The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Tax those smokers!
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2977		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Micheal [ Wed May 19, 2010 12:51 am ]
Post subject:  Tax those smokers!
I'm not a smoker, never have been, never liked the smell or the taste. Growing up in California and knowing how much smokers are harassed and public smoking limited here, I thought we would have one of the highest excise taxes. Lots more information at the link.

Before the State taxes are added, everyone pays the federal $1 tax.

Big surprise, we don't. We're pretty low on the list truth be told. Biggest excise tax on cigarettes? Rhode Island, followed closely by Washington State and Connecticut. How does your state rank?

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Heal ... fault.aspx

Image
Author:  Lydiaa [ Wed May 19, 2010 12:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tax those smokers!
we just raised ours to above 400%

/sad panda
Author:  Rorinthas [ Wed May 19, 2010 8:11 am ]
Post subject: 
I see a trend here. As you would expect the states that grow the stuff have the lowest taxes
Author:  Ladas [ Wed May 19, 2010 8:49 am ]
Post subject: 
SC just raised their taxes on cigarettes by $.50 a pack, so it should be $0.57 on that map. However, that just passed yesterday, so no surprise the map is out of date.

BTW, here is a Smoking Rate by State if you want to compare that map to the tax map. Which is interesting, because the biggest argument from the tax supporters here was that it would decrease the state smoking rate, yet comparing the two maps, there doesn't seem to be a lot of correlation between tax rate and smoking rate.

Not that I support smoking, but this tax increase also came in the same year that the state government promised not to raise any taxes.
Author:  Aizle [ Wed May 19, 2010 8:58 am ]
Post subject: 
There really is no good reason not to tax the **** out of cigarettes/tobacco. My only wish is that the monies collected were funneled directly into health related programs related to smoking.
Author:  Rynar [ Wed May 19, 2010 9:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Aizle wrote:
There really is no good reason not to tax the **** out of cigarettes/tobacco. My only wish is that the monies collected were funneled directly into health related programs related to smoking.


Excepting economic reasons I assume?
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Wed May 19, 2010 9:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tax those smokers!
I read an article last year, apparently smuggling tobacco into NY is again profitable, who would have though they could raise taxes to the point where people would do something illegal rather then blindly pay a tax...
Author:  RangerDave [ Wed May 19, 2010 9:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Aizle wrote:
There really is no good reason not to tax the **** out of cigarettes/tobacco.


I disagree, actually. There are freedom of choice issues involved whenever the government decides that certain goods or activities are "luxuries" and/or "vices". That said, I do think it's legit to tax something because of the costs its use imposes on the health care system (externalities and all that), but in that case, the revenues should be spent exclusively on recouping those costs to the system. Otherwise, it's just a cash grab and/or a sin tax in disguise.
Author:  Ladas [ Wed May 19, 2010 9:49 am ]
Post subject: 
Or... you know, continue that line of thinking and make people responsible for their own personal choices, and the health care risks that follow.
Author:  RangerDave [ Wed May 19, 2010 9:55 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, for me it's a question of balancing responsibility for one's choices and compassion for those who make bad decisions. If someone chooses to smoke and to go without insurance, they are at least partly to blame (in terms of probabilities) if they end up getting cancer and can't afford the treatment. However, I think it would be immoral, verging on inhuman, to just shrug and let them die a horrible death in the street. Since most Americans feel the same way, we do pay for that person's treatment. So, to balance that out, I think it's ok to tax the risky activity up front.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Why only partly to blame? Are there not enough warnings? not enough data? Who takes the other part?
Author:  Dash [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeah I'd prefer to see heavy premium increases on healthcare policies as determined by insurers rather than a flat tax to the state. I dont like taxes being used as social engineering weapons.

Cigs in NYC are 10 bucks a pack I'm told! Holy ****. Good thing I quit.
Author:  Aizle [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Ladas wrote:
Or... you know, continue that line of thinking and make people responsible for their own personal choices, and the health care risks that follow.


