"Costly cigarettes"

[Howard Dittrich]

In the Free Press today an article highlighted the pending tobacco tax increase. The article states “The tax increase is only the first move in a recharged anti-smoking campaign.” The article also quotes Dr. Timothy Gardner, president of the American Heart Association. The tax increase “is a terrific public health move by the federal government. Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up the use of cigarettes goes down.”

Not sure were I stand on this topic, should the Federal government use tax policy to influence public actions? Some people believe that activities such as smoking should be taxed because smoking can directly lead to medical problems.

Like I said, not sure where I stand on this topic, what does the Forum think?

[Bob Jentges]

In the Free Press today an article highlighted the pending tobacco tax increase. The article states “The tax increase is only the first move in a recharged anti-smoking campaign.” The article also quotes Dr. Timothy Gardner, president of the American Heart Association. The tax increase “is a terrific public health move by the federal government. Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up the use of cigarettes goes down.”

Not sure were I stand on this topic, should the Federal government use tax policy to influence public actions? Some people believe that activities such as smoking should be taxed because smoking can directly lead to medical problems.

Like I said, not sure where I stand on this topic, what does the Forum think?

It seems to be pretty well established that cigarette smoking and using tobacco products in general is not good for ones health.

In my view one problem with increasing the tobacco tax is it takes a larger percentage from low income users than it does from high income users. Generally I do not favor regressive raxes.

I think adult cigarette smokers in Minnesota is down to about 20% of the population. I question if increasing the tobacco tax will bring that down much lower. Those who can afford it will probably accept the increase and continue to smoke. Those that can not afford the increase in price (maybe even some that can) and are intent on smoking will probably find a place to purchase cigaretts if the tax gets too high, which could result in a loss of revenue.

If the legislature is really interested in the health effects of smoking on citizens maybe they should ban the sale of tobacco entirely. But that would probably not solve matters either, because as stated previously herin, those intent on smoking or using tobacco products would most likely find a way to get tobacco products.

[Howard Dittrich]

Bob,

Thanks for the input, just for the record, the tax increase is a federal tax, not a state tax.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob,

Thanks for the input, just for the record, the tax increase is a federal tax, not a state tax.

I wonder if an increase in state tax will soon follow.

[Ben Willaert]

This is the State Children's Health Insurance Program thread I started awhile back. It is an absolute farce for the feds to say they are doing out of concern for the smokers. No one complains when you raise taxes on the smokers and the feds are taking advantage of that. Obama signed this on Feb. 4th as a way to fund SCHIP. You may have seen promotional material talking about insuring 11 million children. I know I got a few mailings from Walz bragging about it. The kicker is that those 11 million children are children that don't qualify for Medicaid; they come from middle class homes. So here you have a tax on the low class smokers, paying for middle class children's health insurance.

If the government cared about the smokers, they would be using this tax to fund stop smoking programs. They are not. Smokers are the government’s cash cow. That isn’t right. Even if it is for the children.

[Dan Conner]

In the Free Press today an article highlighted the pending tobacco tax increase. The article states “The tax increase is only the first move in a recharged anti-smoking campaign.” The article also quotes Dr. Timothy Gardner, president of the American Heart Association. The tax increase “is a terrific public health move by the federal government. Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up the use of cigarettes goes down.”

Not sure were I stand on this topic, should the Federal government use tax policy to influence public actions? Some people believe that activities such as smoking should be taxed because smoking can directly lead to medical problems.

Like I said, not sure where I stand on this topic, what does the Forum think?

Well, I equate smoking much like speeding. Both are dangerous and both involve significant cost to deter them. While speeding tickets don't stop speeding, they sure reduce the number of speeders. I think the same applies to smoking. It's dangerous, just like speeding.

As far as the transfer of wealth from one class to another, I think that would need to be better researched. It is assumed, by some, that smoking only happens among the poor, and they assume that family income, of families receiving benefits of health care for children, is more than that of smokers. I don't know that that is born out by the facts.

