States Look To Tobacco Tax To Balance The Budget

New York Times:

Mississippi's tax on cigarettes, at 18 cents a pack the nation's third-lowest, has not been raised since 1985. Gov. Haley Barbour, a former tobacco lobbyist, has long opposed an increase.

But this year, state lawmakers have gone from giving little thought to a tobacco tax increase to arguing over how much the tax should go up and where the money should go.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[BeckyJustice]

03:02 PM on 04/02/2009

I find it interesting that the first group the Nazis singled out for discrimination, was smokers. Even before the Jews. They also enacted the largest tobacco tax until that time, in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany

The other interesting fact was the way the Schip Tax was snuck in there. How many times did Obama and Biden promise, "No new taxes of any kind?" 2 weeks after taking office, they broke that promise, with no fanfare at all. So now, with my income of just over $900 per year in Social Security, I am paying health care costs for children whose parents earn up to, $52,800. That is 58 times what I make???

The new law enables states to enroll children with family incomes of up to 300% of the federal poverty level ($52,800 for a family of three) at the more favorable federal-payment matching rate. Coverage at higher income levels is permitted, but the matching rate reverts to the Medicaid level for states electing to enroll children above that income threshold. By a vote of 247 to 179, the House rejected a Republican amendment that would have required states to insure 90% of the children with a family income under 200% of the poverty level before allowing the enrollment of children from higher-income families.

BTW, at age 74, I have never had a smoking related illness.

[WonderingNThinking]

02:07 AM on 03/24/2009

Smoking is the test market for what can be controlled and how easily a segment of the population can be turned against. Personally, I think obesity is next. The campaign has started - ban trans fats in some states, commercials about diabetes and unhealthy fats. Mark my words a few years from now we'll be crying about how we don't feel we should pay for diabetes patients. Junk food will be taxed while at the same time corporations will help decide what is junk food. (Artificial chemically or genetically modified foods will be ok.)

[ohmetoo]

01:40 PM on 03/29/2009

I think you are right obesity will be the next deadly health sin to be targeted, and rightly so. Why should it be ok to kill yourself by eating yourself to death, when it isn't ok to smoke yourself to death?

Frankly the hypocracy of it all is amazing to me, and i detest the continual manipulation.

One question I have had for eons is why is tobacco the bad guy. Why hasn't the taxation of alcohol kept pace with the taxation of tobacco??? RICH people enjoy alcohol. Alcohol kills as many people as tobacco, but it escapes scott free. The taxation of alcohol needs to be brought up to the standards and levels of the taxation of tobacco, no one excapes! That's the way it should be, but thankfully they have lobbyists intrenched for multi generations deep!

[WonderingNThinking]

01:30 AM on 03/24/2009

What I don't get is the push to legalize marijuana but massive pushes to control cigarette smoking. Pot smoking is smoking, plus a drug that changes mood and state of mind. So, you get health effects and then some. Keep in mind that once you regulate pot, it will be mass produced with ammonia and all the other chemicals that go with it.

Maybe they should start calling joints: "Cigarettes Plus", with the tagline "a mellower way to go".

Perhaps it's all about the dumbing-down of America and propogating a "judge your neighbor" mentality.

[WonderingNThinking]

02:20 AM on 03/24/2009

With that said, I think the dangers of the mind effects of pot are as significant as the effects of alcohol, albeit different. So, my main point speaks to the health effect aspect.

[solarian]

02:47 AM on 03/24/2009

how many pot smokers have robbed a liquar store vs the ones who drink

[typhanie]

03:45 PM on 03/23/2009

I feel like I am being railroaded.

WTF, I am already paying for something that has absolutly nothing to do with me, seeing as how I rent and own my car. I have never asked for a loan, and I am already being forced to pay back a debt that I don't feel is mine to pay, and now I am being Fu**ed again just cause I smoke, when is this going to stop. Why should I get taking advantaged of just because I choose to smoke. I work very hard, and I should be able to choose what I want to spend my money on.

I am getting really tired of people forcing their opinions and way of life on me.

WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE?

[ZellaBee]

12:57 PM on 03/23/2009

IMO, If smokers are taxed then every tax dollar placed on cigarettes should go towards helping people quit.
Actually, the tobacco companies themselves should be the ones penalized and regulated.for producing a deadly product. It amazes me how the FTC/FDA spends more time closing down and going after vitamin supplement manufacturer's while allowing c@ncer sticks to be sold by the trillions.

As far as the health care argument goes, unfortunately, the health care and the insurance industry make a fortune on treating smoking related cancer illnesses. The costs for consumers/patients goes up because of greed, not because of need. The money goes to the CEO''s, at the top of these huge health care and insurance corporations.

[jeffp26]

11:41 AM on 03/23/2009

Tobacco has no use and does absolutely nothing but add enormous costs to our health care system. Each pack should be taxed at $5 per.

Studies show that each time the tax on tobacco increases, the usage decreases.

