I don't know if any of you have heard about the new proposed tax on cigarettes. We are not talking cents here. We are talking over a 1.50 a pack in some states. This to me is totally outrageous. Your thoughts?

Why? The government has the right to set taxes as it sees fit.

Even being a smoker myself, I can understand the justification for high tobacco taxes. Smoking causes a massive number of health-problems, which generally lead to care being paid for by the state. It only makes sense that those who create an expense should be expected to pick up most of the tab for it. Also, there is certainly a deterrent effect for youngsters, just because they're so expensive with the added taxes.

In Massachusetts, the tax on a pack of cigarettes is $1.40... Its lead allot of people to quit, moved them to consider quitting, or prevented them from starting in the first place. The impact has been very positive, and if it means I have to suffer a little bit to pay it until I can drive myself to quit, then so be it. I'd say that the overall effect is worth it in the long run.

I disagree. It is government BY THE PEOPLE. The government does not have a brain and can not make an independent action without the consent of the people.

I would like to learn more about this tax. Any articles or legislation I may read, mom?

Quite. The majority of the people don't smoke, and don't like to either breathe in the second-hand smoke of those that do, nor do they want to pay inflate health insurance costs to subsidise the care of those that suffer from smoking-related illnesses. (Any health insurance system, public or private, has to spread costs across all it's clients, not just the ones who use health services.) Your government, in taxing tobacco, is following those wishes.

There's no infringement of your right to smoke (unlike the restrictions on where and when you can smoke in states like California, which have not been removed under constitutional challenge and therefore, in every real sense, do not infringe constitutional rights) as there are no proposals on the table for an outright ban. It's just straightforward economics - smokers cost a country more than they generate.

This is thought to be true even where tobacco taxes are far higher than is likely for the foreseeable future in the USA, such as the UK (where they cost about $6.50 for a pack of 20).

If you don't want to pay inflated tobacco taxes, the easiest solution is to stop smoking. Which has the happy side-benefit of helping you live longer and being healthier while you do it.

You'd never know I used to smoke, would you?

For the record, I've never smoked a cigarette in my life

Isn't the saying so true that ex-smokers are worse than non-smokers?

-giggling-

I'm an ex-smoker myself so I can make that statement.

I personally was very glad the last time they raised the taxes because it finally was enough for me to overcome the habit. I truly wanted to quit for soooooooooooooooo many years but I just COULDN'T. Making it too expensive was a great motivating factor for me.

When I lived in Florida there was a liberal radio talk show host who said higher taxes on cigarettes was an added tax burden on the poor. This was in the Tampa area about 6 years ago and I cannot remember his name to save the life of me, It was Bob ....something grrrr

What does anyone think of this analogy?

I have mixed feelings about the burden on the poor.

Since I had such an incredibly hard time overcoming the addiction, I can say that it is a burden, although I wasn't poor. To imagin that someone out there will buy cigarettes instead of food is a sad thought. People do need to realize that it's a very REAL addiction.

Did anyone see the anti-smoking commercial where they read the tobacco company documents -- Project SCUM (Subculture Urban Marketing)?

There really should be some accountability to these corporations for their tactics. To actually target the poor as a market is truly irresponsible when you consider the financial burden of the addiction.

Therefore, I hold the corporations responsible for the burden, not the government taxes. As elsewhere stated in this thread, the taxes do support the additional health costs in our country as a result of this industry.

As of 1995, those who earn less than $30,000 per year purchase 47% of all tobacco sold according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Given the highest of that range, $30,000, and for easy math about $20,000 adjusted income after taxes and deductions, and a price increase of $1.50 per pack, this equates to a 2.7 percent of a person's total salary.

These tax increases, while not aimed at the poor, clearly affect the poor the most.

The irony of the situation is that the money confiscated as a result of the sin taxes is meant to pay for health expenses for smokers. However, there has already been a tobacco settlement that was supposed to cover this.

Where I used to live, in Illinois, this confiscated money never makes it to the intended destination. We got the "Illinois First" program, one of the biggest social spending programs in Illinois history.

But I digress.

If the true goal of these sin taxes is to cover the cost of smoking-related healthcare, I must propose something equally as ridiculous.

Each year, millions of people die as a result of heart disease and arteriosclerosis. It is the number one killer. As a result, the American tax payer foots the bill for millions, if not billions, of dollars worth of medical treatment.

Could this be avoided? Sure, with a massive tax on fat. People who eat beef, pork, chicken, potato chips, anything with butter, fat, or oil, are intentionally ingesting a chemical that is known to cause disease and death, and certainly increases the burden on the American tax payer.

The ridiculousness of these taxes is incredibly evident. Good thing I pay $1.40 per pack TOTAL, and don't pay a single penny of taxes. (You can too. PM me if you want to know how.)

Mike

I have to disagree on that point. You cannot blame a company for advertising to a group that is more likely to buy your product. Is Rogaine going to market to 20 year olds with plenty of hair? No, because they are not the people who are going to buy it. As if to say, those poor "ignorant" people are just so susceptible to evil marketing ploys, but the middle class "smart" people are not susceptible to these tactics. It does not make sense. As for the tax, I find it a bit of a contradiction that the governments taxes the bejeeezus out of tobacco to pay for things, but then pass ordinances that don't allow people to smoke anywhere. I for one do have a problem with the so called "sin taxes" on liquor, tobacco, etc. As Mike mentions above, what's to say they are not going to start doing the same thing to cheeseburgers or pizza? I agree with Jaime that there cannot be this attitude of gov't "I know better how to take care of yourself than you do." Smoking is unhealthy, pure and simple, but so is drinking excessively and eating Fried Chicken everyday. I know smoking is addictive, but if you want to quit you can. You cannot use the excuse that it was so great when the gov't made cigarettes $10 a pack because I could not make myself quit, but then I had to. If you take that route, someone who cannot stop eating 3 BicMacs a day may wish that the gov't would increase taxes on them and make them $10 a piece, so they will be forced to stop. That is a dangerous trend when we start relying on the govt' to do things for us that we should be doing ourselves.

I don't follow this line of reasoning at all. The will of the people is represented in the election process. Are you saying that the government has no right to set taxes? Because Article 1 Section 8 says otherwise:



I don't see anything in there about seeking consent from the people.

For the record I think the idea of a sin tax is flawed, but there is nothing wrong or illegal about taxing a product.