If that were remotely possible, then I might agree with you. However, it's not. History has shown that people as a whole are not capable of accepting responsibility for their actions. And that society as a whole is not capable of forcing them to take responsibility. So unfortunately that leaves us with society having to try and mitigate and manage the risk to acceptable levels.
Author:  Aizle [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
RangerDave wrote:
Aizle wrote:
There really is no good reason not to tax the **** out of cigarettes/tobacco.


I disagree, actually. There are freedom of choice issues involved whenever the government decides that certain goods or activities are "luxuries" and/or "vices". That said, I do think it's legit to tax something because of the costs its use imposes on the health care system (externalities and all that), but in that case, the revenues should be spent exclusively on recouping those costs to the system. Otherwise, it's just a cash grab and/or a sin tax in disguise.


I agree with what you've said, but I think it misses a reality about cigarettes. Cigarettes have been created for the sole purpose of being the most effective way to introduce nicotine into the system. Nicotine is a horribly misclassified substance, more addictive than heroin. The entire nature of how cigarettes were engineered was designed to create a body of addicts that would keep buying a product. As such the whole entire cigarette industry is disgusting on a moral level, so I feel absolutely no sympathy for them. They made their bed and should reap what they sowed.

Now that said, in my mind cigars fall into a different category. They are much more like a fine wine or liquor, something to be savored periodically and enjoyed. I don't see a need for the same level of taxation or regulation on them as I do cigarettes.
Author:  RangerDave [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Rorinthas wrote:
Why only partly to blame? Are there not enough warnings? not enough data? Who takes the other part?


I say "partly" because it's impossible to determine that any particular risk factor is an actual cause of a specific person's cancer. It's just a probability thing. Smoking makes you x% more likely to get cancer, but that doesn't mean that if you do get cancer the smoking was necessarily the cause.
Author:  LadyKate [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Knowing the health risks and having tobacco cost more than you can afford are all good deterrents and good motivations but it still does not make it easier to quit.
Quitting is really hard. Even when you have excellent reasons for doing so (like oh I don't know, imminent death?) it does not make it easier to quit.
I think taxes should be spent on research on how to make quitting easier and on actual quitting programs. I am a quitter and the conventional methods of quitlines and gum and patches didn't do diddly for me. I had to quit cold turkey and go through the 5 stages of grief.
Thats where the tax money needs to go. Grief counseling for quitters.
Author:  Ienan [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Aizle wrote:
Ladas wrote:
Or... you know, continue that line of thinking and make people responsible for their own personal choices, and the health care risks that follow.


If that were remotely possible, then I might agree with you. However, it's not. History has shown that people as a whole are not capable of accepting responsibility for their actions. And that society as a whole is not capable of forcing them to take responsibility. So unfortunately that leaves us with society having to try and mitigate and manage the risk to acceptable levels.

Really? Based on what Aizle? I think people are incredibly responsible as a whole when they see the consequences of their poor decisions on a regular basis. When people cease to be responsible is when safety nets are created so they don't need to suffer the consequences of those unfortunate circumstances. America pre-21st century worked pretty darn well. And people were largely responsible for their own decisions. A lot of private charity (both organized and unorganized) existed when people fell on hard times. This only started to change around the time of the World War I and the Great Depression.

I also find it funny that you think cigars are okay, but not cigarettes. Who are you to determine that? Cigars are made of tobacco and it has nicotine in it. In fact, I believe there's higher levels. Who are you to say one is better but not the other? Cheap liquor exists and so does expensive liquor. Let people decide what they want. I'm going to guess you smoke cigars or have on ocassion. So it really comes down to the fact that you don't want cigars taxed because it would directly affect you. So you need to justify the decision. Mind you, I made a gigantic assumption, but one that I think is rooted in sound logic at least.
Author:  Aizle [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Dash wrote:
Yeah I'd prefer to see heavy premium increases on healthcare policies as determined by insurers rather than a flat tax to the state.


Unfortunately then we get people who don't have insurance getting horribly sick/injured because they aren't going to the doctor unless it's a dire emergency. The hospitals don't/can't turn them away so the hospital eats the cost, which they pass on to all patients.

It would be a worse version of the issues we have now with un/underinsured people.

