Federal Cigarette Tax Increase

[Jezus53 18]

EDIT!! I replaced the article with a more up to date one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090315/us_nm/us_usa_smoking_3

I was pretty shocked that the tax has been so low yet my cigarettes are so expensive! Good thing I quite now. I guess having the California tax at 87 cents didn't help either. Anyways, what do Simtopolis smokers think about this ploy? Is it going to be the factor that makes you quit? Or is this just going to make angry with the goverenment trying to control your life. And how about the non-smokers. Do you like this? Do you think it'll finally rid you of the 2nd hand smoke worries? I'm really curious on what people think about this.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Eventulay they will price smokes out of reach of the average person. like sports and concert tickets. what they going for now? $4/pack or more dont know i dont smoke.

 But they dont care, they have huge markets in china and other countrys that more then make up for the loss of smokers here.

Personaly i think the restrictions on WERE you can smoke has done more to make people quit then the prices. when its  cold and rainy out side you probably think more about not going outside for that smoke 5 times a day.

I dont think taxing smokes is an effort to control your life, it just a way to suck as much money out of your pockets as posible. I cant back this up but i do think the # of smokers is going down, as i said before most likely because of the inconveniance of were you can smoke now.

Since i dont smoke/drink im  dont have to pay these taxes directly. Score !

[ShortStraw 1]

I'm gonna answer your questions out of order cause I'm barely half awake.  First this one-

. . . is this just going to make angry with the goverenment trying to control your lifequote>

I'm a long time, unapologetic smoker and a staunch supporter of personal freedom.  Typically, I oppose any attempt by the government to "protect us from ourselves."  I'm in total agreement with this quote from the linked article-

"Using taxes to legislate use of a legal product is not good public policy,"quote>

.  I hate when they claim that tobacco tax increases will be used for "Education" or "Health Care" simply because that policy typically disappears as soon as the tax hike takes effect.  I have always viewed exorbitant taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco as just a case of governments grasping greedily (yay accidental alliteration!) after easy pickings from victims who can't really complain too loudly because. . .

"Nobody should cry because of lower consumption of a product that kills half the people who use it,"quote>

If this were just a case of The Government attempting to make a little cash while subtly legislating morality then I would be "Mad As **** And Not Gonna Take It Anymore!"

Having said all that, I'm really not that worked up over it this time around.  I cannot deny that this tax will cause a lot of people to quit smoking (though not enough to counter the profit from the tax increase, as indicated in the article).  To me that means that the public health benefits of having fewer smokers in the general population, along with the big fat punch in the eye the Tobacco Giants are about to receive,  and the increased tax base outweighs any concerns I have about legislating morality or unfairly taxing a specific demographic.

Depending on your point of view we are either in or approaching an economic recession.  Our government is heaving mountains of cash at incompetent bankers and industrialists and they have to get those mountains of cash from somewhere.   When you get down to it, the government has only one source of income- the people they govern. 

 I don't see this as an attempt to legislate morality and while I absolutely trust my government to misuse the profits they reap from this tax, I cannot deny that they will profit.  To wit, I'm not angry because I'm gonna be paying a little more towards my national tax base, I'm angry because I don't approve of how the government is using that money.

And in answer to your first question,

Is it going to be the factor that makes you quit?quote>

That is a very likely possibility.  I'm pretty close to the limit on how much I can justify spending to support my cherished nicotine addiction.  This increase in cost will force me to either quit or fall back on the "Black Market" if quitting is just impossible.  The only way I could continue smoking after such an astonishing increase in the tax would be if my tobacco providers absorbed the tax increase so my bottom line isn't hit as hard.  I don't see that happening.  So basically yeah, I'll probably quit over this.

But like I said, I'm really just not that worked worked up over it.  At least, not as worked up as I will be after a couple days without a smoke. . .

edited to say, I voted Yes to the Pole question based on the information presented in the linked USA Today article

[ironicepitome 0]

well, im kinda happy cuz my mom smokes. and i want her around long enough to be grandma. but if she doesn't quit now, what with the tax hike, thats less money for the family, and my college which im going to.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

#1, it's a regressive tax, meaning it hits the poor harder.