Much use of the word "responsibility" has been used in this forum. Paying additional taxes on cigarettes might be one way to demonstrate that responsibility.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

I've listened to a lot of groups over the past two years talk about smoking and smoking cessation. Also heard lots from the smoker's rights group....My general analysis from listening to all sides is that raising the price does affect youth smoking, and I think there are some pretty credible studies done to this affect....Youth smoking, I believe, is one of the growing areas of smoking. Note all the college students who smoke now, when just a decade or so ago, you didn't see that...So I think raising the price, via a tax, does have an impact on demand for cigarettes from SOME groups.

[Howard Dittrich]

In my view one problem with increasing the tobacco tax is it takes a larger percentage from low income users than it does from high income users. Generally I do not favor regressive raxes.

Bob, Please help me understand your point of view, how does a tobacco tax such as this one became a regressive tax?

Is it because lower income users smoke more (don't know if this is true, just asking the question)? Or is it because the high income users make more money so the tax paid represents a smaller amount of their income?

I do not favor regressive taxes myself, but how can I sympathize with a smoker that claims to be a victim of regressive taxation when the taxes they pay are optional. If you don't smoke you don't pay the tax?

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, Please help me understand your point of view, how does a tobacco tax such as this one became a regressive tax?

Is it because lower income users smoke more (don't know if this is true, just asking the question)? Or is it because the high income users make more money so the tax paid represents a smaller amount of their income?

I do not favor regressive taxes myself, but how can I sympathize with a smoker that claims to be a victim of regressive taxation when the taxes they pay are optional. If you don't smoke you don't pay the tax?

Howard, I heard on the radio this afternoon about a recent survey that indicated lower income people do smoke more than higher income people. I think those with incomes of $30,000 or less had a greater percentage of smokers than any other income catagory. I heard it while I was driving in my car so I can not cite the name of the survey. Sorry.

With respect to the regressive tax issue, the tax on cigaretts is regressive for the reason you cite i.e. "...high income users make more money so the tax paid represents a smaller amount of their income".

For health reasons and for personal finance reasons the most logical thing for a smoker to do would be to quit. I have never smoked cigaretts so have no personal experience on how difficult or easy it may be to quit. I certainly agree with you that if you do not smoke you don't pay the tax. But if one does choose to smoke and pay the tax, the tax is regressive for reasons stated above.

[Dan Conner]

Howard, I heard on the radio this afternoon about a recent survey that indicated lower income people do smoke more than higher income people. I think those with incomes of $30,000 or less had a greater percentage of smokers than any other income catagory. I heard it while I was driving in my car so I can not cite the name of the survey. Sorry.

With respect to the regressive tax issue, the tax on cigaretts is regressive for the reason you cite i.e. "...high income users make more money so the tax paid represents a smaller amount of their income".

For health reasons and for personal finance reasons the most logical thing for a smoker to do would be to quit. I have never smoked cigaretts so have no personal experience on how difficult or easy it may be to quit. I certainly agree with you that if you do not smoke you don't pay the tax. But if one does choose to smoke and pay the tax, the tax is regressive for reasons stated above.

The good news is that it is estimated that 2 million people will quit smoking because of this tax. Maybe not too high a price to save so many lives.

[Bob Jentges]

The good news is that it is estimated that 2 million people will quit smoking because of this tax. Maybe not too high a price to save so many lives.

Yes.

And the good news could be multiplied if the "tax" played a part in convincing youth not to start smoking to begin with.

[Dan Conner]

Yes.

And the good news could be multiplied if the "tax" played a part in convincing youth not to start smoking to begin with.

Right on! We actually agree.

[Doug Monson]

I think everyone here has valid points, but I wonder how many of you have been a smoker or have really been addicted to something of such a toxic nature. And to that matter, I wonder how many people would say, "hey, let's raise taxes on fat, greasy foods so people won't eat fattening stuff," which isn't good for you either. To me, it's funny how many people say this will help people quit ... 2 million I believe one of you stated was estimated. That's great, but as a lot of you have pointed out, us smokers are one heck of a cash cow. So when I here people debating the subject and saying it'll help people make healthier choices, fund children's insurance, drive down medical costs, etc., etc., I think ... it's not your life, so back off. There are still things in this world that we should respect, and one of those things is a person's right to choose what they do or do not do with their body. If I don't smoke near people, in cars with children, in my home, or throw my butts on the ground, then I don't think it's anyone elses decision whether I smoke or not ... and I definitely don't think raising taxes to try to influence my choices is justified.

