Tobacco tax? I'll pay for this without complaint.

Great Debates
21

Speaking as someone who has never smoked a cigarette in my life , and never intends to , AND who just watched her father die in May of this year because of these horrible things …

While I personally think making them ILLEGAL would be the best soloution to the problem , taxing the hell out of them would be almost as good . You wanna smoke ? Pay out the ass for it . I would applaude a $20 per pack tax .

Of course I don’t see that happening . Bad politics , dontcha know .

So people keep smoking , people keep dying . They keep forcing others to breathe their second-hand pollution .

I hate cigarettes .

22

No sooner was it announced that the tobacco settlement money would re-imburse Medicaid for expenses–past, present, and projected future-- related to
tobacco use, than a doubling of Medicaid drug co-pays went into effect. I know this because my mother-in-law is on Medicaid.

With all of that tobaccco company money coming in to reimburse Medicaid’s coverage of now-dead smokers, one would have thought that drug co-pays could have been held steady–if not reduced.

The only thing I’ve seen happen with the money is that militant anti-smoking groups, who already enjoyed tax-exempt status and were therefore depriving the treasury, are now being allowed to raid the treasury for “educational purposes” such as the Nebraska “I’m Sick of The Smoke” campaign which doesn’t educate young people about smoking’s dangers but which merely scolds and antagonizes present smokers.

I’m all in favor of the OP’s contention that tobacco taxes and tobacco settlement money should go to Medicaid, Medicare, and toward offsetting medical deductions for smoking cessation programs .

“Advocacy groups” who only wish to rub people’s noses in their problems, not posit solutions to them, should get no tax assistance from the government.

23

Tobacco is so disliked and smokers are in the minority so it’s a given that any tax is going to be popular. “I don’t smoke so go ahead and raise taxes!” Justifications for the high taxes on tobacco are pretty weak. Is it to raise funds because of all the money spent on smokers healthcare? No, if that were the case all the money raised by those taxes would actually go towards health care or public awareness campaigns. Should the government be in business of taxing in order to discourage people from bad habits? I don’t think so. Take heart, I’ve heard some serious grumbling about using simliar methods as the anti-tobacco folks against the food industry. It’s a relatively small voice now but who can say what the next 20-30 years will bring?

Marc

24

What about advocacy groups that do not wish “only rub people’s noses in their problems.”

Also, please, a cite that any such organization exists – one which defines its purpose as rubbing people’s noses in their problems and which government assistance. Thanks.

25

I understand the point you’re trying to make, but I don’t think this particular analogy fits well. It’s not like there’s a Fatty Foods Institute that promulgates studies and literature which purport to show that being obese is benign.

The government didn’t deem tobacco unhealthy, it is unhealthy. If you don’t think it is, I would suggest you start a new thread to debate that topic.

26

Sorry to hear that, as someone who as also had a family member die of cigarette related illness, I know it is hard. Though in my case, and his, we both smoke, and we both take personal responsibility for it. When he was hauling around the oxygen tank he harbored no ill will toward the cigarettes. He made the choice.

Yeah making things unsafe illegal is the key, I propose outlawing tobacco, fast food, motorcycles, hell driving period.

I will go for this stand as well, lets tax gas an extra 5$ a gallon, motorcycles we will just adjust to a 300% sales tax, fast food lets go 5$ per burger, and 5$ for fries with that.

Yeah bad politics collecting money to help fill the budget gaps.

Yeah I bet if you didn’t smoke you will live like forever!

Link (PDF)

Link

Link

And that was in 1990! Imagine the costs now! Must outlaw driving!

On preview I see Snowboarder Bo has this to say

 No this point is valid, because they are vilifying tobacco use to collect income, and next time a budget needs filled those same arguments will be used against another target.

Not saying it is not bad for you, because it is, but so are so many other things.

27

There comes a point where the ridiculously high taxes on a product make it cheaper to move the buying and selling of that product to the black market, where the taxes no longer need be paid. Britain has reached this point, with smuggling of tobacco commonplace. I think we may be reaching this point soon, if taxes on tobacco keep going up.