#2, it's to fund healthcare for the children of immigrants, while native born kids get nothing from the Federal tax increase. That is just wrong.

#3, Illinois' new governor wants to double the state tax on cigarettes, adding $1 per pack on what is already one of the most heavily taxed items (as a percentage of price) in the country. In Crook sorry, Cook County, it's already over $8 a pack. The wholesale cost before taxes is in the neighborhood of $2. It's confiscatory, and a good example of gov't taxing power run amok.

When people quit or resort to various black market methods, the revenue goes down and they go after something else, like the gas tax (which they also want to hike, another regressive tax) and various licensing fees.

I'll be more than happy to drive to a reservation in Wisconsin for smokes, and skip all these taxes. Then they get nothing, and will deserve it.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Muck308 55]

Will it lower rates? I answered kinda sorta. The number of smokers is probably constantly fluctuating. I assume this since I have no data to back it up. People who attempt to quit can very often fail the first time around. So you end up with individuals who are quitting, starting, or comtemplating one or the other every day.

I've been smoking for about 11 years. When I started the price was around 1.80 USD. Now I pay around 5.80 USD. This most recent price hike is conicidentally arriving at a time when I am completely fed up with cigarettes.

When I began smoking in high school, I read an article in... gees I dunno but it was a health journal. It stated that generally, an individual can smoke a pack of cigarettes a day (They used Marlboro Reds for the study) for ten years whilst in their prime (IE; teens or twenties) and then quit without any negative effects. This may or may not be true but at the time I was smoking a bit under a pack of Camel Lights (which contain less tar and nicotine than a Marlboro Red). This led to be more comfortable with my habit... thinking to myself... "I'll probably quit by the time I'm out of college."

Here I am, 11 years later, still smoking. I am fed up with it at this point not so much because of price, but because of my own well-being. My lungs hurt, especially in the morning.

My mom just quit using that new drug... Plavix is it? She hasn't even wanted a cig for 3 weeks, but initially the meds made her very sick. I am so ready to quit but environment plays a factor.

I live with my girlfriend and another roommate, and all of us smoke. I refuse to set myself up for failure by quitting without them. I'll never be able to resisit the temptation if they are both smoking in front of me. Graned that's a personal problem. I have been trying to convince them both about the need to quit, but they both agree that they want to but not entirely. They would prefer to be casual smokers, as in one or two cigs a day.

Well good luck with that. Persoanlly I think I need to stop entirely. I need to for the sake of my health. I don't even want to think about the fact that my genes left me with a bum ticker more susceptible to heart disease and the like. I simply can't go on this way... feeling so much pain in my lungs one or two days a week. (yeah it's not everyday).

So the price hike isn't so much my concern. Technically I can afford cigarettes but my money would be better spent elsewhere. Like, oh I dunno... funding and producing that dusty screenplay on my desk.

So yeah, my answer is kinda sorta. I think a lot of epople arrive at the decision to quit based on a variety of reasons... and not just price, because don't forget about cheap cigs. Jack's, USA Gold, or even loose tobacco that you roll on your own. It's all signifigantly cheaper than name brand smokes like Camel or Benson & Hedges. I think a lot of smokers would switch brands (which doesn't really scratch that itch but times are tough)before quitting all together.

Quitting is not by any means an easy thing to do.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

It probably will lower smoking rates by a measurable amount, but the federal government needs to find additional sources of revenue besides income and cigarettes, such as stock andf derivative transactions. They could be raking in trillions with just a few percent!

I think they should hold off on furthur tax increases until inflation diminishes its real effect, because if the US raises taxes to excessive levels, all their revenue will dry up from the large decrease in smoking. They should be careful to not snuff out their revenue sources.

