims of anti-smoking that attributes even a hangnail to smoking ("smoking-related" death) or those that don't even get sick. For argument's sake, don't the health heads like to say that "50% of smokers will die from a smoking-related illness"? So that cuts our end down to 12 1/2%.
Healthcare is CIRCULAR. ALL taxpayers pay for EVERYONE.
Though the most fundamentally flawed part of your position is that anyone can even consider putting a price on liberties -- the right to pursue happiness. We operate as individuals in this country, not a socialist collective where what each legally does (smoke cigarettes, drink beer, eat red meat, eat tater tots, sunbathe, etc. etc. etc.) is to be measured against the effect on the collective. You'll trade individual liberty at a cost line. That's a tyranny. And when govt. has too much power then it's a free-for-all as to what "high risk products" will make that list at which they can suffocate your liberty to pursue what makes you happy.
Here's a thought. How about everyone just pay their own bills and government stops putting their hands on our paychecks?! With the money we'd get to keep we can manage our own affairs!
(A horror of a thought to those that hold Bill's political views).
Someone needs to explain why healthcare cost so much more today than it did, say 15 years ago. I see and hear alot about donate for the cure, but I am not seeing a cure. Could it be that prices for medical care is exaggerated for a profit? Gee's we know how much CEO's of non-profits such as ACS, AHA and ALA makes, could my healthcare provider be raking in the cash too? I am finally recovering from 7 days of the a cold and nasty flu. The symptoms hasn't changed, the flu shot didn't work and the anti-biotics weren't much help either. You would think that healthcare would want to wipe this diseases right off the planet, but I guess there is money to me made with it, huh.
From the Telegraph
"According to formerly classified government records released today by the National Archives, in 1956 Macmillan dismissed the health risks posed by smoking as "negligible, compared with the risk of crossing a street".
"The enthusiastic pipe, cigar and cigarette smoker, it seems, was unconvinced over the scientific data emerging from the pioneering work of the epidemiologist Richard Doll, which had already established a firm link between smoking and cancer."
"Expectation of life 73 for smoker and 74 for non-smoker."
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...den- 836762.html
That of course was in the 50's, they had to soup up the study to cover the 12,000 deaths from the Great London Smog.
"For his part, Macmillan continued to smoke, and apparently suffered no ill effects. He was forced to stand down as prime minister in 1963 when he was wrongly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Macmillan lived another two decades – eventually dying a month short of his 93rd birthday"
Richard Doll was the British doctor who discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer. Here's what he said about the risks of shs.
"His findings have sometimes sparked controversy. So too has the man.
In 2001, he riled the anti-smoking lobby after appearing to downplay the risks from second-hand smoke.
In an interview on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, he said: "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/heal...th/
3826939.st...
In Ohio, a year after the comprehensive smoking ban, 8 Senators have introduced a bill: SB346 to provide exemptions to the ban for family-owned businesses and private clubs. I have attached a letter the Senator wrote to the SmokeFree organization a short while ago.
Smoking bans are raging through the country and the world, and much of what we read is based upon poor science and exaggerated claims. Read the results of the largest study ever conducted on shs. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm...
Smoking bans are not about health. They are about money and control and the movement toward prohibition. Read how and when this movement started. "In 1975, British delegate to the World Health Organization, Sir George Goober informed that august body of the means by which smokers could be encouraged to quit:“foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily” to secondhand smoke." http://fightantismokertyranny.bl...ogspot.com/
20...
Hiya linda........keep up the great work
I may kick this up to the next thread but:
Obesity and the potential recession/depression
If an increase in the tobacco tax, ostensibly to fund health care, results in people having less money, too, doesn't that put people at greater risk for obesity? We hear about the obesity epidemic.
I don't think anti-tobacco advocates can live in a bubble on this one. Here we have a plausible theory that higher cigarette taxes can increase obesity. It's based on data already present. And many anti-tobacco advocates(who invariably say, raise taxes) are also anti-obesity, but their causes are kind of at odds here.
The solution can't be to tax more and more.
Andrew
Passive Obesity
"Evidence that obesity could be contagious was published yesterday by American researchers - and washing your hands could be an elementary step to avoiding the virus and becoming overweight.
A team led by Dr Leah Whigham, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, found that the human adenovirus Ad-37 causes obesity in chickens, marking the third virus to be linked to being overweight: two related viruses, Ad-36 and Ad-5, also cause obesity in animals.
Moreover, Ad-36 has been associated with human obesity, leading researchers to suspect that Ad-37 also may be implicated"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ke-a-cold'
.html
Commenting by HaloScan