28

Sorry if I stepped on your toes , but I was simply stating my opinion . Higher taxing on gasoline … yes , driving is dangerous , BUT it is also a necessary evil . Does anyone HAVE to have a cigarette ? I think not . Fast food ? It is expensive enough already that I rarely eat it . And then there is the argument that you don’t hurt anyone but yourself by eating fast food and/or getting fat . Cigarette smoke hurts everyone around you . My obese body might not be attractive , but no one is gona die from looking at it .

I stand by my opinions . If the government had cared enough to step in and make the cancersticks harder to get , I might still have my father . He never harbored any ill-will toward the damned things either , right up till the end he refused to believe they could EVER hurt him , they were his “friends” .

His “friends” killed him , plain and simple .

29

Just anecdotal, but light smoking helps me control my severe anxiety and racing thoughts. I know other people for whom this is true as well. To say smoking has no health benefits whatsoever is patently untrue. Now, it’s also true that the health dangers of smoking outweigh the benefits for most people, by a large degree. But you can’t deny that for a small minority of people, smoking does confer a slight band-aid on a much larger problem.

As for the OP, I’m in favor of such an idea on principle but I don’t know how it would be carried out. What if some people, facing enormous healthcare costs, took up smoking just so they could get the free/reduced care? Would they be entitled to it just as much as a 40+ year smoker? Would a very light smoker like me (I smoke, at most, five cigarettes a day) be entitled to the same benefits as a heavy smoker? What about this: would I be entitled to free/reduced cost treatment for the condition that compels me to smoke in the first place?

It’s complicated situations like this that make one yearn for the simple solution of a public health system.

30

So? Are you arguing that we should raise taxes on unhealthy pursuits only if there exists a group claiming that they’re really healthy? What do past tobacco company transgressions have to do with the current tax rate on cigarettes?

So is fatty food. And driving. And a myriad of other common things. The difference is that government decided that smoking is worthy of ever increasing taxes on dubious grounds.

I think LostGoals analogy is quite apt.

31

What do cigarette prices work out to over there?

-Joe

32

Past tobacco company transgressions have to do with the tobacco settlement, not tobacco taxes. My post is quite clear on that, as I don’t even mention taxes until the final paragraph.

All we are dealing with so far is a hypothetical tax. As I wrote, I’m not aware of any tax that was enacted expressly for the purpose of funding the health care of smokers. The OP links to the tobacco settlement, Congressional testimony that is 12 years old, and to an article about a Minnesota tax which is not designated expressly as a smoker’s health care fund.

AFAICS you have your panties in a bunch because of a situation that does not exist. In any case, smoking is a choice. It isn’t necessary. Luxuries are taxed. You always have the option of not paying this tax. Just stop smoking.

33

We’re already almost at that point, as it stands Texas has one of the lowest cigarette prices in the nation and I still know tons of people that a) Import their cigarettes from overseas to avoid taxes* or b) buy several cartons at Indian reservations and then bring them home.

*US Customs recently cracked down on cigarette importation because it was becoming pretty widespread and was a legal gray area, and honestly still kind of is. The most popular website was out of Switzerland and can no longer ship to the US, but many people have turned to lesser-known sources out of Russia and other Eastern European countries. You can get a carton of of Camels or Marlboros for around $15 a carton. My mother lives in Paris (~$7 US per a pack now) and it’s cheaper for her to import cigarettes to the US, then have them shipped to her in Paris, than it is to buy them in Paris.

It would seem to me that in practice, we only raise taxes on unhealthy pursuits when peoplein said pursuit are a minority of the population and can be villified for it.

34

No our panties are in a bunch because of a situation that does exist, the heavy taxing of a legal product!
Your argument can go any which way!
Driving is’t necessary except for work, so any fun trips are to be taxed by the gallon of gas oh about 2$ per gallon.
If you have access to public transportation, owning a car is a luxury so I propose an additional 110% tax on the purchase of a car.
You always have the option of not paying this tax. Just stop driving. I showed where driving was dangerous anyway, it will save us in medical costs.
Eating fattie food is not necessary, so I propose an increase of tax on anything above X calories to 3$ per item. Eating fattening food is a luxury, Luxuries are taxed. You always have the option of not paying this tax. Just stop eating fatty foods.
I have also showed where this will save us medical costs.

