Cigarette tax 156% increase

[Shrykull]

check it out, I saw a poster for it in the corner store today.

http://www.stopthefetincrease.com

Made me think though, how much of cigarette tax goes into non-healthcare costs for smokers? When they talk about cigarette tax is used for community programs and other things other than smokers' healthcare. The cigarette tax revenue already doesn't come close to health care costs for smokers, never mind community programs.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe its appeal lies more in its presumed utility to discourage smoking, by hitting smokers in the wallet.

[SCRawl]

Let's see if I can find it in my heart to be sympathetic....nope, can't do it.

Where I live, in Southern Ontario, there's got to be a delicate balance with the tobacco taxes. If they're too low, then there's less of a disincentive to smoke. If they're too high, then the smuggling goes way up, as do purchases from the Native community (who pay no taxes on the stuff, I think).

[Darth Wong]

check it out, I saw a poster for it in the corner store today.

http://www.stopthefetincrease.com

Made me think though, how much of cigarette tax goes into non-healthcare costs for smokers? When they talk about cigarette tax is used for community programs and other things other than smokers' healthcare. The cigarette tax revenue already doesn't come close to health care costs for smokers, never mind community programs.

It always bugs me when people complain that tax money is going into the "wrong" program. It's all a shared pool of government money. Even if you pretend it isn't, the government has to get the shortfall for other programs from somewhere. Does anybody try to figure out which parts of the debt belong to which program?

[Ariphaos]

It always bugs me when people complain that tax money is going into the "wrong" program. It's all a shared pool of government money. Even if you pretend it isn't, the government has to get the shortfall for other programs from somewhere. Does anybody try to figure out which parts of the debt belong to which program?

In the US, the road infrastructure is buttressed by vehicle, registration and gas taxes. At least in MN, this money goes to maintaining roads, so it has the benefit of not suffering from shortfalls. If they took that pothole-fixing money to spend on ... just about anything else, there would be hell to pay.

[Darth Servo]

check it out, I saw a poster for it in the corner store today.

http://www.stopthefetincrease.com

Made me think though, how much of cigarette tax goes into non-healthcare costs for smokers? When they talk about cigarette tax is used for community programs and other things other than smokers' healthcare. The cigarette tax revenue already doesn't come close to health care costs for smokers, never mind community programs.

I don't have a problem with such a tax, regardless of "where the money goes". Smokers are just burning cash anyway IMO. Whats a little more?

[CmdrWilkens]

check it out, I saw a poster for it in the corner store today.

http://www.stopthefetincrease.com

Made me think though, how much of cigarette tax goes into non-healthcare costs for smokers? When they talk about cigarette tax is used for community programs and other things other than smokers' healthcare. The cigarette tax revenue already doesn't come close to health care costs for smokers, never mind community programs.

My give a rat's as meter is registering pretty low. Smoking is already a hazardous, if socially acceptable, habit. Making it costly is a discouragment and whatever it funds is infinitely more useful to the public than the smoke being produced by the contributor. In other words its a crappy habit and if you are so hooked you are willing to blow your money on it even after these price increases then you deserve to get fleeced and have the government spend your money helping others.

[Kanastrous]

How does one calibrate a rat's-ass meter?

Millihineys?

[Jaepheth]

The question is... How long before smokers start growing their own tobacco in their closets?

[K. A. Pital]

I fully support taxing smokers, tobacco producers, and especially Philipp fucking Morris. A corporate "legislative action" site, wow, how innovative. Fuck tobacco lobbyists. Fuck them hard.

[General Zod]

The question is... How long before smokers start growing their own tobacco in their closets?

Tobacco plants tend to be rather large, so I'm guessing not anytime soon.

[Dillon]

check it out, I saw a poster for it in the corner store today.

http://www.stopthefetincrease.com

Made me think though, how much of cigarette tax goes into non-healthcare costs for smokers? When they talk about cigarette tax is used for community programs and other things other than smokers' healthcare. The cigarette tax revenue already doesn't come close to health care costs for smokers, never mind community programs.

So? If someone' so concerned about your health, here's a great idea: Don't smoke!

[Master of Ossus]

Don't feel bad for the smoking industry, either. Even if you ignore the massive death count they've racked up and their denials that their product was dangerous, they're actually doing incredibly well for themselves. They've just gone to Europe and Asia and are selling more than ever.

[Temjin]

The question is... How long before smokers start growing their own tobacco in their closets?

A better question is, how many smokes can the reserves supply?

[Kanastrous]

Will Indian Nations' special status as tobacco vendors give them any advantage in the tobacco crackdown?

Maybe I should be ashamed to admit it...but I sure hope so.

Turning Europeans on to tobacco is the best, and maybe really the only vengeance they've had, and I'd hate to see it denied them.

[Sea Skimmer]

It always bugs me when people complain that tax money is going into the "wrong" program. It's all a shared pool of government money. Even if you pretend it isn't, the government has to get the shortfall for other programs from somewhere. Does anybody try to figure out which parts of the debt belong to which program?

Actually that does happen a fair bit at the state and local level of US government, all money does not go into a general fund and the laws spell out what funds can be used for what. In addition many programs which get government funding like Planned Parenthood are required to submit minutely detailed budgets to ensure that the fund are used only for approved purposes.

But of course, given a sufficiently large reason, the relevant legislative bodies would simply vote to suspend the relevant laws, and then spend however they want anyway.

[Darth Wong]

It always bugs me when people complain that tax money is going into the "wrong" program. It's all a shared pool of government money. Even if you pretend it isn't, the government has to get the shortfall for other programs from somewhere. Does anybody try to figure out which parts of the debt belong to which program?

