US Cigarette Tax Increases

[FSTargetDrone]

Didn't see this posted anywhere here...

Link to a British Broadcasting Corporation Website Article

Page last updated at 23:52 GMT, Wednesday, 1 April 2009 00:52 UK

Tobacco tax rise for US smokers

The largest-ever single increase in US federal taxes on cigarettes has taken effect, almost tripling the tax on a packet to more than $1.

The Obama administration plans to use the money to pay for health care for uninsured children.

Health campaigners say raising taxes on cigarettes in the middle of a recession is a good way to get more people to stop smoking.

A 20-a-day smoker will have to pay an additional $225 (£156) a year.

Similar tax increases went into effect for cigars, pipe tobacco and chewing tobacco.

Help to quit

Paola Munoz is exactly the type of person they are hoping to reach, the BBC's Stuart Cohen reports from Washington.

She has been smoking for more than three years but her New Year's resolution this year was to quit.

She says she has already cut down from one pack a day and the new tax will help her give up the habit altogether.

"I buy a pack every three days," she says.

"With the tax it is going to be around $6 and some change. And I don't want to pay that… so I'd rather just quit, and this is a great excuse to go cold turkey and quit completely."

The cigarette companies have not been standing idly by.

They raised prices on cigarettes a few weeks ago to start making up for the money they expect to lose in sales.

The tax increase is just the first step in a newly energised anti-smoking campaign in the now Democrat-controlled Congress.

They are considering a law that would allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco - something the industry has successfully fought for years.

Some people are already complaining that this is a tax that will hit the working poor especially hard, but I have little sympathy for that in this case.

[Coyote]

I support this tax and agree with the idea behind it, but at some point there will be a breaking point where people will turn to black market cigs if they try to ride this hobby horse too much.

[Col. Crackpot]

Some people are already complaining that this is a tax that will hit the working poor especially hard, but I have little sympathy for that in this case.

While that may hold water with the gas tax, I call bullshit. Quit smoking, ya moron.

[General Zod]

I support this tax and agree with the idea behind it, but at some point there will be a breaking point where people will turn to black market cigs if they try to ride this hobby horse too much.

Perhaps a minority; the real heavy addicts who barely earn minimum wage. But I suspect the vast majority will decide it's not worth it and just go ahead and try to quit.

[Col. Crackpot]

I support this tax and agree with the idea behind it, but at some point there will be a breaking point where people will turn to black market cigs if they try to ride this hobby horse too much.

Perhaps a minority; the real heavy addicts who barely earn minimum wage. But I suspect the vast majority will decide it's not worth it and just go ahead and try to quit.

When i quit back in '99, they were under $3 a pack. I thought that was insane. Granted I was a light social smoker, so it was relatively easy. what are they now.. $8? Seriously, between states and the Feds the government makes more money off cigarettes than the tobacco companies do. Which is precisely why they will never be banned.

[Starglider]

To be honest I feel more comfortable with taxing drugs heavily in the UK, were much of the money notionally flows into the NHS to support treatment (both of the negative health effects and to support anti-addiction/detox programs). In the US there is no socialised healthcare, so sales taxes this high look more like outright theft (and a very clumsy form of behaviour modification).

[Darth Wong]

To be honest I feel more comfortable with taxing drugs heavily in the UK, were much of the money notionally flows into the NHS to support treatment (both of the negative health effects and to support anti-addiction/detox programs). In the US there is no socialised healthcare, so sales taxes this high look more like outright theft (and a very clumsy form of behaviour modification).

That's not actually true: there is socialized health care, but only for people who have become impoverished. If you're middle-class or working class and you develop a chronic illness, you can't use the public system. The American remedy is that the private system will impoverish you by taking everything you own, driving you into debt, forcing you to declare bankruptcy, and essentially destroying you as a contributing member of society. Only then can you use socialized health care.

[Col. Crackpot]

To be honest I feel more comfortable with taxing drugs heavily in the UK, were much of the money notionally flows into the NHS to support treatment (both of the negative health effects and to support anti-addiction/detox programs). In the US there is no socialised healthcare, so sales taxes this high look more like outright theft (and a very clumsy form of behaviour modification).

