Post by Bozur on Nov 23, 2008 1:09:44 GMT -5
Why Cigarettes Should Cost $10 a Packpokedandprodded.health.com — As the U.S. government throws tax money on the banking bonfire, you have to wonder how many billion-dollar notes are left in the Washington ATM machine for health-care reform. If an income-tax hike isn’t in the cards for 95% of Americans, there will surely be a revenue hunt elsewhere. Why not cigarettes?More… (Health)
--------
Why Cigarettes Should Cost $10 a Pack
By Scott Mowbray | November 16, 2008
Istockphoto/Health
As the U.S. government throws tax money on the banking bonfire, you have to wonder how many billion-dollar notes are left in the Washington ATM machine for health-care reform. If an income-tax hike isn’t in the cards for 95% of Americans, there will surely be a revenue hunt elsewhere.
The last time a president was looking for major health-reform dollars, it was Bill Clinton, and he targeted tobacco. The reform didn’t happen, but federal, state, and municipal taxes on cigarettes soared from about 52 cents a pack in 1994 to $2.22 per pack in 2007.
Despite that rise, tobacco tax revenue falls far short of the health-care bill associated with tobacco-related disease.
Why pick on tobacco even more?
According to data from R.J. Reynolds, total tobacco taxes in 2007 were $22.4 billion. The company is outraged about that, but consider this November 13 statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): “Smoking in the United States causes 443,000 deaths annually and costs $193 billion.”
Now 443,000 is one of those hideous death counts that numbs the mind. But I’m betting we’re all a bit better these days at processing numbers like $193 billion. And if that’s what smokers are costing the economy, shouldn’t they—so to speak—help bail out health care?
Here are the laudable things about a new health-costs tobacco levy.
* It wouldn’t tax people for something they depend upon for their lives or livelihoods.
* Although not every smoker gets sick, and it can take several decades for sickness to set in, the tax can reasonably be thought of as a health-insurance policy for high-risk addicts, rather than a scattershot “sin tax.”
* There’s evidence that higher cigarette costs drive down consumption (as happens with alcohol), which may be why the tobacco companies rail against hiking taxes. (The only real news in the CDC report was that there was a healthy one-point drop in American smoking rates between 2006 and 2007, from 20.8% to 19.8%, but the government’s goal to drop rates to 12% by 2010 is doomed.)
Do the cons outweigh the pros?
The objections are many
First, why should smokers be targeted more than heavy drinkers, overeaters, and motorcycle riders in numskull states like Colorado that don’t require helmets? Second, a fat, flat tax discriminates against the poor, who are more likely to have lousy health care already and spend a disproportionate amount of their income on a tobacco habit. Third, onerous tax hikes encourage tobacco smuggling, illegal Internet sales, and other tax-avoidance behavior.
All fair points. It’s hard to support a rise in the tobacco tax without targeting booze as well. But do these objections outweigh the urgent need for money to reform health care?
We’ll see if president-elect Barack Obama takes the Clinton lead; it would do him no political good in North Carolina. But the smoking challenge highlights the enormous financial implications that result when people make themselves sick in one of the costliest healthcare systems in the world.
-------
some replies:
smoker
I’m a smoker and allthough smoking might not be good for your health it is the way some of us choose to live our lives. I already pay taxes. I work hard and contribute to society. Why are you trying to take more money from me? Yes you might be able to force some people to quit smoking because they are too poor to smoke anymore. but seriously wtf. what makes you think it’s acceptable to dictate someone elses way of life through the uses of unfair taxation. The reason everyone wants to tax cigarettes is because they don’t smoke and so they won’t have to pay up for the stuff that that want me to be paying for for them. They also know that cigarettes are one of the most addicting things on earth so they are trying to piggyback on the cigarette companies for taxes. This tactic is just as evil as what the cigarette companies are doing so throw your cigarettes are bad morals out the window and just admit you are trying to take money from people who mentally and physically might not be able to give up an already costly habit all so non smokers can avoid paying more taxes. I’m annoyed and no I probably couldn’t stop smoking if you raised the price of cigarettes that much. It would just reduce the quality of my life further by making me even poorer and would add more stress to my life than you could imagine the stress alone is probably just as bad as smoking is. So why don’t you let me choose to live my life as I see fit and quit trying to steal more money out of my pockets.