So in this case we can have our cake, and eat it too.

[doctorwang]

03:11 PM on 03/23/2009

If it was banned altogether, usage would end and there would be no enormous cost to our health care system. Only problem with that is that the states would no longer get the revenue that the tobacco taxes bring. So instead of taking the route that would save thousands of lives a year, the government chooses to take the path that still makes cigarettes available and charges those who are addicted through the nose for them. Sort of hypocritical- don't you think.

[sueinmn]

10:39 PM on 03/22/2009

Bill of Attainder

They are saying it might be unconstitutional to tax the AIG bonus recipients based on,"Bill of Attainder",
Is this any different from picking out a group of people who smoke?

Sure seems like it to me! Mn has taxed us, they have called it "fees" to avoid calling it taxes, the federal tax increased just last week to pay for CHIP (national childrens insurance program) and now again!
Orriginally the multy state suit agaisnt the tobacco companies was suppose to offer free quit smoking aid and it has not. It was suppose to provide tax relief in MN just as the lottery was also suppose to do. It has not. All this money picking on a group of people.
Why not tax VIAGRA for awhile! I bet you more of these white middle aged balding GOP men use more Viagra than smokers buy smokes! Its just how many more times will they tax the same group of people over and over and over. It's enough! Tax alcohol this time!

[nodonjuan]

02:53 PM on 03/22/2009

I know four people divorced due to alcohol, 3 people with jail sentences due to DUI's and two of my best friends dead from drunk driving. My whole family smoked and they have either quit or still smoke and most of my friends have either quit or still smoke. Not one person I know of has ever had a serious problem due to tobacco. My Grandma had breast cancer about ten years ago but, she has the gene. We quit because we can't smoke any where, any more, we have to smoke in the parking lot at work and, smoking makes everything in your home smell and turn brown.. So with my circle, alcohol has been much more destructive and we have paid a lot less taxes for that destruction..

[PepeLepew]

03:47 PM on 03/22/2009

What bugs me about this story I hear from some smokers is that for every one of those stories, there's *countless* stories like mine: My dad smoked and died of lung cancer at 49; my mom smokes and has been suffering from COPD for five years. She's been hospitalized multiple times for pneumonia and fluid in her lungs. My uncle smoked and died at 69 from throat cancer. My dad's best friend smoked and died of a massive heart attack in his 50s. *His* wife died of lung cancer. My mom's best friend, another smoker, died in her 60s of lung cancer. I grew up with chronic bronchitis and asthma from breathing six packs a day of secondhand smoke from my parents. Please don't try to argue that cigarettes are somehow harmless or benign because of your personal experience. Some people get lucky, I guess; the majority don't. Cigarettes have destroyed millions of lives prematurely over the last 50 years. I have an uncle who was a severe alcoholic and somehow managed to live to 85, when he finally died of liver cancer. I would never use him as an example that alcohol is somehow harmless because, "look at him, he drank like a fish and he lived to be 85." I'm aware alcohol is destructive, too. I just think comparing tobacco to alcohol is a fallacious argument to defend smoking. They're both bad in their separate ways.

[doctorwang]

05:50 PM on 03/22/2009

I agree they're both bad in their separate ways. But why should one be taxed so much higher than the other? In a few years from now, the smoking population will start to decrease dramatically (it already has). When that revenue runs out what do you think they (the states) are going to set their claws into next. Think about it. They are pricing (by taxation) tobacco so high that it's becoming unaffordable......why wouldn't they consider doing the same with alcohol? It, too, is the cause of hundreds of thousands of death.

It's a dangerous precedent to be setting..........

[dac253]

02:02 PM on 03/22/2009

This is a great way for nonsmokers to feel better about themselves and look down on smokers at the same time. Many here obviously prefer a nanny state. Let's tell others what to and what not to do by levying unfair taxes.

America used to stand for individual freedoms; if you weren't bothering someone else, you were free to find your happiness. Smokers can't smoke in bars and restaurants and in front of entrances to buildings because it infringes on other people's rights, but apparently that's not good enough.
Like Dean Martin, if I come down with a smoking related illness, I do not want your help. I will not be a burden on any health care system. I make my own decisions and am more than prepared to deal with the consequences. Now, do tell, what concern is my smoking to you?

This is a tradition that was here before the first white settlers were ever here. It may not mean anything to you; but when you find yourself at war with individuals and their customs, you're fighting for homogeny and 1984 doesn't seem that far off. People are different and feel differently about things; it would behoove you to respect that.

Raise these taxes on one group, and then another, and then another. What you do comes back to you and you'll realize that we're all in the same boat,... we just prefer different things.

Now go stick it to the smokers, you pinko commie bastids.

[treetracker]

10:30 PM on 03/24/2009

Yeah, let's tax Nike's (knee injuries), bicycles (knee injuries), mountain climbing equipment (possible rescue or death or other injuries), tennis equipment (tennis elbow anyone?), etc., etc., etc. - if your going to tax one group because of their increased health care issues, then you need to tax them all. How about extra sales tax on cars/license tabs - due to all the injuries from car accidents?