That's not actually true: there is socialized health care, but only for people who have become impoverished. If you're middle-class or working class and you develop a chronic illness, you can't use the public system. The American remedy is that the private system will impoverish you by taking everything you own, driving you into debt, forcing you to declare bankruptcy, and essentially destroying you as a contributing member of society. Only then can you use socialized health care.

Depends on where you live. I live in Rhode Island and when my twins were born my wife opted to stay home. Come to find out my family (a single income family of four)qualified to be enrolled in the RIte Care system... despite the fact that i held a professional position in bank management. I was an Assistant Branch Manager at the time. We chose not to enroll, but the option was there to us had i lost my job.

I won't say that the US health system isn't in dire need of reform, but I would say your rhetoric is a bit... overly colorful.

[Qwerty 42]

This may be true in more liberal parts of the country, but as you get further southeast you find that healthcare becomes more and more sporadic. Pennsylvania has health care available for children, and outside of that I don't know.

[Vendetta]

Depends on where you live. I live in Rhode Island and when my twins were born my wife opted to stay home. Come to find out my family (a single income family of four)qualified to be enrolled in the RIte Care system... despite the fact that i held a professional position in bank management. I was an Assistant Branch Manager at the time. We chose not to enroll, but the option was there to us had i lost my job.

I won't say that the US health system isn't in dire need of reform, but I would say your rhetoric is a bit... overly colorful.

With medical costs being the largest single cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, accounting for up to half of all bankruptcies, it's far more likely that yes, medical costs will drive you to poverty. You might be lucky in your state, but you're probably luckier that you didn't need serious medical cover, because many people driven to bankruptcy by illness or injury did have medical cover at the start of their illness.

[Spyder]

$1 a pack? Is this not an April fools article? Tax on cigarette packs here is somewhere around the $5 mark.

[Stargate Nerd]

$1 a pack? Is this not an April fools article? Tax on cigarette packs here is somewhere around the $5 mark.

I think this new raise is just the federal taxes. States tax cigarettes extra, which why, for example, they're cheaper in NJ than NY.

[Count Chocula]

And guess what? Government revenues from cigarette taxes will not increase. I've personally tapered back my smoking a bit, and also started purchasing less expensive cigarettes. So, from my perspective, this new tax is a lose-lose proposition for Philip Morris (oops I mean Altria) and the federal government. The cig makers will get less of my money and the feds will get the same or fewer tax revenues, then profess shock - shock! that their kiddie health care funding fell short and they'll have to find more money from somewhere else.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.

[Covenant]

And guess what? Government revenues from cigarette taxes will not increase. I've personally tapered back my smoking a bit, and also started purchasing less expensive cigarettes. So, from my perspective, this new tax is a lose-lose proposition for Philip Morris (oops I mean Altria) and the federal government. The cig makers will get less of my money and the feds will get the same or fewer tax revenues, then profess shock - shock! that their kiddie health care funding fell short and they'll have to find more money from somewhere else.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.

This is part of an anti-smoking program, not a "find some money" program, so reducing intake is an intended consequence. The fact that the proceeds will be used to help pay for uninsured children doesn't mean the program would be entirely funded on it, don't be intentionally misleading, since moving towards universal healthcare and especially children's healthcare were already goals long before cig taxes were brought into it. If people stopped smoking and the federal government got no more tobacco tax at all, the eventual health benefits would most likely offset the shortfall in revenue. A portion of those tobacco taxes were, afterall, already being used for "stop smoking" ads.

The reason people want you and others to smoke less is the health problems which sometimes come along with heavy cigarette use. Reducing those issues frees up a lot more money in other areas since we're no longer treating health issues in part stemming from tobacco usage, helping the overall system and allowing us not to raise taxes on everyone. It's just too bad there's no single issue taxable, and quittable, for the fatness epidemic.

[Mr Bean]

I sorry but I gotta laugh my ass off at your logic there Count Chocula as Covenant so rightly pointed out.

WE WANT YOU TO STOP SMOKING
Anything that reduces smoking in the US is a good thing, if a 1 dollar tax increase will get you to cut back will a 1.25$ tax increase get you to quit? There is of course a level when you can't simply raise the taxs to high or you create a black market situation where cheap cigarettes are sold and expensive taxed cigarettes sit idle so any future price increases should be targeted at the production or grower stages. Not in the form of taxes if possible but production control and or perhaps some sort of price incentive request.

