Cigarette taxes devastating to lower income people

[Stubby]

But they actually do little to nothing to decrease smoking among lower income people

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/n...igarettes-study-says.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

Interesting comment by Carl Phillips

New York’s poor crippled by cigarette taxes, but ACS finds that delightful | Anti-THR Lie of the Day

It appears the social engineering experiment of sin taxes are having little effect on those on the lower end, and in fact the taxes are putting them further into poverty. I remember some time ago reading about the children of lower income smokers having food insecurities. This is when the kids don't know if there will be anything to eat.

tobacco taxes seem to be doing far more harm then good for the lower classes.

 

[TennDave]

A true addiction- poor people will buy cigs or get them somehow over other necessities and cigs will still kill them.
A true shame that the Govmnt still doesn't see the efficacy of harm reduction- certainly would be cheaper for poor people too.

 

[Rocketman]

I've run across people that can't round up enough to start vaping ($10 disposables aren't really an economical method) but will still drive up to the quick stop to get a pack or two of cigarettes.

Those are probably the same ones that would buy 2 six packs of beer instead of one if cigarettes were cheaper.

 

[rothenbj]

I've run across people that can't round up enough to start vaping ($10 disposables aren't really an economical method) but will still drive up to the quick stop to get a pack or two of cigarettes.

Those are probably the same ones that would buy 2 six packs of beer instead of one if cigarettes were cheaper.

LOL, I run a poker game at a bar so I'm there before the bar opens to set up. A fellow comes in as soon as it opens and buys 2 six packs. Apparently he does that over half the days in the week so he's buying about three cases a week. He could stop at a distributor once a week and save himself at least $50 plus auto expenses, but he doesn't. It's probable like smokers that buy packs instead of cartons because they either can't control their consumption or don't really want to accept how much they're actually spending.

Anyway, it's disgusting how little the ANTZ consider the social impact of their zeal to force people to comply.

 

[zoiDman]

But they actually do little to nothing to decrease smoking among lower income people

...

Why do you think that Taxes on Tobacco have Anything to do with Decreasing the Amount of people who use Tobacco?

Is the Tax on Liquor meant to Curb people from Drinking?

 

[Vocalek]

Thank God the government hasn't figured out a way to tax sex.

 

[Racehorse]

I remember some time ago reading about the children of lower income smokers having food insecurities. This is when the kids don't know if there will be anything to eat.

Just want to remind that even in households w/out smokers, thousands of children, all over America, go to bed hungry at night. I know because I talk to teachers. Some children can't wait to get to school on Monday to get their breakfast and lunch program stuff. The elderly are struggling as well, most elderly receive some social security and generally qualify for about $12-$16 a month in food stamps if they are well enough or able bodied enough to bother filling out all those forms. That's not a whole lot.

Look around and there is always a way to sneak a bag of groceries onto a neighbor's porch. When i was teaching we used to go stealth shopping for many of our adults students who were going back to school and were single working mom's and such.

I think about this sometimes before I buy stuff I don't need.

I would not be against taxing cigarettes though, IF harm reduction products were made available to lower income people at a steep discount.

When you think about it there are all kinds of programs for addictions of every kind, as well as family planning (free condoms, etc.) and perhaps the time to help people embrace harm reduction programs has come!

 

[zoiDman]

Thank God the government hasn't figured out a way to tax sex.

If they can, At least I know I’ll be doing my part to Help Lower the National Debt.

 

[VapApe]

Now now dont give them any ideas

 

[Rob Fontano]

This tax was thinly veiled with the purpose of causing people to quit tobacco. It was an acceptable tax increase to the majority of voters. E-cigarettes will steadily increase in popularity and become a more mainstream option as long as quality retail stores continue to flourish. People that have experimented with gas station disposables were disappointed and unfortunately dismissive of the possibility that it could replace their analogs.

 

[zoiDman]

...

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
...


George Harrison, 1966

 

[Stubby]

I would not be against taxing cigarettes though, IF harm reduction products were made available to lower income people at a steep discount.

When you think about it there are all kinds of programs for addictions of every kind, as well as family planning (free condoms, etc.) and perhaps the time to help people embrace harm reduction programs has come!

There is a rational progressive way of taxing tobacco and it would not require any government program. Simple tax the tobacco/nicotine product according to risk. Cigarettes would have the highest tax, while smokeless tobacco, dissolvables, and e-liquid would have a much lower tax, if any.

It is working that way for smokeless tobacco on a federal level. The tax on smokeless tobacco is much lower then that of cigarettes and RYO. On a state level it's a mixed bag with some states taxing at very high rates (WI where I live has the highest smokeless tobacco tax in the country at 100% of wholesale), while other like Penn. has no tax on smokeless. Once you get rid of the taxes and things like the master tobacco settlement the actual cost of the product is relatively low.

Or course for this to work the public would have to actually know the truth about the relative harm of different products. There are a lot of interested parties that are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening.

 

[haiqu]

Thank God the government hasn't figured out a way to tax sex.

