Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Taxing Smokers


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-04-2008, 09:37 AM
cooldude's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Gulf Coast, Florida
Posts: 232
Rep Power: 34
cooldude is on a distinguished road
Post Taxing Smokers

Cigarettes are already the most heavily taxed commodity in the U.S. The federal excise tax is $0.39 a pack and the national average state excise tax is about $0.60 per pack, for a total of $0.99 per pack. In addition, the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) increased the price of a pack of cigarettes by about $0.40 a pack. In a growing number of cities, a pack-a-day smoker pays more in cigarette taxes than he or she pays in state income taxes.

Such high and discriminatory taxes on smokers are unfair. They are also an inefficient and unreliable way to raise funds for government. Excise taxes require regular rate increases to keep pace with inflation, whereas income, sales, and property taxes all rise with inflation or economic growth. Because of their narrow bases, excise taxes are unstable revenue generators. And excise taxes require relatively high rates to raise funds. These rates, in turn, create opportunities for evasion and the transfer of economic activity to states with lower taxes.

Dramatic price hikes and extreme taxes on cigarettes are threatening to create a stampede of tax evasion, black-market transactions, counterfeiting, and even use of lethal violence against convenience store clerks and truck drivers. Tax hikes of $1.00 a pack or more, as have been adopted recently by New York, Cook County, Illinois, and elsewhere threaten to take us to a neoprohibitionist era, with all the crime, expenses, and loss of respect for law enforcement that accompanied Prohibition.

Excise taxes are also regressive. People with low incomes not only pay a higher percentage of their incomes on cigarette taxes than do wealthier people, they even pay more in absolute terms. Persons earning less than $10,000 paid an average of $81 a year in tobacco taxes, versus $49 for those who make $50,000 or more. This was before recent massive tax hikes!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-04-2008, 09:40 AM
cooldude's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Gulf Coast, Florida
Posts: 232
Rep Power: 34
cooldude is on a distinguished road
Post Social Costs of taxing smokers

Are high taxes on cigarettes justified by the social costs smokers impose on the rest of society? No.

Harvard Professor Kip Viscusi has repeatedly demonstrated that smokers already pay more in excise taxes than the social costs of their habits. Even before the MSA, “excise taxes on cigarettes equal or exceed the medical care costs associated with smoking.” For example, Illinois’ cigarette taxes, according to Viscusi, were $0.13 more per pack than the social costs of smoking before the settlement added $0.40 to the price of a pack of cigarettes, before the $0.40 a pack tax hike approved by the state legislature in 2002, and before Cook County’s $0.82 a pack boost in 2004.

Instead of raising cigarette taxes, simple justice demands that cigarette taxes be reduced to zero. In fact, states should consider taping a dime or a quarter to every pack of cigarettes as a way of thanking smokers for reducing the burden on taxpayers!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-04-2008, 09:44 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Big Sur, California
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 0
teslahelper is on a distinguished road
Post Is Second hand smoke a rationale for higher taxes on tobacco?

The research used to justify government regulation of second-hand smoke has been powerfully challenged by critics, including Congress’s own research bureau. According to the EPA, the risk ratio for forty years of exposure to a pack-a-day smoker is just 1.19. Epidemiologists as a rule are skeptical of any relative risks lower than 3 and dismiss as random ratios less than 1.3. Science writer Michael Fumento and others have documented how the threat of secondhand smoke has been greatly exaggerated.

The latest word on second-smoke appeared in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. Two epidemiologists, James Enstrom at UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, analyzed data collected by the American Cancer Society from more than 100,000 Californians from 1959 through 1997.