[Starglider]

There is of course a level when you can't simply raise the taxs to high or you create a black market situation where cheap cigarettes are sold and expensive taxed cigarettes sit idle so any future price increases should be targeted at the production or grower stages. Not in the form of taxes if possible but production control and or perhaps some sort of price incentive request.

Two problems with that;
1) Sales tax disproportionately affects heavy smokers over light smokers, which is good. Heavy smokers generate proportionately more health costs and damage to themselves. I do know people who restrict themselves to a 20-pack of cigarettes per month, which isn't really any more dangerous than say extreme sports.
2) Production (and import) controls without rationing at the point of use will simply cause a price rise until supply matches demand anyway, without the benefit to society of sales taxes. I shouldn't need to go into the problems with per-user rationing.

I would however agree with taxing corporate profits of tobacco companies at a higher rate than usual, again up to the point where it starts to produce an unacceptable amount of black-market activity.

[Count Chocula]

The reason people want you and others to smoke less is the health problems which sometimes come along with heavy cigarette use. Reducing those issues frees up a lot more money in other areas since we're no longer treating health issues in part stemming from tobacco usage, helping the overall system and allowing us not to raise taxes on everyone. It's just too bad there's no single issue taxable, and quittable, for the fatness epidemic.

(emphasis added)

I sorry but I gotta laugh my ass off at your logic there Count Chocula as Covenant so rightly pointed out.

WE WANT YOU TO STOP SMOKING

And here's the simple, emotional response: I don't give a fuck if you want me to stop smoking. Don't take this the wrong way, Covenant, I have no issue with your response. In fact, I'm willing to go so far as to get health care coverage from an insurance company that insures smokers. When I had my bikes, I got insurance from a company that covered motorcyclists, as not all insurance companies will. Unfortunately, there's not a smoker's insurance plan available, and US tax laws discourage the formation of specialized health risk pools (employer-sponsored plan premiums are paid with pre-tax income, and employers must offer coverage to ALL employees without the specialization you see in 401(k) options). And I say that as someone who didn't start smoking cigarettes until I was 30, but that's a different story. I blame New York.

Back to Mr. Bean: "WE WANT YOU TO STOP SMOKING." Thank you for your concern, but it's really not any of your business. Quoting from a Cato Institute statistical analysis of CDC data, "Nearly 60 percent of the [smoking-related] deaths occur at age 70 or above; nearly 45 percent at age 75 or above; and almost 17 percent at the grand old age of 85 or above!" And back to my earlier statement, it's none of your business if I smoke or not.

As Covenant alluded to, obesity [or fatness epidemic, I like that] is a trend that's increasing, and with it, deaths from stroke, heart disease, and especially diabetes. Putting on my cynical hat, I could say - hell I'll just say it - that the US government, looking for more money, chose to hike taxes on a group of Americans that (they figure) are addicted and won't change their behaviour, regardless of the cost.

I find it ironic that some members of SDN jump smokers' shit at every opportunity, while not saying one fucking word about members who are overweight. I see "stop smoking you bastard" posts on a regular basis, but I don't recall ever seeing "Hey SDN member xxx, put down the Twinkies before you get diabetes and drive up my premiums!" And very overweight people tend to develop health problems earlier in life than smokers, meaning, you guessed it, that their health care costs which I get to help fund (and you too, if you have a group plan) last longer and cost more money than smokers' medical expenses.

As a double irony, I clicked back on this thread after reading the Nonsensical things which people do in Off Topic, which mostly addresses....FAST FOOD!

[General Zod]

I find it ironic that some members of SDN jump smokers' shit at every opportunity, while not saying one fucking word about members who are overweight. I see "stop smoking you bastard" posts on a regular basis, but I don't recall ever seeing "Hey SDN member xxx, put down the Twinkies before you get diabetes and drive up my premiums!" And very overweight people tend to develop health problems earlier in life than smokers, meaning, you guessed it, that their health care costs which I get to help fund (and you too, if you have a group plan) last longer and cost more money than smokers' medical expenses.

Then clearly you haven't been paying attention; or you're incredibly myopic about the issue. There've been a shitload of threads criticizing fatasses. I take it you missed the huge drama fest between Poe and Havokeff a few months back?

