Resolved: Cigarette Taxes are a Very Bad Thing

Great Debates
1

Today our newspaper had an article about how our provincial government is becoming addicted to tobacco taxes, which raised $780 million dollars for the government last year.

I submit that tobacco taxes are an abomination and a social injustice. I’m having a hard time seeing how anyone can support them.

From a Libertarian standpoint, tobacco taxes are an infringement on freedom. The government has absolutely no business punishing people with taxes to ‘encourage’ them to give up behaviour they choose to do.

From a social justice standpoint, tobacco taxes are highly regressive. Not only is the tax flat for all income categories, but poor people tend to smoke more than rich people. Which means that the government raised its revenue by $780 million dollars largely on the backs of the poor and middle class.

From a health standpoint, tobacco taxes don’t change behaviour all that much. Tobacco demand is highly inelastic, which means it doesn’t change much with changes in price. Here in Alberta, we tax Cigarettes $4 per package (over the counter, cigarettes are $10 a pack). And yet, smoking went up 1.6% last year.

So it seems to me that whether you’re on the left or the right, you should be opposed to tobacco taxes. So who is left to defend them? The puritans, the nanny-statists, and the government itself, which can spot a nice source of revenue a mile away.

Should tobacco taxes be eliminated?

2

Example:

A mother wants her son to make his bed in the morning. If he doesn’t make it, she nags on him. He never makes his bed, so she just ends up naging constantly until he finally moves out, goes to college, and complains about what a nagger his mom is.

Was Mom wrong? Should Mom to just have shut up and got on with it?

You can argue it either way. Personally, I’m voting for Mom.

3

“Mom” is not a democratically elected government ruling over adults.

Of course you get the double whammy from the social engineers on this issue: it’s supposedly OK to tax tobacco since smokers incur added health costs, and we all know that health costs are a societal issue.

4

First, I don’t think cigarettes should be banned (their use highly restricted–no smoking in restaurants and bars, fine with me–but not banned). Banning cigs would be just another battle in that debacle known as the War on Drugs, which I firmly oppose.

When cig taxes are high enough, however, that’s a kind of junior prohibition. It doesn’t work, either: you start getting smuggling via individuals or organized crime. So I am opposed to taxes that are at that level. And, even below that level, in many states now the price of cigs is just absurd: what does a pack cost in NYC, something like $7.00?!

No, I don’t smoke.

But all that doesn’t lead me to believe that any cig tax is wrong or to be avoided. The very inelasticity coupled with the fact that smoking is both completely optional and unhealthful is what makes it a good object for taxation. Smokers put a greater burden on the health-care system, and cigarette taxes are one way for them to help pay for their idiotic habit (not that that’s what happens to the money right now).

In general, however, sales taxes are regressive and should be eliminated. Different topic, but you mentioned regressive taxes, and that’s the granddaddy of them all.

5

I hate cigarette smoke. My parents smoked and it was awful. It’s a filthy, disgusting habit. Tax 'em out of existence, just don’t raise my property taxes or any other taxes when they’re finally gone, and the money is no longer coming in, because that would be…well… uncool.

6

The gigantic financial burden smokers place on the heathcare system (including in the form of higher health insruance premiums) more than justifies taxation. If anything, the taxes are too low.

Or, if you get rid of taxes, then deny insurance coverage, or jack up the premiums, for people who have health problems attributable to smoking.

I prefer the first option, frankly.

“Resolved.” What an asswipe way of presenting a debate.

:rolleyes:

7

A. We elect them to look after us and do what’s in our best interest even if our lives would be easier if we didn’t have to. Can you say that not taxing smoking would be any different than not taxing a company which pollutes? It’s just moving it from the corporate to the individual level.
B. If we democratically elected them–well, isn’t that kind of saying something to you? For instance, that the majority of everyone thinks those taxes are A-okay.

“Ain’t nobody saying you can’t do it. Ain’t no one stoppng you from doing it. All we’re saying is that its silly, you’re wasting your money on something that hurts yourself, makes you smell foul, and annoys everyone around you; where you could just go out and buy some Playboys for simular stimulus. So if you want to do it then fine, but we’re not going to make it easy on you.”

Sounds like a parent-child issue to me.

8

I think it’s a fairly standard form for laying out an argumentative position in formal debates.

See Debate Format

9

If you pollute, you do harm to me. If you smoke, you only do harm to yourself. Big difference.

True, as far as it goes. But I really should have said as that “Mom” is a dictator. She is not a good model for government, unless you want to be governed by a dictator.

Just as “Mom” is not a good model for government, “children” is not a model for citizens.

10

Do you or anyone else have a cite that all of this tax money is being used to remove the healthcare financial burden caused by smoking? If 100% of it is being funnelled into a health fund for smoking related ailments, I’ll get on board. Otherwise, I’m with Sam.

11

Fine. Being (formerly) ignorant of debate format, I withdraw the comment and apologize.

Somehow I always thought the word was “resolve,” not “resolved.”

12

I’d like to go off topic for a moment.

ARRRRRRGH

It’s either “$780 million” or “780 million dollars.” Not both!

Thanks.

Now, back on topic:

I see the problem, Sam, and it’s much the same with gambling revenues. I don’t see an easy solution, though, and I’m philosophically in favour of taxation that a person can opt out of. I know smokers are addicted and “opting out” of this particular tax is easier said than done, but my personal level of sympathy for junkies who have to pay a tax to get their fix is pretty low.