Until as a society we are OK with the idea that a hospital will let someone die on their doorstep because they don't have insurance or the ability to pay for their medical costs, that line of thinking is untenable.
Author:  Hopwin [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Those are just state taxes, not some aggregate average right? They don't take into consideration any county or city taxes.
Author:  Aizle [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Ienan wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Ladas wrote:
Or... you know, continue that line of thinking and make people responsible for their own personal choices, and the health care risks that follow.


If that were remotely possible, then I might agree with you. However, it's not. History has shown that people as a whole are not capable of accepting responsibility for their actions. And that society as a whole is not capable of forcing them to take responsibility. So unfortunately that leaves us with society having to try and mitigate and manage the risk to acceptable levels.

Really? Based on what Aizle? I think people are incredibly responsible as a whole when they see the consequences of their poor decisions on a regular basis. When people cease to be responsible is when safety nets are created so they don't need to suffer the consequences of those unfortunate circumstances. America pre-21st century worked pretty darn well. And people were largely responsible for their own decisions. A lot of private charity (both organized and unorganized) existed when people fell on hard times. This only started to change around the time of the World War I and the Great Depression.


I said based on what. Based on history. There are countless examples of both people not being responsible, and perhaps more importantly, not being held accountable for their actions. Individuals certainly can be incredibly responsible. However, I believe that if you look at the larger public as a whole, you can see that people (vs a person) are not overly responsible, unless someone or something is forcing them to look at the big picture.

I also believe you have a romanticized view of how good things were in the past. And just as a point of clarification, the Great Depression was in the first 1/3 of the 21st century, so did you really mean pre-20th century?

Ienan wrote:
I also find it funny that you think cigars are okay, but not cigarettes. Who are you to determine that? Cigars are made of tobacco and it has nicotine in it. In fact, I believe there's higher levels. Who are you to say one is better but not the other? Cheap liquor exists and so does expensive liquor. Let people decide what they want. I'm going to guess you smoke cigars or have on ocassion. So it really comes down to the fact that you don't want cigars taxed because it would directly affect you. So you need to justify the decision. Mind you, I made a gigantic assumption, but one that I think is rooted in sound logic at least.


I am entitled to my opinion, just like everyone else, so that's who I am to determine that. You are correct that cigars share many qualities with cigarettes. For me, however, the key difference is intent and purpose. Cigarettes are not designed to be enjoyed. They are designed to get people addicted and to buy more cigarettes. Cigars are designed to be enjoyed. Savored.

I don't mind cigars being taxed. I said I think they don't deserve the same level of taxation as cigarettes. That is largely due to the fact that they don't present the same level of economic and health burden on society.
Author:  Amanar [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Who says hospitals aren't turning away people suffering from lung cancer who have no insurance? Hospitals are only required to stabilize patients who show up in the ER, not provide long-term cancer treatment.
Author:  Aizle [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Amanar wrote:
Who says hospitals aren't turning away people suffering from lung cancer who have no insurance? Hospitals are only required to stabilize patients who show up in the ER, not provide long-term cancer treatment.


They may be at the early stages. Eventually however, it will be well past those stages and the ER will not be able to stabilize them, and they will go to heroic efforts to save the patients life, at a significant cost.
Author:  Vindicarre [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:53 am ]
Post subject: 
It's an unending source of amusement and wonderment that the same people that rabidly decry the use of social engineering by governmental force in one area, applaud it and ask for more in another - right down to the same damn substance.

"Please Mr. Government Man we need stricter enforcement and tougher prosecution in our neighborhoods against this evil scourge of crack cocaine! Think of the effect this has on our children!"

"Damn you Mr. Government Man! Look at all our people you've locked up for their involvement in using/making/distributing/buying crack cocaine! How can you be so harsh with your prosecution of our people for crack when you don't do the same for powder cocaine? Think of the effect this has on our children!"
Author:  Aizle [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 
I believe you are mixing apples with oranges Vindi. These 2 topics really aren't related.
Author:  Vindicarre [ Wed May 19, 2010 12:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Your shortsightedness is impressive, but not surprising coming from someone who rails against the governmental imposition of Blue Laws in one breath and calls for increased taxation of tobacco (but not cigars) with the next. I'm sure you can't see the connections.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/