[Count Chocula]

^ You're right, I forgot about the flamefest that resulted in Poe dropping off the board. What I haven't seen, in particular, is threads where the original topic is obesity and the dangers thereof.

[General Zod]

^ You're right, I forgot about the flamefest that resulted in Poe dropping off the board. What I haven't seen, in particular, is threads where the original topic is obesity and the dangers thereof.

There's been several, but I don't feel like bothering to hunt them down. They've been almost as ubiquitous as smoking threads really; but neither one is especially common so you probably didn't notice them. But saying that such a thing doesn't happen is hilariously false.

[Count Chocula]

19 for "obesity" in the title, 48 for "smoking." As you said, not a lot of traffic for either topic.

[Qwerty 42]

^ You're right, I forgot about the flamefest that resulted in Poe dropping off the board. What I haven't seen, in particular, is threads where the original topic is obesity and the dangers thereof.

There's been several, but I don't feel like bothering to hunt them down. They've been almost as ubiquitous as smoking threads really; but neither one is especially common so you probably didn't notice them. But saying that such a thing doesn't happen is hilariously false.

Generally, the opponents of smoking take objection to the harmful nature of secondhand smoke, which is a real and legitimate concern. The comparison to obesity is thoroughly irrelevant in this regard because obesity is not harmful to other people.

[General Zod]

Generally, the opponents of smoking take objection to the harmful nature of secondhand smoke, which is a real and legitimate concern. The comparison to obesity is thoroughly irrelevant in this regard because obesity is not harmful to other people.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point. Especially since Chocula was only talking about health care costs (which actually does affect both smokers and the hideously obese, not that it makes the hilarious indignation of smokers being picked on too much relevant in the slightest).

[Covenant]

This is why I said one single issue. Fatness-related disease hits people differently, and while what you eat has something to do with it, there's nothing you can tax to make it go away. A fast food tax or something similar is a chuckle-worthy joke of a solution, when the only thing that could really help is food rationing per individual or required daily exercise.

So it's not a fair comparison between a complex lifestyle problem generated by a host of interwoven societal and genetic problems whereas smoking illnesses are caused by a single, optional product. Let's also assume for the moment that second-hand smoke problems are nil and everyone was courteous with disposing of their butts, and remove those issues. Even so, there's a massive body of evidence that shows that people do eventually die of their smoking-related illnesses, and that a large amount of these illnesses contribute to high cost diseases that are not much fun to get, like cancer and heart disease. Given that, it seems hard not to justify seeking ways to eliminate it's common usage and cigarette smoking take on the same level of popularity as pipe-smoking and cigars.

Obesity is also a complex thing to chart the cost of. I've read that reducing it won't actually save the public any money because extending their lifespan would just offset the savings. But that's not the issue. Even if reducing obesity cost us all money, and it was cheaper to let people get fat, it would be right to work in the public health interest. The problem is just how to do it.

[Punarbhava]

Everyone (in the US) has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This tax is about infringing the latter two in the name of upholding the former.

Seriously; yeah, cigarettes are addictive as hell. Yes, they pose health risks to others. You know what? So does just damn near just about everything in the world in some way. It's the responsibility of the individual to regulate his/her own internal/external environment (ie, if you don't like second hand smoke, move out of its way; if you don't like certain tv programming, change the fucking channel)-- not of the government to do it for them. You can't go around regulating the non-directly-harmful activities of others just because they bother you; unless you're a baptist, that is. Almost no one on this board would advocate heavily taxing porn to reduce incidences of aggression towards women, despite an apparent correlation. Or how about regulating food intake and exercise to reduce obesity and the associated disease? But with smokers, it's okay, it's encouraged.

IMO, this is just another wedge issue to keep us distracted from all the things that really matter. Or maybe it's a symptom of a government that doesn't know when to stop growing.

Bah. It doesn't matter anyway; people will grow their own if the taxes become too punitive and they still want tobacco. Else they'll quit. Whether cigarettes are heavily taxed itself is not that important to me. What bothers me here is this exponentially-expanding nanny state mentality, this notion that we have no idea how to control ourselves and we need Big Brother to tell us. It's bullshit.