The reason cigarettes were taxed for SCHP was because that's were the Republicans wanted the tax to be. They're not opposed to taxes, they just want to tax one particular segment of the population. And the Dems are just as bad. Why do smokers have to carry a higher burden of tax than the rest of the population? Especially when that tax goes into the general fund, rather than into helping people quit! Very unfair.

[elsieach]

10:25 AM on 03/22/2009

Ai yi yi. My kids tell me $5.99/pack in Colorado, and an increase due 4/1.

I quit 32 months ago - best thing I ever did for myself and I've certainly never regretted it. I would highly recommend quitnet.com to anyone interested in an online support group to help them quit. In many states, the tobacco settlement money has been used to provide free memberships to the group. It certainly worked for me, and I never, ever thought I could quit. Now I can't imagine myself ever smoking again.

[Scoppertop]

10:25 AM on 03/22/2009

Uhh.....Alcohol? Isn't that the most dangerous drug available in the free market?

[PepeLepew]

01:00 PM on 03/22/2009

Tobacco kills four times as many people every year as alcohol ... even including DUI fatalities.

[degenerate1991]

02:09 PM on 03/22/2009

Not by the fatality numbers; however, if one takes the numbers of lives destroyed rather than livers cooked, then alcohol is the clear winner. The lesson to be learned here is that one cannot legislate healthy behavior; self-destructive behavior is a personal problem.

[PepeLepew]

05:22 PM on 03/22/2009

440,000 premature deaths a year is a lot of destroyed lives.

[askmeificare]

10:16 AM on 03/22/2009

Raising the taxes on smokes should decrease the number of smokers. The net result will be lower revenues. I quit smoking years ago because the taxes got too high.

[cowman]

01:29 PM on 03/22/2009

Yes but fewer smokers means fewer health care expenditures - it's win-win.

[dac253]

02:14 PM on 03/22/2009

Yes. It's a Brave New World you live in.

[askmeificare]

11:34 AM on 03/23/2009

If everyone quit, where would the government get the revenue to replace those lost tax dollars?

[bayside]

09:49 AM on 03/22/2009

They are breaking the law. We have a law saying govt. cannot break a company thru taxes..They cannot. And while we are at it, I just heard about a study saying overweight is just as bad as smoking. Now who decides who is overweight and who wants to be in a world where we are all forced to be alike. Judge not...This is a big world and has enough room to be fair to everybody..

[JoeBlough]

09:57 AM on 03/22/2009

They are taxing people, not the company. They still make billions in overseas sales. Here in the U.S., it wouldn't be asking too much to make it one dollar per cigarette.

[cowman]

01:30 PM on 03/22/2009

Which law is this? And it's not trying to break a company, it's trying to protect public health.

[dac253]

02:03 PM on 03/22/2009

The people need saving from themselves? What country is this again?

[jordan3189]

09:22 AM on 03/22/2009

Not sure of percentage, but whatever percentage, the poor smoke more than well off people. I'm surprised all of you anti-rich people are so cold as to impose this new tax against the poor.

[Helzapoppin]

09:30 AM on 03/22/2009

because the public has been conditioned to have a knee-jerk reactionary irrational mob hatred toward tobacco users. Everyone needs a scapegoat.

[cowman]

01:34 PM on 03/22/2009

I don't see anything irrational about wanting to protect myself and my family from cancer and bad smells. It's self preservation and a natural stimulus response to stench - seems rational to me. I would say voluntarily cutting your life short and giving yourself cancer is far more irrational.

[JoeBlough]

09:59 AM on 03/22/2009

We can save the poor from themselves.

[Helzapoppin]

09:06 AM on 03/22/2009

If politicians want to raise revenue with tax increases - which I have no problem with - they should have the balls to issue fair taxes that spread the burden out, not go the "easy" route over and over and over again of loading tax increase upon tax increase onto a few legal substances they think they can get away with taxing with a minimum of public grumbling. But no, they always want to return to the same easy trough. These continuous cigarette taxes are coward's taxes.

Tax cigarettes into non-existence? You realize that means the END of all that tax revenue, don't you?

This is where I part ways completely with the left. Reviling tobacco while praising marijuana is hilariously shallow, hypocritical and obnoxious. And no government should ever put themselves into a position of profiting from other peoples' addictions.

Want to tax cigarettes to pay for public expenditures on smoking related healthcare? Fine. That at least makes some sense. But loading taxes on tobacco users exclusively to pay for anything from general budget shortfalls to crucial programs like s-chip expansion is idiotic, self-defeating and cowardly.

[cowman]

01:37 PM on 03/22/2009

If cigarettes are taxed out of existence the lost revenue will be offset by decreased health care expenditures.

I agree with your observation about the hypocrisy in "Reviling tobacco while praising marijuana" though - you make an excellent point there.