Higher cigarette tax needed to cut smoking, backers say

The Courier-Journal ^ | February 14, 2004 | MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER

[sarcasm]

Gov. Ernie Fletcher must think bigger if he wants an increase in the cigarette tax to be as good for the state's health as he expects it could be for its budget, health advocates warned yesterday.

While smoking opponents said any tax increase is good news, they also said it would take at least a 75-cents-a-pack jump in the price of cigarettes to persuade enough smokers to quit to make a big difference.

[sarcasm]

.

[skip2myloo]

These dad gum politicians aren't interested in stopping anybody from smoking -- they're trying to raise money on the backs of the people with "sin" taxes because they think they can get them passed.

Sure, I'll vote for any tax that gores somebody else's ox - just leave ME alone.

Stupid politicians - what's worse, stupid voters.

This governor ought to be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail for having the gumption to stand in public and offer such insane rationale.

Humankind has been smoking some kind of noxious weed since before recorded history -- and they're gonna keep right on doing it.

In fact that's what this idiot governor is counting on -- he wants to tax something that will never go away - provide a revenue stream he can count on !!

If he wants to stop smoking, instead of a tax -- he should propose a bill that outlaws tobacco sales and use in his state.

Besides doesn't he know that a tax on tobacco is just gonna hurt the po' folks in his state ??

[leadpenny]

No! It's for the children.

We must tax the cigs so the money can be used to stop those under 18 from ever getting started. Then, when the children turn 18 we need them to smoke so they can pay the cig tax to be used to stop those under 18 from ever getting started. Then, . . .

Please stop me if I repeat myself.

. . . when the children turn 18 we need to . . .

[JoeSixPack1]

"It's bad because they often don't age-verify and they don't pay taxes. That is illegal. They are promoting a policy that is promoting illegal activity."

But taxation specifically applied to stiffel the legal sale of a product is legal? The nannies have gone insane.

[skip2myloo]

It is absolutely insane -- the government taxes our incomes, booze, cigarettes, cars, boats, airplanes, telephones, ammunition, guns, food, medicine, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

The genie is out of the bottle, don't know if we can ever regain control. The founding fathers enumerated the 18 specific duties of the federal government in the Constitution -- yet, "we the people" have stupidly, and passively, let the scalawags use our own money to bribe us while they grow government like a cancer. To feed that cancer, they're taxing the bejesus out of us.

The anti-smoking crowd says, well the government needs that money to pay the increased health care costs of smoking-related disease.

Instead of raising taxes, the answer is to get the government OUT of the health-care business, change the whole paradigm back to the limited role the government is supposed to be playing in our lives.

To run government, we need a national sales tax, say 15% (for the sake of argument). You buy a $1M in consumer goods, you pay $150,000 in taxes - simple. You buy $10K in consumer goods, you pay $150 -- what in the world is unfair about that ??. The cost of compliance plummets, you can reduce the size of government, especially the damned IRS.

No need to create the facade of taxing corporations, they don't pay any taxes anyway. I paid more federal income tax in 2002 than the whole friggin' CSX railroad. In fact, ANYBODY who paid any taxes paid more than CSX - because they paid NO TAX in 2002, nor the preceding 3 years !!

In 2002, in addition to "normal" business costs -- AOL wrote off an additional $99 Billion (that's a BIG B) in losses. I don't know for a fact, bus I suspect AOL didn't pay any federal income tax in 2002 either. Go check out Enron, MCI and all the other behemoth corps that claimed losses.

It's insane -- we've got to put a lid back on somehow.

Off soapbox, you just stirred my pot :)

[Wonder Warthog]

"TAX INCREASES are counterproductive," said Mark Smith, director of public affairs for Brown & Williamson Co., the Louisville-based cigarette manufacturer. "Nobody is going to quit smoking because the price goes up. They will just look to buy their cigarettes somewhere else."

"If he wants to stop smoking, instead of a tax -- he should propose a bill that outlaws tobacco sales and use in his state."

Neither of these will work. The final result of such actions will be that the tobacco trade will move into the underground economy, as was the case during the Prohibition ban on alcohol. The Mafia will just LOVE IT!!!!

[skip2myloo]

My proposal was not serious - it was intended only to portray the duplicitous nature of the governor's justification for a tax increase.

Tobacco is legal, it should stay that way.

I don't think it should be taxed either.

I don't use, but I don't care if others kill themselves using it.