“The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality,” the researchers wrote, although they do not rule out a small effect. “The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”

“It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day,” according to Enstrom and Kabat. “If so, a small increase in lung cancer is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk--the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke--is highly implausible.”
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2014, 03:49 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 75
Rep Power: 0
f.virtue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Anything that makes you feel good they are going to tax the hell out of it !
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:09 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 0
NotGonnaStop is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

People do not know the difference between second-hand smoke and think that that is what the smell on your clothes is. I came across a post on a now defunct website in which someone posted anonymously that they worked for a government agency and this person and a co-worker were compiling information on cigarette smoking related deaths; a man had died in a car accident and he just happened to be a smoker; so his death was listed as smoking related. Please also point out the evidence that smoking causes cancer, and PLEASE do not tell me that you have always heard that it has; it is the tactic of those who want to run everyone else's lives. It has already been proven that it is simply biological bad luck that causes cancer, and this ridiculous rhetoric needs to stop.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-03-2019, 11:06 AM
Brock67's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 51
Rep Power: 0
Brock67 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I blame these "sin taxes" on alcohol, tobacco and gambling winnings on a cynical misinterpretation of the Apostle Paul in Romans 6:23 where he wrote that "For the wages of sin is death..." I think he was writing about earning spiritual death due to separation from God, not a catalog of vices, which could vary from culture to culture.

But it has been used as a moral justification to siphon the bank account of those of us who enjoy tobacco because they say we have earned it. Now they tend to just cite the health consequences of smoking as a justification, instead of branding us as unrepentant sinners who deserve the punishment of a heavier tax burden.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:09 PM
masklofumanto's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: U.S.A. (NYC metro area)
Posts: 7,645
Rep Power: 774
masklofumanto is a jewel in the roughmasklofumanto is a jewel in the roughmasklofumanto is a jewel in the roughmasklofumanto is a jewel in the rough
Default

Brock,
Although I agree with your interpretation of Rom. 6:23 (another verse taken out of context and misinterpreted in the same way is 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, where the context is solely about fornication), I don't think the anti-tobacco lobby is really looking to scripture to justify their agenda. Most are non-religious, who are more than likely to be progressives who don't believe that your property (i.e. your money) is really your own. Governments see tobacco and alcohol taxes as an easy source of raising tax revenue with little or no political backlash. I think taxing anything at a rate of nearly 100% (and sometimes more) is immoral, and is an abuse of governmental power. And then, to add insult to injury, there is double taxation, when a sales tax is charged on a price that already includes an excise tax.

Last edited by masklofumanto; 07-03-2019 at 02:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:40 PM
Brock67's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 51
Rep Power: 0
Brock67 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Masklofumanto,

Oh, I agree completely with you that it is the self appointed guardians of the public health which are the driving force behind the modern efforts to levy ever higher taxes on the sale of tobacco products. I was thinking more about the original impulse behind the practice.

Sin taxes were originally used as a way to deter people out of socially undesirable or immoral behavior by increasing the monetary costs for such behavior. Our current anti-smoking lobby just claims they are doing you a favor on behalf of your health, and the public health.

The idea that avid smokers perhaps just really enjoy smoking is a concept that is hard for the anti-smoking brigade to wrap their minds around.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-03-2019, 06:54 PM
masklofumanto's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: U.S.A. (NYC metro area)
Posts: 7,645
Rep Power: 774
masklofumanto is a jewel in the roughmasklofumanto is a jewel in the roughmasklofumanto is a jewel in the roughmasklofumanto is a jewel in the rough
Default

There's another element here: if you have socialized health care, which is what progressives want, then your lifestyle choices becomes everyone's business rather than just your own.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-03-2019, 07:07 PM
DaveM's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Black Hills, SD
Posts: 801
Rep Power: 84
DaveM has a spectacular aura aboutDaveM has a spectacular aura about
Default

Progressive, Conservative, Republican or Democrat, it really doesn’t matter. Politicians see sin taxes as cash cows with little political repercussions and the sinners as fair game. The money raised rarely if ever goes to the promised purpose. Bend over and get used to it for surely there’s a bigger one coming!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
cheap cigarettes, cigars, copenhagen, smokes, smoking

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Cigreviews.com



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13