No matter how you slice it, a consumption tax on an unnecessary purchase isn’t remotely comparable to taxes on income and such. It may be regressive but it’s still optional, and so it’s just not the same thing.

I submit that tobacco taxes are an abomination and a social injustice. I’m having a hard time seeing how anyone can support them.

From a Libertarian standpoint, tobacco taxes are an infringement on freedom. The government has absolutely no business punishing people with taxes to ‘encourage’ them to give up behaviour they choose to do.

From a social justice standpoint, tobacco taxes are highly regressive. Not only is the tax flat for all income categories, but poor people tend to smoke more than rich people. Which means that the government raised its revenue by $780 million dollars largely on the backs of the poor and middle class.

From a health standpoint, tobacco taxes don’t change behaviour all that much. Tobacco demand is highly inelastic, which means it doesn’t change much with changes in price. Here in Alberta, we tax Cigarettes $4 per package (over the counter, cigarettes are $10 a pack). And yet, smoking went up 1.6% last year.

So it seems to me that whether you’re on the left or the right, you should be opposed to tobacco taxes. So who is left to defend them? The puritans, the nanny-statists, and the government itself, which can spot a nice source of revenue a mile away.

Should tobacco taxes be eliminated?
[/QUOTE]

13

Agreed. If cigs had some real social cost, there might be an economic rationale for taxing them. But I don’t buy it. Looking purely at the government expenditure side of things, smokers SAVE the rest of us money by dying early. That’s may be a cold and sick reality, and it sure doesn’t count the cost of the misery early death causes, but smokers do in some sense choose to cause all that aspect voluntarily.

Of course, what’s REALLY stupid is both taxing AND subsidizing the product at once: which is just what we currently do with farm subsidies to tobacco growers and then taxes at the retail end!

14

Should the government take in more revenue on this product than the companies that produce, package, and distribute it?

Sure it is. Because most incomes are unnecessary beyond a certain rate. You can make the “unnecessary” argument about everything.

15

Does it matter? The burdens smoking bears on society are not so clear cut, with clearly defined boundaries. It’s just the healthcare industry itself. Much of the burden is hard to quantify–for example, how are you going to account for the cost of cleaning up and disposing of cigarette butts off streets and parks? Stopping fires created by careless disposal of still burning cigarettes (of which there are several each year, some serious)? Etc.

I would nevertheless be interested in knowing what percentage of tobacco taxes is used for healthcare and smoking prevention/addiction treatment.

Anyone?

Doesn’t this argument also bear on all such “vice” taxes in general? There are many, not merely those for tobacco. In a nutshell, are “vice” taxes a bad idea in general?

I’d like to see longer-term statistics before immediately jettisoning the idea that cigarette taxes are not a deterent.

16

True, but I would like to think that we should still be allowed to care about you. You may only be damaging yourself–but that still means someone’s getting hurt.

Governments are dictators. Through elective representation, we are able to create a dictator we trust. And though checks and balances, we are able to make sure those representatives continue to operate based on our best interest instead of their own.
Don’t think otherwise, stop paying your taxes, and see how that turns out.

No, one would hope that we would all behave maturely and make our beds. But, not all of us do.

But, in the end, I think that the main issue is that I could draw out thousands of ways in which you expect the government to be absolute and authoritarian, and you will never view it as such until the moment it does something authoritarian that happens to effect you negatively.
So, come up with a different argument than “whether or not government has the right”, and I’ll debate that. But I’m never backing down on the legitimacy of “Mom.”

17

There is no consensus that smoking costs society money. In fact, it may be the opposite.

The fact is, the last year of ANYONE’S life is expensive from a health care standpoint. Whether you die of Alzheimers or heart disease when you are 85, or die of lung cancer when you are fifty, the health care system is going to expend a lot of effort keeping you alive.

But show me where dying of cancer at 50 puts more of a burden on the health care system than, say, a long slow deterioration until you are 90.

And if you die of lung cancer at 50 or 60, you just prevented the state from having to pay you social security benefits for a few decades.

And as ways to die go, is lung cancer particularly expensive on the health care system? Treatment is fairly standard - you get some chemo, maybe a surgery, then palliative care for a few months. Lung cancer also acts fairly quickly.

But the argument that society has a right to stop you from doing dangerous things because it has to pick up the tab for health care is one of the biggest reasons why I don’t support socialized medicine. To me, giving the state the right to dictate your behaviour is obnoxious. And where do you draw the line? Do you know how much of a burden on the health care system comes from softball games? Or dirt-bike riding? Or overeating?

Do you really, really want the government to start poking into your private life to make sure you maintain your body in such a way as to maximize the state’s health resources? Do you think it should have that right? I sure don’t.

Knorf said:

You know, before you decide to take a personal cheap shot at someone, you might want to make sure you know what you are talking about. Otherwise, you might accidentally make yourself look not just obnoxious, but stupid. And no one wants that.

Alternatively, you could just lay off the cheap shots in Great Debates.

18

It’s not that simple–they also rack up huge medical bills and pollute the environment before they go.

19

Apparently you missed (or ignored) my apology.

20

Not to belabor the point too much, but you did not apologize. You ‘withdrew’ the comment because it was factually incorrect. If it had in fact been ‘resolve’ instead of ‘resolved’, I take it you still would have been proud to have leveled that little shot.

In any event, since you clarified that it was in fact an apology, I accept. Let’s not hijack the thread further.