Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
I'm confused. I repeatedly read that an overwhelming majority of citizens of North Carolina favor a lottery and also favor raising the tax on cigarettes. Our legislators are apparently blind and deaf to this information. . .
The only possible cure for my confusion will come in November at the voting booth. I hope others who are confused will be cured also.
Jump to full article »
According to a statewide poll, Virginians would support higher cigarette taxes to (1) ease the state's budget problems and (2) discourage smoking by the young. Hold the whoas. The survey's results qualify as a textbook case of suspicions confirmed. They do not surprise.
A hike in the tobacco tax represents an easy - perhaps the easiest - option. It's a levy others pay . .
One point of higher taxes is to discourage consumption. To the degree they succeed, they generate fewer dollars in excise taxes - and contribute to lower incomes and less employment in the tobacco industry. The tobacco farmer and the tobacco worker bear the brunt of the attack.
Although smokers did not create the revenue gap, momentum is building to make them pay. Commentators long have ridiculed policies based on blue smoke and mirrors. If higher tobacco taxes became Virginia's device for raising revenues, then truly it would be said that the state was balancing its budget with smoke.
Polls show voters will support higher taxes to pay for this or that. On Election Day, victory goes to the candidate who says no to taxes. . .
A crucial reason for the apparent contradiction could be that while the electorate expresses its willingness to decide for itself to raise taxes (and to specify the purposes), it does not trust politicians to make the call. To the aware voter, the politician who endorses a specific tax hike is the politician who wants to raise taxes generally, too.
It's time for another change, and this time the movement ought to be in the opposite direction -- up. A new poll discovering that a surprising 67 percent of Virginians favor a 60-cents-per-pack hike ought to put some starch in the spines of lawmakers who wilt at mere mention of the ``T'' word.
As voters apparently recognize, sin taxes are different. . .
But a lucrative poison is nonetheless a poison. Ultimately, public policy must favor the larger public interest, in this case reducing the hundreds of millions of dollars taxpayers expend each year in treating smoking-related illnesses.
At least from an economic standpoint, the domestic decline in smoking is occurring gradually. Although tobacco lobbyists will claim otherwise, an increase in Virginia's cigarette tax would be a minuscule assault on the industry. Eighteen states have already raised their cigarette taxes this year, and there has been no discernible impact on tax collections in the Virginia communities that support tobacco.
It is time to light up the campaign for a higher cigarette tax in Virginia.
Last year, tobacco interests contributed more than $1.2 million to Virginia statewide and legislative candidates. Philip Morris gave more than any other corporation to candidates in Virginia.
In the anything-goes campaign finance climate of the Old Dominion, money usually talks louder than either polls or common sense. This isn't always the case. But it's the case often enough to suggest that cigarette tax advocates, if they are to have any hope of success, must treat their poll not as the final word but as the beginning of an arduous campaign.
Why is it that people addicted to tobacco (thanks to the lies told by the tobacco companies) have to cover the fines paid by the tobacco companies with higher prices for their products and now we have to take on the burden of paying for lost state revenues as well? When is this going to stop? We can't sue the tobacco companies for causing our obvious addictions until we have one foot in the grave, and we had nothing to do with the state being unable to manage their money.
A big part of Pennsylvania's budget deficit fix might be going up in smoke, literally. Faced with higher cigarette taxes, smokers are seeking cheaper alternatives that could affect the state's anticipated tobacco tax revenues by millions of dollars. . .
And here's an ironic twist on the sales by Internet sites. Many of them are operated by Indian reservations where tobacco sales are exempt from state and local taxes. Native Americans operating these sites argue those sales should be tax exempt also. If that argument holds, descendants of those who introduced the world to tobacco hundreds of years ago might end up being big beneficiaries of the state's lousy economic health.
This year 17 states hiked cigarette taxes, including neighboring New York and New Jersey. The federal government estimates Internet sales will cost states $1.5 billion in taxes. That could make $617 million seem like a pipe dream. What will fill the budget hole next year?
Who do the editorial writers think they're fooling? Certainly not smokers, and, I dare say, not many others.