[Muck308 55]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Muck308 said:  Quitting is not by any means an easy thing to do.quote>

From the literature I have read over the years, nicotine is harder to stop than heroin and cocaine.  It comes as no surprise that so many people have a hard time eliminating the addiction.  Even when a smoker is able to stop, they will continue to have cravings of various degrees for the rest of their lives.  I have known many former smokers who still have to fight the urge after years away from use, and some willingly go around smokers just for the secondary smoke (nostalgia, I guess).

Barbarossaquote>

 

It's not just the nicotine. That is merely the tip of the iceberg. The physical act of smoking is quite addictive as well. Simply put, we smokers NEED to be dong something. I smoke often when I have no desire for nicotine. Especially in traffic. Generally I like to have a smoke about once an hour if I can. 

Now there have been times when that's not possible. Airplanes, baseball games, work. I can do it if I have to. I have had marathon SC4 sessions where I don't smoke for 4 or 5 hours and don't even notice until I count the butts in the ashtray. But at the same time, I might have 3 smokes in an hour if I am stuck in traffic. (lighting up a smoke is also a gauranteed way to find a parking space when you can't seem to.)

I was tested the other night when I was out for darts. Every Monday is dart league and I'm not all that superstitiuos but I like to have a smoke in my mouth while I toss... at least when it's a match. My team played at a bar in the Oakland neighborhood of Pittsburgh last week and it was a non-smoking bar. Threw my whole game off. J/k. No it really didn't but guess how many smokes I smoked that night... about 5 as opposed to the ten I would have likely smoked over the course of a 15 game match. Which only takes about 2 -2 1/2 hours. So yeah... having to go outside does help me refrain from smoking so much.

But anyway...a large percentage of the addiction is psychological. That's why nicotine replacements don't always do the trick. When I quit I will ahve to find something to suck on like a pretzel rod or a lolly pop cause oh man am I gonna need it. 

[confused04 14]

Manticore: just curious. I've been searching for evidence for your second point and have not been able to find specifically that it only helps immigrant children. As a side note, just because your an immigrant child, doesn't necessarily make you illegal, there are legal immigrants still Being the child of an immigrant, I'm still a US citizen. Do I not deserve any assistance because my mom is a native Filipino? Oh, I forgot, I'm a second class citizen cause I'm not white....

I'm sure you just didn't explain yourself.... I just wanted to fake get angry. I presume you meant illegal immigrants. But my point is still the same, I can't find any information about this sales tax funding specifically for immigrant children's healthcare. Second, so what if it does... whether we like it or not, there's going to be sick illegal immigrants to which we can't just let die (that would violate hippocratic oathes). There are things that on one principle are unfair, but by another are necessary.

Btw... this article is from 2007. Quite a gap.

[Glenni 1,447]

We've had such taxes for cigarettes here for years... Done us no harm...

[Explodingsims 3]

Eh...They'll never really stop people from smoking. Even if they make it illegal people will still get their hands on them.

I don't particularly support this though.

I also agree with Easy Bakes, the banning of smoking inside has cut down of the amount of smokers.

[djrules5454 5]

Originally posted by: Glenni We've had such taxes for cigarettes here for years... Done us no harm...quote>

So has the US. The discussion in this thread is whether the increase is fair or not and whether it will reduce the number of smokers in the US.

[Duke87 1,070]

It's called a "sin tax". Honestly, I have no problem with taxing the hell out of things that are unequivocally known to be nothing but bad for you, such as tobacco products. Especially considering that it's not a direct tax. You're free to not pay it at all: don't buy cigarettes. It's thus preferable to raise such taxes as opposed to raising income taxes, which you can't avoid paying (legally, anyway ).

That's why the argument about it being a regressive tax doesn't work here. Nobody's pointing a gun to any poor, working class person's head and forcing them to smoke. So what if it means they can't afford it? It's far from a necessity. In fact, it's quite the opposite of a necessity. Not only can people do without it, they'd be better off without it.

