Posted on 02/04/2002 3:20:51 PM PST by Max McGarrity
Back in the '80s the Cabazon Indians of Indio, Calif., sent up some smoke signals in the form of ads in the back pages of the National Enquirer. They were offering tax-free cigarettes by mail.
And why not? You can buy a $30,000 diamond ring in Chicago, have it mailed to your home in Florida, and never pay a single cent of state tax. You can order $5,000 worth of clothing from the J. Crew catalog and avoid tax unless there happens to be a J. Crew store in your state. All the Cabazons were doing is avoiding state taxes by turning it into an interstate transaction.
But the Cabazons got hammered. State attorneys general sued their loincloths off until they finally withdrew the ads and shut down their smoke shop altogether. (They turned to gambling instead, and their successful fight to establish their Fantasy Springs Casino resulted in a landmark Supreme Court decision that led directly to the Indian Gaming Act and is responsible for all the Indian casinos we have today, God bless 'em.)
But now that the Cabazons have more cash for lawyers, I really wish they would take another crack at the mail-order tobacco thing -- because, by the end of this year, we're gonna end up with smoking-induced poverty. Last week the governor of Connecticut, John Rowland, announced that he would propose a 61-cent-per-pack (!) increase in the state cigarette tax, which is ALREADY 50 cents, or five cents more than the national average. That would be $1.11 right off the top, or more than a nickel per fag. And this governor, by the way, is a Republican.
New York is even worse. They ALREADY charge $1.11 a pack, forcing people to take out small business loans every time they wanna smoke, but Gov. George Pataki -- ALSO A REPUBLICAN -- wants 39 cents more, to round that figure off at a cool buck fifty.
In other words, it's Dogpile On The Smoker Time again. Guys who would normally oppose any kind of tax increase think it's okay to treat smokers like al Qaida prisoners in shackles. Don't like it? Call your ambassador in Guantanamo.
In Oregon the governor wants 30 cents more, for a 98-cent tax, plus extra taxes on beer and wine. In Kansas the governor wants to tack 65 cents on the current 24-cent tax -- let's see, that would be, uh, just a 271 PERCENT INCREASE. Jesse Ventura in Minnesota wants to ratchet up HIS tax from 48 cents to 77. And tax-crazy Indiana, which already has the highest taxes on gambling in the country, wants 39.5 cents added to the current 15-cent tax AND more money from the riverboat casinos.
But you've gotta love the simplicity of Oklahoma. They currently have a 23-cent tax. Let's just make that an even ONE DOLLAR and 23 cents. That would be an increase of ONLY 535 per cent. All I can say is thank God for the Chickasaw Smoke Shop on Interstate 35.
Excuse me for recalling my lessons from ninth grade civics class, but wasn't there a time when sales taxes of any kind were considered the most regressive form of taxation in our nation's history? Isn't every thing else -- property tax, income tax, even a flat tax -- considered MORE equitable? Then you have the old principle of not taxing one portion of the population at the expense of another. How absolutely quaint that one is.
This particular tax is so regressive that it's not only collected at the point of sale, but it's collected on ONE PRODUCT. (I feel like I should say one LEGAL product, since no one seems to remember that, oh yeah, that's right, cigarettes ARE allowed, aren't they?) You can't get any more regressive than that because it actually punishes one segment of society -- in this case, a minority segment, so they're essentially powerless -- and redistributes the money to the non-smokers.
On that basis alone it's Communist and anti-Republican, but if you add to that the fact that you're also punishing a particular industry -- I mean, why not tax sugar-cured country ham at Cracker Barrel, which takes three weeks off your lifespan every time you eat there? -- then it becomes a punitive business tax, one thing you would think the Republicans would oppose.
What this amounts to is a form of modified Prohibition, but instead of going after illegal moonshiners, we're putting the whammy on LEGAL farmers, manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers AND consumers.
The New York Times gave a quaint explanation, using Gov. Rowland's description of it as "a voluntary tax." In other words, if you don't like the tax, you can just ALTER YOUR LIFESTYLE. How very Stalinist of you, governor.
But the Times analysis goes further: "First, there are clear health advantages to making cigarettes less affordable, particularly for teenagers, whose smoking habits are highly influenced by the cost."
In other words, let's TAX THE POOR! It will be good for 'em.
A second reason, more to the point, is that cigarette taxes "hit only people who smoke, a minority, thus limiting the political damage."
Well, hell, if you want to limit the political damage by taxing people who aren't numerous enough to hurt you at the polls, put a tax on yachts, Ferraris, caviar, or, for that matter, anchovies. Once again, the subtext here is let's tax the POOR PEOPLE who are in the minority.
But here's the capper New York Times reason: "Polls of dedicated smokers even suggest that many welcome higher cigarette taxes as an incentive to quit."
Where were these polls taken? I wasn't polled. This sounds like the same pollsters who told us that eight-year-old boys would start smoking because they liked Joe Camel. I haven't heard anyone around the bars saying, "Damn! If they would just RAISE THE PRICE a little bit on these Benson & Hedges, I wouldn't like 'em so much."
Why don't we just call this what it is? A morality tax. People who hate smokers have banned them from bars and restaurants, run them out of office buildings, even run them away from the sidewalks OUTSIDE office buildings, and for basically the same Carrie Nation reasons that led to Prohibition in the '20s. Even if the smoke is 30 miles away from their own lungs, they JUST DON'T LIKE IT.
The Indians invented smoking. Tobacco is the original American farm product. That's why I'm counting on some Native American intervention here. They're asking for a black market. I say let's give it to 'em.
--
Joe Bob Briggs writes a number of columns for UPI and may be contacted at joebob@upi.com or through his Web site at joebobbriggs.com. Snail mail: P.O. Box 2002, Dallas, TX 75221.
This is one great article, we do see more of them now, don't we.
Like what? As long as the premiums are
jacked up to cover the risk, there isn't
much you can't get insured against. Smoke?
Sure. That's a triple premium. Capitalism
rules.
By the way, I thought (anecdotally) that journo's as a group were pretty big smokers. That's why I've always been so puzzled by the way they've lent themselves to the attack on smokers. Anyone know?
Guess you can't be too rude to an obese person either.
TightSqueeze, what are you doing on Free Republic??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.