If we take a long term view, even under the present system, even though the government may choose to subsidize some short-term healthcare costs for these folks, in reality they're gonna die young and save the taxpayer money overall.

[SheLion]

I'm working on another article. I will get back to this one!!!! Thanks for the ping!!!

[freekitty]

I agree with you.

[Gabz]

"The more expensive cigarettes are, the less likely they are to start," said Amy Barkley, a Kentucky field representative for the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington, D.C.-based anti-smoking lobby.

Barkley and other lobbyists said research shows that for every 10percent increase in the price of cigarettes, the number of adult smokers goes down 2percent, and teen smoking drops 6percent to 7percent.

Are these people EVER going to stop lying??????

Barkley is probably bucking for another raise...........

[johnb838]

Well, a corporation cannot pay any taxes anyway because it is a ficticious legal entity, and any revenue it has with with to pay taxes is by definition somebody else's money.

[The Raven]

What's REALLY killing people?

Car Accidents (alcohol)110,000/year
Socialism 11,112,212 /year (average)

[skip2myloo]

Exactly, to them it's all part of the cost of goods sold, in the end - it all comes out of the consumer's pocket anyway.

No need to make Corp's go through all that compliance BS and government bureaucracy.

I've been a salaried, working stiff all my life (not too smart).

A High School friend of mine went into business. After 20 years, was grossing about $12-14M a year. His corp bought him cars, airplanes, etc. The corp rarely made much money, if any -- paid less income tax than me.

The corp paid him a small salary, not much tax on that.

Lived on a "farm" -- "farm" was also a business. Leased about half of it to a farmer who grew soy beans on it -- the other half was in some kind of a soil bank, government paid him NOT to grow anything on it.

He was living large, paying a lot less tax thatn I did -- boy, am I stupid or what ??

[31R1O]

These people won't be satisfied until you see some poor b@st@rd on cops getting his door kicked in to seize his tobacco plants.

[Mears]

High taxes on cigs won't make me quit,I'll just go elsewhere,legal or not,to purchase them.

Low taxes on cigs will keep me buying cigarettes at my local convenience store,which would be good for my local economy, but I won't smoke more because they are cheaper.

Taxes have nothing to do with whether someone smokes and it has nothing to do with how much they smoke.I smoke what I smoke because I enjoy it and I'll be darned if I'll play the games that these silly politicians are trying to play.

All they are doing is making tax cheats out of formerly law abiding,tax paying citizens.What friggin' fools they all are.

[3catsanadog]

Let's megatax the smokers so that they all will quit and then we will transfer the smoker megatax to all taxpayers (non-smokers included).

[3catsanadog]

In Elizabethtown on Thursday, a pack of Marlboros was selling for $2.76.

Here in Pittsburgh, Marlboros are going for $4.40 a pack.

[Great Dane]

They are beginning to be comic releif.

[Great Dane]

Please stop me if I repeat myself.

But it bears repeating, again and again. :-}

[Just another Joe]

McGimsey, a telecommunications network manager, said he believes the tax increase would be fair because smoking costs taxpayers money for health care.

McGimsey, poor shmuck that he is, has drunk the kool-aid.

[Great Dane]

even though the government may choose to subsidize some short-term healthcare costs for these folks, in reality they're gonna die young and save the taxpayer money overall.

Smokers have paid for their own health care, and then some for the last 20-30 years, the cig taxes have assured that.

We do die younger..... well some of us, I am 70 my husband is 72, sorry if we overstayed our welcome. :-}

Oh, my dad lived to be 90, my mother inlaw didn't smoke, died at 77.

[Publius6961]

While smoking opponents said any tax increase is good news, they also said it would take at least a 75-cents-a-pack jump in the price of cigarettes to persuade enough smokers to quit to make a big difference.

Who made busibody twits the arbiters of how to get smokers to quit?
That they have been able to get government to muscle fellow citizens into "compliance" is a temporary condition, trust me.

Why don't they show as much enthusiasm in spending their time and energy into declaring tobacco products illegal? I'll tell you why... they fear the organized resistance of a large business opposing them. Both the tobacco industry and the tax users, the leeches.

About every three months I make the same proposal: about 25% of adults in the U.S are smokers. That represents roughly 100-120 million individuals. If even half of those smokers contributed $5 a month to a legal fund to counterattack these controlling pigmies in court, they would slink back under their rocks. $300 million a month would buy a lot of attention, and should be necessary but a short time. Why hasn't that happened?