It's not like a tax on, say, food, which would be truly regressive and truly unfair because you can't not buy food.

It's also far better to have high taxes on cigarettes than to have legal restrictions on where you can and can't smoke (which I absolutely do not support). It's generally preferable for the government to encourage or discourage things, rather than requiring or banning them (even if only conditionally).

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: confused04 Manticore: just curious. I've been searching for evidence for your second point and have not been able to find specifically that it only helps immigrant children. As a side note, just because your an immigrant child, doesn't necessarily make you illegal, there are legal immigrants still Being the child of an immigrant, I'm still a US citizen. Do I not deserve any assistance because my mom is a native Filipino? Oh, I forgot, I'm a second class citizen cause I'm not white....

I'm sure you just didn't explain yourself.... I just wanted to fake get angry. I presume you meant illegal immigrants. But my point is still the same, I can't find any information about this sales tax funding specifically for immigrant children's healthcare. Second, so what if it does... whether we like it or not, there's going to be sick illegal immigrants to which we can't just let die (that would violate hippocratic oathes). There are things that on one principle are unfair, but by another are necessary. quote>

Even though there is no proof of this, I think he's more upset about the fact that it goes ONLY towards immigrant children and not just children.

Btw... this article is from 2007. Quite a gap.quote>

Sorry about that! I saw a yahoo news article on Tuesday and tried to find but this one came up first. I didn't even bother to read the date. I'm sorry. I added a more recent article to the OP and am now inserting it hon this post as well. So sorry about that!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090315/us_nm/us_usa_smoking_3

[Jezus53 18]

I recently quit smoking about a week or two ago. Not because of the general reasons. It wasn't because they were too expensive or because they're bad for my health, it wa because I had no one to smoke with or give me cigarettes. I smoked for about 3 years, not much, but enough. I smoked not because of addiction to Nicotine, but because I was addicted to the slight high I got off of them. they made me feel good. I would always smoke one before school because it was able to relax me before I went to class. I was never addicted. I could go for months with out one and never even think twice about. Where am I heading with this? Well, I agree with Muck. It's mostly a physiological thing. We need to smoke something, we need something in our hands. I noticed when I started smoking more often (because I turned 18) I would bounce my legs up and down. Just out of nowhere. Why? Because my body needed to do something. No I quit, but instead of cigarettes I took of the "ette" and smoke cigars. They last longer, and relax me even more. psychological. My brain needed something to do. I also noticed, when I stopped training with Rubik's cube, I smoked more often. No that I picked it up again, I have less desire. psychological. It's all in the head man. A least, for me.

[Easy Bakes 253]

My dad told me he quit smoking when they went over 25 cents a pack.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: confused04

Manticore: just curious. I've been searching for evidence for your second point and have not been able to find specifically that it only helps immigrant children. As a side note, just because your an immigrant child, doesn't necessarily make you illegal, there are legal immigrants still Being the child of an immigrant, I'm still a US citizen. Do I not deserve any assistance because my mom is a native Filipino? Oh, I forgot, I'm a second class citizen cause I'm not white....

I'm sure you just didn't explain yourself.... I just wanted to fake get angry. I presume you meant illegal immigrants. But my point is still the same, I can't find any information about this sales tax funding specifically for immigrant children's healthcare. Second, so what if it does... whether we like it or not, there's going to be sick illegal immigrants to which we can't just let die (that would violate hippocratic oathes). There are things that on one principle are unfair, but by another are necessary.

Btw... this article is from 2007. Quite a gap.quote>

The original language limited it to legal immigrant children, the final version loosened eligibility requirements on proof of residency status (as well as income requirements).

I have no beef with legal immigration at all, as I've said before the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty means something. I never said anyone was a second-class citizen... you're either a citizen or you're not. That's an important distinction.