I am all for the OP original intentions you smoke you pay tax you get that money back in healthcare if needed. But for this defending the tax, simply because your not paying the tax is wrong. All I am showing is the slippery slope, and by the looks of it, its getting even slicker.

Link
And I believe its only a matter of time before it happens, divide and conquer. Divide us up into, Smokers, Overweight people, ect. Then conquer us with taxes as we stand divided.

35

I haven’t noticed an answer to this. I’m not now a smoker so I looked it up and apparently 20 cigarettes in the UK retail at about £4.50 (just over $8 a pack)

Which is why (they say) 50% of fags in the UK are bought from abroad.
http://smokeandpayless.com/default.php?osCsid=f03b46990ab9727441d4b58dd9a441da

36

I’ll see that and raise you this.

37

First they came for the smokers, and I did not give a rat’s ass, because I am not a smoker. Sorry, just don’t care.

Question, though: what earthly difference does it make if the taxes are earmarked for a particular use? The US government spends a gazillion dollars on tobacco-related illness through Medicare/Medicaid. Probably a lot more than they collect from cigarette taxes. So what difference does it make if cigarette taxes go into the general fund and then Medicare costs come from the general fund, rather than having some segregated financial stream. Sounds to me like it’d just be extra bureaucracy for no good reason.

38

There is NO evidence that smoking increases the overall cost to the government over an individual’s lifespan. In fact, some countries in Europe have argued the opposite - that they continue to allow smoking because it saves the government money.

While it’s true that treating someone with terminal lung cancer is expensive, it’s also true that the last year of anyone’s life is generally expensive in terms of health care, whether that year comes when you’re 50 or when you’re 80. My grandfather died at 86. In his last decade he had colon cancer, skin cancer, hearing aids put in both ears, numerous other aging-related diseases and problems that had to be treated in a health care facility, and he spent the last six months of his life in a state facility from advanced Alzheimers.

The elderly are by far the biggest drag on the medical system. The elderly often need joint replacements, cataract surgery, many different prescription drugs, etc. In addition, a greater percentage of the elderly have handicaps that give them access to state provided DATS transportation, state provided walkers and wheelchairs, and other forms of handicapped existence.

On top of that, the elderly get free prescription drugs, free eyeglasses (here in Canada), and they get pension and social security cheques each month from the government.

Compare that to the cost of a six-month cancer run followed by an early death before you collect a penny of Social Security. What do you think winds up costing the state more?

Besides, it’s a horrible precedent to say, “Since the state is funding my health care, the state has a right to make sure I live a certain way.” That’s just abhorrent. Can’t I use the same logic to ban skiing? Do you know how expensive a year’s worth of physiotherapy for a broken leg is? And besides, no one *needs to ski.

Next we’ll have govenrment-mandated fitness tests with fines if you don’t pass. Perhaps a BMI tax levied on the obese, and taxes on junk food. And if any of you anti-smoking zealots disagree with these measures, you won’t have a principle to stand on, because you already sold it so you wouldn’t have to smell icky smells near you.

39

And it IS about freedom, which is why Tobacco taxes are such a great idea. YOU get to *choose *whether or not to pay it! Don’t want to pay it? Don’t smoke. My god, I wish Income tax was like that. Or Property tax- “don’t want to pay it, don’t send your kids to school.” Hell, I have made a choice not to have kids, so where’s my tax cut? That’d be $5000 or so a year, not the measly amount you smokers pay. :rolleyes:

I think we should have more 'voluntary taxes". Higher taxes on booze! Legalize pot, but with high taxes! Porn tax! Junk-food tax! Tax everything that we don’t NEED to survive and earn a living, but don’t tax the rest.

40

There are 8 people in my office that bike to work every day. (Yes, even in the -30 degree winter) 14 more that bike when it’s nice out. Obviously driving a car isn’t crucial. These people prove it by showing up everyday. Driving isn’t an absolute necessity. Would you support a $2.00 surcharge on every gallon of gas?