smoker
also while you are thinking about it why don’t you ponder on the idea of making marijuana legal and imposing a small tax on it’s trade. I think you’d be surprised at the amount of extra revenue this would create in society even with just the sales tax on it. After all this is supposed to be the land of the free. With a government of the people by the people and for the people. Take a count of the number of nonviolent drug offenders clogging our criminal justice system. Take all the costs of that and add it to the sales tax you can collect for the trade of the substance and you’ll find there is a huge economic and moral gain to be made by legalizing. We all should realize by now that the current state of the laws are a huge blunder on the part of the government and society. I want a direct vote on it.. what do you think would happen? Not that we have a real democracy any more but if we did we could all vote on it and I bet we could straighten this stuff out in no time.
Nathan
here’s a better idea. Legalize marijuana, which is safer than tobbacco and alcohol, despite what the people who bought into the propaganda think(0 deaths caused by marijuana smoking). legalize it, then tax it. doing that would bring in a lot of money, and save a whole lot more because there’d be no more pointless police raids and busts, fewer people in jail for nonviolent drug-related crimes.
Jon
It doesn’t cost the economy $193 billion - a large amount of that is covered by private health insurance. You can make this claim when you have universal healthcare like we do over here, as that money would then actually be a cost to the taxpayer. You also argue against yourself when you say this is to raise revenue, then a few paragraphs later say that the number of smokers would come down - well not a very efficient way of raising revenue then! What you should be advocating is a large raise of gas taxes - use of gas causes general pollution that seems to have a large influence on the asthma rates, as well as causing environmental damage that may well kill far more people that smokers ever will.
Kenny
..
Hyperbole time…
..
While we’re at it, let’s tax the gays. And since we want to be equal opportunity, let’s tax practicing religion. Think about all those people who practice religions in the US… there’s your cash cow. And if it causes some people to stop practicing religion, well, all the better. But then we’ll have to worry about people practicing religion underground. Can’t forget about that second hand religion… that stuff kills. “God bless” can be chocked right up there with the uber deadly second hand smoke that kills bajillions of people every day… EVERY DAY!!!
..
Or you could just look at the fact the people who smoke and have health insurance already pay more for their health insurance. My extra tax comes in the form of higher premiums every pay period. And while my level of smoking has yet to cause any major medical issues, I know if I continue to smoke, it will, eventually.
..
What about taxing children? These same people who don’t have health insurance because they can’t afford it are the same people who get fat government checks every year for having kids they can’t afford to raise so we give them huge tax credits. Instead of that tax credit, use that to pay for government health insurance. CTC is $1000 per child. That’s about what I’d pay to have a dependent on my health care plan. EIC? Just goes towards booze and cigarettes anyway. If these are supposedly the people who would be unfairly taxed by taxing cigarettes even more, take away their handouts and give them healthcare.
..
As far as the effect of taxing someone in my position because I choose to smoke but am socially responsible enough to not smoke around non-smokers, pay for my own health insurance at higher than normal rates because I truthfully report that I am a smoker… well, I still drove my 16 mpg car when premium was around $4.50/gal… $10/pack isn’t too different.
i_smoke
They shouldn’t raise the tax.
They should declare smoking illegal.
They should stop selling cigarettes.
They should raise the tax on gas because imagine how many people get sick from all those emmissions.
They should raise the tax on food because people eat more and get sick and it hurts economy.
They should raise the tax on drinks because people are drinking cheap drinks full of sugars and that makes them overveight - bottom line it hurts our economy.