The illegal immigration issue is another story... and yes, the use of Federal funding for illegals when legal immigrants/native born go wanting, is seriously wrong, but part of the Democratic Party platform historically. Why? Because a majority of them, it is hoped, will lean towards the Dems at election time. We see this a lot here in the Chicago area, the Dems shamelessly pander to immigrant communities.

The program being funded by this tax, SCHIP, is rife with fraud and waste. The Left wants it to be a back door to universal single payer healthcare, and the 'back door' is exactly where Americans are going to get it.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Barbarossa on a weekend? Wonders never cease!

While illegals have been known to vote in Chicago elections, both early and often, it's the prospect of their voting habits once they obtain citizenship that interests Democrats nationally. Hence, the drive by some, including US Rep Luis Gutierrez (D, IL, shady real estate baron) to 'fast-track' some 11 million illegals to citizenship.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I agree with such moves, cigarettes are absolutely disgusting and I would have no issue taxing them even more. They are not vital to life and as suggested previously, indeed limit life and make it unpleasant for non-smokers. Hence I also support public smoking bans and in future would approve of a ban altogether.

In the UK, as we all know, we have universal healthcare and as such we have to assist in the treatment of smoking related illness. As a supporter of such healthcare I have no issue with that, but if people wish to continue smoking then they can be expected to pay a price for it

Taxes have been increasing here for cigarettes and the number of smokers has been falling

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I agree with such moves, cigarettes are absolutely disgusting and I would have no issue taxing them even more. They are not vital to life and as suggested previously, indeed limit life and make it unpleasant for non-smokers. Hence I also support public smoking bans and in future would approve of a ban altogether.

In the UK, as we all know, we have universal healthcare and as such we have to assist in the treatment of smoking related illness. As a supporter of such healthcare I have no issue with that, but if people wish to continue smoking then they can be expected to pay a price for it

Taxes have been increasing here for cigarettes and the number of smokers has been falling

quote>

What would you say if you didn't have universal health care? What if the person smoking had to pay for themselves with their own money/insurance? See, I agree with heavily taxing cigarettes if the governemnt (tax payers) have to pick up the tab on you're health care from you're smoking related illness. But if the government didn't have to then there should be no reason in taxing it so much. It's my problem, not theirs. But seeing as how people are either too poor or too stupid to have health care, the government must take care of it for them. Same with retirement savings.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

That's the thing about taxes, no one seems to care until they get around to what you like. If a non-smoker has no issue with outrageous cigarette taxes, then me, as a non-beer drinker, can't be expected to get upset when the taxes on beer go up by 1900% (yes, 1900%), as Oregon is trying to do. Or, someone who doesn't drive shouldn't care when their home state doubles the gas tax. And those who don't drink soft drinks like soda (me again) really shouldn't care that it's taxed at nearly 14% in Chicago?

My home state wants to hike the income tax by 50%, and increase the corporate tax even more. Do you really believe this won't hurt those who don't pay income taxes (those on Social Security) or those who don't own a business? Every dollar going to the gov't in tax is a dollar taken out of the local economy. If it goes to servicing debt, it goes to an investor who likely lives outside the state, and maybe outside the country.

High taxes hurt everyone, not just those who utilize the specific product or service being taxed. And eventually, they will come for something others enjoy. Everyone has a responsibility to keep their government's power in check.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: Jezus53

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I agree with such moves, cigarettes are absolutely disgusting and I would have no issue taxing them even more. They are not vital to life and as suggested previously, indeed limit life and make it unpleasant for non-smokers. Hence I also support public smoking bans and in future would approve of a ban altogether.