[Publius6961]

I would sign up in a heartbeat. Many non-smokers would also. A small price to pay (about the cost of one pack of cigarettes) to rid ourselves of these losers once and for all. Think of it. Lawyers would also love it. 30,000 retainers a month of $10,000 each!

[SheLion]

Barkley and other lobbyists said research shows that for every 10percent increase in the price of cigarettes, the number of adult smokers goes down 2percent, and teen smoking drops 6percent to 7percent.

What are THEY smoking???!!!

[SheLion]

McGimsey, a telecommunications network manager, said he believes the tax increase would be fair because smoking costs taxpayers money for health care.

That's a bunch of BS and we all know it. I think something is in his water a lot stronger then KOOL-AIDE!

[Gabz]

I don't know - but it sure isn't tobacco..............

[SheLion]

I'm with YOU! If they want to ban smoking everywhere, then the Tobacco Settlement Money needs to STOP going into the state coffers. The smokers who pay taxes on cigarettes are paying for that anyway.

And they want to raise the tax AGAIN? Well, check out this map and see how much the taxes on cigarettes are in YOUR state!

[Publius6961]

What are THEY smoking???!!!

Let's be kind here....

By my reckoning then... an increase of 500% would instantly eliminate all smoking AND simutaneously increase tax revenue by 500%!
Brilliant!

wait a minute here... !

[csmusaret]

Poor joe. Don't you realize that non-smokers live forever and never need healthcare?

[Just another Joe]

Don't you realize that non-smokers live forever and never need healthcare?

I didn't know that, must be because I'm "Just another Joe". ;^)

[skip2myloo]

Life is full of choices -- and I think people ought to be able to make whatever choices they want.

I've made plenty of bad choices in my life, and so long as I don't harm anyone else, I don't want anybody interfering with my right to do so.

You raise another point worth highlihgting, tobacco taxes don't go toward helathcare anyway -- they go into general funds and get wasted on a whole lot of other nonsesne.

[Publius6961]

BUMP

[Great Dane]

You raise another point worth highlihgting, tobacco taxes don't go toward helathcare anyway -- they go into general funds and get wasted on a whole lot of other nonsesne.

I know they do, but the money is taken under the false pretense of HEALTHCARE.

[In_25_words_or_less]

If they really want to stop it, just ban it.

As if.

[skip2myloo]

Lie upon lie:

1) Taxes are for healthcare;

2) Taxes stop smoking.

The truth: taxes grow and sustain big government, line the pockets of politicians and corrupt further all those involved with their creation, collection and budgeting.

[leadpenny]

We do die younger..... well some of us, I am 70 my husband is 72, sorry if we overstayed our welcome.

You obviously did not read the instructions. You didn't smoke until you were 18 - very patriotic.

After that you smoked like a fiend and paid the cigarette taxes - even more patriotic.

But then you let the country down. You failed to notice that you ultimate patriotic duty was to die on the day you applied for Social Security benefits.

Duly noted in the Registry of Patriotic Responsibilities.

[JOE43270]

Here we go again, the government is going to save us! People don't buy tobacco products if they don't want them. I don't smoke, but I drink wine and nobody drags me in and makes me buy it. It's my choice. Which politian will get the condo in Florida this time.

[skip2myloo]

All of 'em !!

[Walkingfeather]

If cigrettes are more addictive that heroine and Heroine can be bought at any price do you really think there is a correlation between price and the willingness to consume. THese polititions have become the pushers and their heroine is money on the backs of the addicted.

[skip2myloo]

Its true - these politicians are corrupt.

But that's almost axiomatic, we EXPECT them to be corrupt.

The real problem is with the people, who are either too stupid or too apathetic and WE allow the politicians to get away with it.

[The Raven]

>>>IN THE MONTHS after cigarette taxes were sharply increased in New York City — where state and city levies can add $3 to each pack — the per-capita smoking rate stayed at about 91 packs a year, he said. Only about 71 packs per capita per year were reported to state and city tax collectors, he said.

Another plan that didn't work

[Beck_isright]

More moronic thinking brought to you by the people who created newspeak. If you disagree with the government official, please report to your local branch of the Ministry of Truth for corrective action.

[Walkingfeather]

so true so true

[CSM]

Does anyone know the rate of taxation on Tea in the colonial days? I would be curious to know what rates the fathers of our country found as unacceptable.