They should raise the tax on condoms because less and less future taxpayers are born.
I could go like this all they… they should raise the tax on everything..including God, because religion costs them money
Bruce B.
..
As poiniently implied by quite a few comments here, parasiting smokers for taxes is not the way to solve our ecomomic woes or the smokers health problem. This article is an exercise in ridiculum. Wher would it end? Higher taxes on fast food? On sugary foods? On fatty foods? Heart disease is right next to cancer in number of deaths per year - actually it’s HIGHER. how about taxing everyone with an unhealthy diet? More taxes of owners of “unclean” vehicles?
..
Why are people like you oblivious to the fact that cars emit billions of times more carcinogens in the air than cigarette smokers? And let’s not forget factory emmisions - some of which are not even regulated! The whole facts behind cancer aren’t even out yet - and I doubt the people who know WANT those facts explored. How much does factory emmisions, car emmissions, free undetectable chemicals and toxins factor in the cancer debate??? Do you know? can you rule those out? Can you explain why a whole neighborhood has high rates of cancer related illness, while another doesn’t - despite the percentage of smokers?
..
The whole second hand smoke thing is a bullfunky red herring devised to keep the big money manufacturers out of hot water. It all started right after the government started going after factories about their emmissions, then cars - which BOTH mysteriously went silent as they started going after individual, helpless smokers - blaming them for things that any idiot with a thimble of sense could see they could not possibly do.
..
I laugh at the stupid nimrods who try to avoid my smoking by darting between cars with thousands of times the carcinogenic emmisions blowing smoke right up their poindexter noses. They think they are doing something “smart” when they are actually looking dumb as heck. You cannot escape carcinogens - they are given off by plastics (like your ipod); by gasoline and ground gases like radon; the sewer system of all major cities gives off cancer causing gases; it fills the air from smog, pollution and smokestacks. Cooking BBQ is like smoking a whole carton of cigarettes, Einstien. The government and these ‘agencies” who are only set up to inhale money by any means necessary isn’t going to tell you that your already in the pool - you might as well swim in it. That’s something your blind backside should have the common sense to know yourself - and stop lying to yourself about how messed up things really are.
..
Taxing people as a punishment is wrong and will only lead to more taxation. Open you freakin’ eyes and see that it isn’t about smoking - it’s about whatever they can use to open the door to eventually tax the bazongaz out us for any “moral ill” they determine is fertile ground for siphoning more money out of our pockets - ala “Demolition man”. If they really wanted people to stop smoking, ask yourself - why don’t they just illegalize it??? Makes sense to me. But that isn’t the purpose. The purpose is to get a precedent going to tax your burro for whatever you do that they feel like taxing you for. Open your eyes and get your head out of the toilet.
..
There, there - have a puff and stop crying.
The objections are many
First, why should smokers be targeted more than heavy drinkers, overeaters, and motorcycle riders in numskull states like Colorado that don’t require helmets? Second, a fat, flat tax discriminates against the poor, who are more likely to have lousy health care already and spend a disproportionate amount of their income on a tobacco habit. Third, onerous tax hikes encourage tobacco smuggling, illegal Internet sales, and other tax-avoidance behavior.
All fair points. It’s hard to support a rise in the tobacco tax without targeting booze as well. But do these objections outweigh the urgent need for money to reform health care?
We’ll see if president-elect Barack Obama takes the Clinton lead; it would do him no political good in North Carolina. But the smoking challenge highlights the enormous financial implications that result when people make themselves sick in one of the costliest healthcare systems in the world.
Anonoses
you say tax cigarettes cost it costs more for smokers to be taken care of becuase of ther “habbit” well why not tax drugs cocain,neroin ect. ther habbits are costing the us alot more then in health care then smokers…. oh wait thats becuase the gov is the ones supplying the drugs.. they dont want to tax ther self now do they.
..
pokedandprodded.health.com/