Why don't we admit it: Taxation on tobacco and everything else is all about money, pure and simple, and everyone knows it. The color of money rules all governments, and the tobacco tax is no exception.
If the truth were told, governments couldn't give a diddly squat about health, but given the chance to get their hands in the public's pocket, they and their media stooges will espouse every excuse imaginable. I believe the general public is on to this scam. And it's about time.
Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) recently said he was open to raising taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, so Fairfax Extra asked proponents and opponents to express their views.Cynthia Coldwell, chairman of the board of the American Lung Association of Virginia, responded in a joint column with three other pro-tax groups. Philip Morris USA, which employs 6,400 people at its cigarette manufacturing plant in Richmond, declined the request. . .
An increase in cigarette taxes won't hurt tobacco farmers as some might fear. Virginia smokers are responsible for only a tiny fraction of the overall demand for cigarette tobacco grown in the commonwealth.
By reducing cigarette consumption in Virginia by about 6.5 percent, a 50-cent-a-pack cigarette tax increase would reduce the overall demand for American-grown tobacco by only about one-tenth of one percent.
In addition, reduced cigarette sales would not significantly affect the economy since consumer spending would shift to other areas.
Gov. Warner deserves praise for courageously endorsing an increase in Virginia's cigarette tax. We urge Virginia's senators and delegates to pass a 50-cent-a-pack increase in the state's tobacco tax. It's a "win-win" for all Virginians concerned about our fiscal health and the health of our citizens.
CALIFORNIA should reject as fools gold the proposed huge increase in cigarette taxes. I spent 25 years in New York state government as a cop, a prosecutor and the top enforcement official for tobacco taxes, and I know first-hand what such a high tax will bring: crime, cheap cigarettes easily available to youth, and unemployment.
Will California's revenues be increased by the tax? It is far from certain because much depends on how much the sale of tobacco products is reduced by the higher tax. . .
But what about the other possible goal of taxation -- to change people's behavior? After a decade or more of punitive social and tax policy against tobacco products, the people who still use the stuff are highly committed to it. If they've held out all this time, they're not likely to quit. . .
Even more unsettling is the fact that a tax increase like this discourages economic growth. California's distributors will lay off workers when business drops off, and retailers who depend heavily on tobacco profits will close and join the ranks of the unemployed. The math is simple. More retail sales means more opportunities, lower sales means fewer jobs, fewer people paying taxes, and less revenue generated for the state.
Perhaps the most egregious problem with a tax increase of this magnitude is that it will end up making cheap cigarettes available to kids-- the direct opposite of what the proponents claim. With an overwhelming proliferation of smuggling, cheap cigarettes will be available over the Net and on many street corners. . .
The lesson is clear from New York to California: when governments try to tax behavior in order to change behavior, they wind up losing revenue and hurting the innocent.
This result to a tax increase seems to defeat the whole purpose of the tax which was to bring more revenue back into the state. The prices are so high that people look for other sources or are completely quitting the habit altogether.
Instead of lawmakers looking for quick solutions such as the cigarette tax, attention must also go toward solving the overall problem. How did the state of Kansas end up in this financial crisis and how can we prevent this from happening again?
While the increase has obvious health benefits, it is the responsibility of every citizen to help Kansas recover from this serious financial crisis.
Lawmakers should not have targeted smokers and should have thought of tax solutions in which everyone has to pay out of pocket.
Is it the tax money the government and states want from the smokers? It must be, because when more money is needed for a project, the first people they tax are the poor, sick ,addicted cigarette smokers. They will spend their food money to buy a pack of cigarettes.
Start helping these sick, addicted people by not allowing tobacco growers in our country. The government receives no tax on drugs, so they don't allow drugs. I know the tax money will be missed, but get the tobacco growers out of our country.
The General Assembly and Gov. George Ryan did the right thing by raising the cigarette tax in Illinois by 40 cents per pack. The increase is justified for one very important reason: It will help deter more than 56,000 Illinois youths from starting to smoke. . .
Bottom line: The higher tax will keep kids away from cigarettes and encourage adult smokers to quit. It is a policy that deserves our praise.