At least with this tax, let's be honest about what it is ... another way to indirectly raise taxes to try and put money into the government ... in this case, uninsured children.

A second point about the people who say they are going to quit now because it is too costly. Well, about two weeks ago, I forget exactly when, the major tobacco companies raised prices on cigarettes, and everyone knew the federal tax was coming. So people started thinking they were going to be paying $7 a pack in some cases. But when April first came, the price of those cigarettes were still the same. I asked another person about it, and they said the tobacco companies did this to try and get people in a panic and buy in bulk before the tax increase. I'm not sure if any of that is true, but I know the price hasn't changed since Wednesday, so I think the scare factor was lost on a lot of people, so far, because prices hadn't changed to what they were expecting.

Finally ... whatever someone is addicted, they will get. It's a fact of life, regardless of class, race, gender ... it'll eat 'em up.

[Dan Conner]

I think everyone here has valid points, but I wonder how many of you have been a smoker or have really been addicted to something of such a toxic nature. And to that matter, I wonder how many people would say, "hey, let's raise taxes on fat, greasy foods so people won't eat fattening stuff," which isn't good for you either. To me, it's funny how many people say this will help people quit ... 2 million I believe one of you stated was estimated. That's great, but as a lot of you have pointed out, us smokers are one heck of a cash cow. So when I here people debating the subject and saying it'll help people make healthier choices, fund children's insurance, drive down medical costs, etc., etc., I think ... it's not your life, so back off. There are still things in this world that we should respect, and one of those things is a person's right to choose what they do or do not do with their body. If I don't smoke near people, in cars with children, in my home, or throw my butts on the ground, then I don't think it's anyone elses decision whether I smoke or not ... and I definitely don't think raising taxes to try to influence my choices is justified.

At least with this tax, let's be honest about what it is ... another way to indirectly raise taxes to try and put money into the government ... in this case, uninsured children.

A second point about the people who say they are going to quit now because it is too costly. Well, about two weeks ago, I forget exactly when, the major tobacco companies raised prices on cigarettes, and everyone knew the federal tax was coming. So people started thinking they were going to be paying $7 a pack in some cases. But when April first came, the price of those cigarettes were still the same. I asked another person about it, and they said the tobacco companies did this to try and get people in a panic and buy in bulk before the tax increase. I'm not sure if any of that is true, but I know the price hasn't changed since Wednesday, so I think the scare factor was lost on a lot of people, so far, because prices hadn't changed to what they were expecting.

Finally ... whatever someone is addicted, they will get. It's a fact of life, regardless of class, race, gender ... it'll eat 'em up.


Well, I was a smoker. I was a smoker for many many years...I guess you could say addicted. In fact I came down with a lung disease in 1975 and had lung surgery, where a lobe of my lung was removed. I smoked at the time. I remember finding cigarettes in the cabinet next to my hospital bed, while I was recovering from the surgery, and I lit one up. Since I just got out of intensive care about a week earlier, the cigarette was terrible and I coughed for a long time, but I forced myself so that I could finish that cigarette. I used to wake up every morning coughing and hacking. That's pretty addicted. However, I quit over 20 years ago because my children constantly bugged me about it and it got too expensive a habit. I was not making much money back then, and smoking deprived my family of other things. I felt rather selfish, at that point, that I would find it OK to deprive my family so I could have a smoke, which was a personally destructive thing.

I viewed my action to quit smoking as being responsible, but that responsibility was aided by the expense of the smoking habit. As far as raising taxes on rich greasy foods is concerned...maybe not a bad idea, if it gets people to improve their diets and their quality of life. I certainly think it is foolish for smokers to develop a persecution complex about paying an additional tax and being forced to fund all sorts of great programs. Remember....you still have a choice. Either quit or pay the price. For those who insist on continuing to smoke maybe some of the tax could fund a national smoking cessation program. However, I do believe you can quit smoking if you really want to. It isn't fun or easy, but very few good things are.