In the UK, as we all know, we have universal healthcare and as such we have to assist in the treatment of smoking related illness. As a supporter of such healthcare I have no issue with that, but if people wish to continue smoking then they can be expected to pay a price for it

Taxes have been increasing here for cigarettes and the number of smokers has been falling

quote>

What would you say if you didn't have universal health care? What if the person smoking had to pay for themselves with their own money/insurance? See, I agree with heavily taxing cigarettes if the governemnt (tax payers) have to pick up the tab on you're health care from you're smoking related illness. But if the government didn't have to then there should be no reason in taxing it so much. It's my problem, not theirs. But seeing as how people are either too poor or too stupid to have health care, the government must take care of it for them. Same with retirement savings.

quote>

Yes I'd still agree with the higher taxes, I think everything should be done to limit access to such disgusting and harmful things such as cigarettes. Difference with that and alcohol is that drinking alcohol in small and social amounts does not harm the body in way and no where near the degree that smoking even a few cigarettes does. In addition to the litter caused by smokers and possible secondary smoke.

As for having private health insurance, I believe that example is flawed. The more smokers you have, the more you will likely have to pay out and in the end....where is that additional money going to come from? From higher premiums in general for all those being insured.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Hate to burst your bubble on this, but the truth is that smokers save the system money, by dying an average of 10 years sooner. According to Reason.com, which in turn references the CDC (Centers for Disease Control):

Yet as the CDC is eager to point out, smokers tend to die sooner than nonsmokers, which means less health care in old age. A 1997 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that total medical spending actually would go up if everyone stopped smoking. Smokers also collect less from Social Security -- another factor mysteriously absent from the CDC's calculation.

If nationalized/socialized healthcare gives the gov't the right to dictate my personal choices on diet, smoking, etc., then that means those of us who believe in personal freedom and liberty need to redouble our efforts to stop any such system here.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Hate to burst your bubble on this, but the truth is that smokers save the system money, by dying an average of 10 years sooner. According to Reason.com, which in turn references the CDC (Centers for Disease Control):

Yet as the CDC is eager to point out, smokers tend to die sooner than nonsmokers, which means less health care in old age. A 1997 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that total medical spending actually would go up if everyone stopped smoking. Smokers also collect less from Social Security -- another factor mysteriously absent from the CDC's calculation.

If nationalized/socialized healthcare gives the gov't the right to dictate my personal choices on diet, smoking, etc., then that means those of us who believe in personal freedom and liberty need to redouble our efforts to stop any such system here.quote>

Besides the fact we cant afford national health care.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Hate to burst your bubble on this, but the truth is that smokers save the system money, by dying an average of 10 years sooner.quote>

Of course, that little detail isn't politically expedient, so it can just be ignored, right?

If nationalized/socialized healthcare gives the gov't the right to dictate my personal choices on diet, smoking, etc., then that means those of us who believe in personal freedom and liberty need to redouble our efforts to stop any such system here.quote>

↑↑↑This.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

If nationalized/socialized healthcare gives the gov't the right to dictate my personal choices on diet, smoking, etc., then that means those of us who believe in personal freedom and liberty need to redouble our efforts to stop any such system here.quote>

In my opinion, national health care would not (intrinsically) give the government power to do that. I have lung cancer, you have to treat it. I don't like socialized medicine myself. The treatment quality is reduced due to a collectivist attitude concerning the patient, and it funnels everyone to the government since they would have a monopoly on health care. Competition, in any industry, is good.

Besides the fact we cant afford national health care.quote>

I agree. The US is good as bankrupt, with this monstrous debt and hyperinflation just around the corner, not to mention a rise in interest rates, which are kept artificially low by the Fed.

The problem in health care is inflation. Stop the inflation in health care, you make it affordable. How is inflation stopped? Price controls would be one option. A better one would somehow limit the cost of an individual's health care to 10% of income a year. This wouldn't cost much, and would accomplish the objective.

[jmusshorn 7]

I just want to point out one thing, on the subject of regulation on when/where people can smoke:

When someone lights up in, say, a restaurant, they are imposing on everyone who is not smoking by essentially polluting the air. The same can not be said of non-smokers.

When was the last time that someone was told to NOT not smoke because it was bothering the others in the area?

The same could be said of people who are excessively loud in public, or in housing areas. The quiet are not imposing on the loud, so why should the loud be granted permission to impose upon the quiet?