Actually that does happen a fair bit at the state and local level of US government, all money does not go into a general fund and the laws spell out what funds can be used for what. In addition many programs which get government funding like Planned Parenthood are required to submit minutely detailed budgets to ensure that the fund are used only for approved purposes.

But of course, given a sufficiently large reason, the relevant legislative bodies would simply vote to suspend the relevant laws, and then spend however they want anyway.

OK, suppose you have earmarked your funds for Program A. But Programs B through H are running short of money, so you either raise taxes or go into deficit in order to pay for them. Either way, the other programs still have to be paid for, and the net result is that the money ends up coming from either the taxpayers or their futures. So functionally, there's no difference between earmarking money for one program and just dumping it into the pool.

[dragon]

I'm wondering what this will fo for the black market.

[Uraniun235]

But Programs B through H are running short of money, so you either raise taxes or go into deficit in order to pay for them. Either way, the other programs still have to be paid for...

Option C: Programs B through H are cut down. This can happen in a state whose government is unwilling to raise taxes and whose constitution forbids deficit spending.

[CmdrWilkens]

But Programs B through H are running short of money, so you either raise taxes or go into deficit in order to pay for them. Either way, the other programs still have to be paid for...

Option C: Programs B through H are cut down. This can happen in a state whose government is unwilling to raise taxes and whose constitution forbids deficit spending.

Which has happened in both Maryland and Virginia to my knowledge. while both states have "rainy day" funds to support budget shortfalls there are certain programs (such as speeding fines and lotto revenue) which go to certain budgets 9schools in boht of example cases) and cannot be touched by the general revenue stream. The federal highway trust is the same way, it tends to have money in it at the end of each fiscal year despite the government falling short all the time because it has a legally secure funding line which canot be spent on other projects.

[Drewcifer]

The question is... How long before smokers start growing their own tobacco in their closets?

Tobacco plants tend to be rather large, so I'm guessing not anytime soon.

My understanding was that while growing tobacco is pretty easy -- similar to growing tomatoes -- it's the curing/aging process that keeps most people from doing it.

How does one calibrate a rat's-ass meter?

Millihineys?

With an RCH, of course

[Shrykull]

I see the most common argument smokers seem to have is that drunk drivers kill a lot of people too, so why don't we tax alcohol?

Take a look at this imbecile fest

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/kennett ... 5607JUD/p1

[Sea Skimmer]

OK, suppose you have earmarked your funds for Program A. But Programs B through H are running short of money, so you either raise taxes or go into deficit in order to pay for them. Either way, the other programs still have to be paid for, and the net result is that the money ends up coming from either the taxpayers or their futures. So functionally, there's no difference between earmarking money for one program and just dumping it into the pool.

State government and local in the US isn’t allowed to run a deficit, so the result is either raising taxes specifically to pay for Program B through H, or they just don’t get funded. This often results in state ballot questions which specifically ask ‘do you want to raise tax X to fund program B’. We had such a question in the last election in Pennsylvania. A state law was passed authorized each school distinct to have a vote on adding an income tax besides the existing property tax scheme to fund schools. Each district was free to make it own choice, the money raised from the new tax would be spent only within the local district.

All but six districts in the entire state said no, and then each district was left to work out a budget. Some raised property taxes, others didn’t and cut programs. My district was somewhere in-between, funding wasn't cut, but it wasn't increased enough to even keep pace with inflation IIRC and a few things died as a result.

I see the most common argument smokers seem to have is that drunk drivers kill a lot of people too, so why don't we tax alcohol?

Wow, you’d have to be just plain retarded to think alcohol isn’t already taxed to hell and back in the US! In PA the alcohol tax scheme is so strict that distributors can only buy stuff directly from state run suppliers. If you own a microbrewery and a beer store, you must sell your product directly to the state, and then buy it back, tax added, before selling it to the store. You physically have to transport the stuff to the state store too, you can’t just do it all on paper.

Course, PA has some of the stupidest laws on alcohol in the nation and it doesn’t do a damn thing to reduce drunk driving.

[Spyder]

check it out, I saw a poster for it in the corner store today.

http://www.stopthefetincrease.com

Made me think though, how much of cigarette tax goes into non-healthcare costs for smokers? When they talk about cigarette tax is used for community programs and other things other than smokers' healthcare. The cigarette tax revenue already doesn't come close to health care costs for smokers, never mind community programs.

Why should it go straight to smoker's healthcare? The cost of their habit goes beyond their own immediate welfare. Having a large pool of smokers draws medical resources away from people suffering from conditions that aren't self inflicted, draws monetary resources away from savings and other market spending, land used for tobacco growth rather then something useful, productivity issues related from health problems and reduced physical fitness and of course everyone knows about second hand smoke.

Seriously, if we're going to let people murder their lungs and fork over wads of cash to tobacco companies we may as well get something useful out of them.

[Shrykull]

check it out, I saw a poster for it in the corner store today.

http://www.stopthefetincrease.com

Made me think though, how much of cigarette tax goes into non-healthcare costs for smokers? When they talk about cigarette tax is used for community programs and other things other than smokers' healthcare. The cigarette tax revenue already doesn't come close to health care costs for smokers, never mind community programs.

Why should it go straight to smoker's healthcare? The cost of their habit goes beyond their own immediate welfare. Having a large pool of smokers draws medical resources away from people suffering from conditions that aren't self inflicted, draws monetary resources away from savings and other market spending, land used for tobacco growth rather then something useful, productivity issues related from health problems and reduced physical fitness and of course everyone knows about second hand smoke.

Seriously, if we're going to let people murder their lungs and fork over wads of cash to tobacco companies we may as well get something useful out of them.

So, are you saying we shouldn't even pay for smoker's healthcare? I'm inclined to agree, except my mother smokes, and also it's illegal to turn away anyone who comes to the hospital emergency room, at least in the US.