[Doug Monson]

I don't think I'm complaining about paying the tax. I realize everything pretty clearly when it comes to my own addiction. I'm just saying don't use a tax on cigarettes as a crusade to decide what is and isn't right or healthy for other people. Worry about your own darn lives. If the government benefits from taxing smokes, so be it. But if we're going to have a sin tax, you might as well apply that tax across the board ... and heavily. Tax the crap out of alcohol (not that this product isn't taxed heavily already), grease and fatty foods and anything that gives anyone pleasure. Do it in the name of what is good for others, and all will be forgiven.

[Dan Conner]

I don't think I'm complaining about paying the tax. I realize everything pretty clearly when it comes to my own addiction. I'm just saying don't use a tax on cigarettes as a crusade to decide what is and isn't right or healthy for other people. Worry about your own darn lives. If the government benefits from taxing smokes, so be it. But if we're going to have a sin tax, you might as well apply that tax across the board ... and heavily. Tax the crap out of alcohol (not that this product isn't taxed heavily already), grease and fatty foods and anything that gives anyone pleasure. Do it in the name of what is good for others, and all will be forgiven.

I think an important factor you're not considering in your "sin" tax is that smoking DOES affect others. Second-hand smoke is a contributor to lung cancer. All sorts of people have died of lung cancer attributable to second-hand smoke. While drinking and diet can kill the abusers, I don't know of innocent bystanders being killed by it. I've not known of alcohol evaporations afflicting the innocent or abberrant fat and protein cells sailing through the air and attaching themselves to the slim and fit. They kill only the abuser. Smoking kills the abuser and the innocent inhaling surplus smoke. Honestly, our society probably doesn't value your life. If you choose to abuse yourself, people will probably roll their eyes and wait for one to die, but they will not tolerate cigarette abusers from affecting the health of the innocent, especially if they were among the innocent.

In addition, you seem to be acting like a poor sport by attacking others because smokers have been picked on. I think you would be better to stick to the merit, or lack thereof, of the smokers tax and allow abusers of the other "sins" defend their own.

[Jeff Brand]

When I stop at a gas station and read a sign saying a carton of Marlboros (sp) is $50, the first thing I think about is the safety of the person behind the counter selling them. These items are market driven based upon addiction to the nicotine within them, and if the price continues to go up, I wonder how long it will be until people start holding up gas stations just to feed the habit.

I really am amazed that the cigarette makers are even in business considering they no longer can advertise on television or to children (Jo Camel), and they were given such a black eye in the court system in the late 90's when all the documents surfaced detailing their product and their marketing strategies. Also, state laws have banned their usage in buildings and the price of the products are being driven up by taxes that ultimately have nicotine worshipers considering quiting solely becuase the price is too much to pay because of these added taxes. Food for thought...

[Steven Schmidt]

But in bars, shouldn't people know that there would be smoke? Isn't it there responsability to stay out if they are that worried? Shouldn't banning smoking have been up to owners? No one is forcing employees to work in that environment. If they didn't like it, they should have just quit.

One prediction, the next thing the government will go after isn't fatty foods, it's cars. Vehicles with big motors aren't killing people, they are killing an entire planet! Once more hybrid American cars start to roll out, and few sell, you will see a huge tax break on purchasing one. Most won't be able to afford anything but tin cans.

Using taxes to alter peoples habits is not good. Just outlaw cig's and be done with it, instead of bleeding the smokers and companies for everything their worth.

[Bob Jentges]

But in bars, shouldn't people know that there would be smoke? Isn't it there responsability to stay out if they are that worried? Shouldn't banning smoking have been up to owners? No one is forcing employees to work in that environment. If they didn't like it, they should have just quit.

One prediction, the next thing the government will go after isn't fatty foods, it's cars. Vehicles with big motors aren't killing people, they are killing an entire planet! Once more hybrid American cars start to roll out, and few sell, you will see a huge tax break on purchasing one. Most won't be able to afford anything but tin cans.

Using taxes to alter peoples habits is not good. Just outlaw cig's and be done with it, instead of bleeding the smokers and companies for everything their worth.

Steve, you are asking politically correct people to exercise common sense. What we need to do is elect people with common sense!