It's only a matter of time. After all, the geniuses here in Australia found a way to tax fresh air ... it's called Carbon Tax.

Anyhow, as I recall - and I must have a great memory - sex was taxing enough all on its own.

 

[Stubby]

Carl Phillips has his usual interesting take on cigarette taxes

More defense of punishing taxes (and the fundamental anti-THR lies) from the tobacco control industry | Anti-THR Lie of the Day

 

[Racehorse]

Stubby,

100% agree with your idea about a more rational way to tax. What are these lower income people supposed to do until this happens? They may be dying of cig-related illnesses by then.

I think the ANTZ don't really love their fellow man yet pretending they want to "save" them. I hate that hypocrisy.

The research needs to keep coming out--- from an epidemiological pubic health standpoint. However, there have always been harm-reduction programs for poverty-level people to turn to. To me it always seemed like the humane thing to do if you care about mankind at all...........even if you disagree with their choices.

Helping people improve their lives is a laborious process sometimes, and you have to start on a very low rung of the ladder with them, not on the 3rd or 4th rung, and even while trying to reach the 1st rung, they may need a *hand up* to step a short distance. But it is forward upward movement.

Meanwhile, there's still got to be a way to reach out to people who are still on analogs other than slapping their hands and denying them what little money they have that could be spent on groceries. Because, they WILL buy cigarettes.

Even w/out taxes, cigarettes were always non-essentials ---even though "essential" to me because I was addicted to them. I don't pretend there weren't times I didn't spend my last $ on a pack of smokes, because I did. And there were certainly times I could not afford them.

I've run across people that can't round up enough to start vaping ($10 disposables aren't really an economical method) but will still drive up to the quick stop to get a pack or two of cigarettes.

Those are probably the same ones that would buy 2 six packs of beer instead of one if cigarettes were cheaper.

This reads to me like one of "those people" statements. ? Like they are losers or something.

I meet many who haven't vaped, don't even know what that is. They don't know if they will like it, or if it will satisfy or quell their nicotine addiction. Suggesting they blow their already meager nic budget on some gadget that they don't even trust yet......when I was a smoker, that would have made me pretty insecure?

I think in order to help people, really help them, we see that everyone does things in their own way and in their own time. THEY have to be ready. I imagine there is a certain degree of hopelessness in poverty which doesn't lend itself to forward movement sometimes.

I've offered my backup kit to a few acquaintances and they kinda turned their nose up at me. That's okay. I'm not going to make them feel like losers. We lead by example. They might come around.

Remembering back to a time when I needed to make some changes in my life.... I'm sure everyone saw it..... but I didn't. Wasn't ready.

I have had to give up on a few people in my life. Their programming was just so off and they become energy-sucking to my own spirit.....they continue to wallow in whatever it is and bring heaps o' hurt onto themselves until their own inner light goes on.

 

[Petrodus]

Many insist on believing what they want to
paying no attention to their lying eyes and lying ears.

Image source: The web (typical Obama voter)

 

[Stubby]

Stubby,

100% agree with your idea about a more rational way to tax. What are these lower income people supposed to do until this happens? They may be dying of cig-related illnesses by then.

I think the ANTZ don't really love their fellow man yet pretending they want to "save" them. I hate that hypocrisy.

The research needs to keep coming out--- from an epidemiological pubic health standpoint. However, there have always been harm-reduction programs for poverty-level people to turn to. To me it always seemed like the humane thing to do if you care about mankind at all...........even if you disagree with their choices.

Helping people improve their lives is a laborious process sometimes, and you have to start on a very low rung of the ladder with them, not on the 3rd or 4th rung, and even while trying to reach the 1st rung, they may need a *hand up* to step a short distance. But it is forward upward movement.

Meanwhile, there's still got to be a way to reach out to people who are still on analogs other than slapping their hands and denying them what little money they have that could be spent on groceries. Because, they WILL buy cigarettes.

Even w/out taxes, cigarettes were always non-essentials ---even though "essential" to me because I was addicted to them. I don't pretend there weren't times I didn't spend my last $ on a pack of smokes, because I did. And there were certainly times I could not afford them.

I agree. One of the worst taxes imposed recently was the SCHIP bill. This raised the tax on RYO tobacco by about 2500%. RYO was one of the last places lower income folks could go to get inexpensive smokes. Next up was the PACT act that not only made it much harder and more expensive to get swedish snus, but also made it illegal to ship tobacco via USPS.

The progressive tax structure I laid out (and I'm not the first) would only be effective if people knew the truth about the relative harm of different tobacco products. At the moment 85% of the public in the US falsely believe smokeless tobacco is as harmful, or more harmful then smoking. It doesn't make sense to have a progressive tax structure until the public knows and truth. Until then the taxes on cigarettes are devastating to lower income people. Tobacco taxes are likely the most regressive taxes out there.

The ANTZ are nothing more then fanatics and have lost touch with humanity. Unfortunately there are also people within the tobacco harm reduction movement that are still pushing for higher taxes with no regard for the effect this has on lower income people.

 

[jeffjr464]

i for one think they should raise the taxes even more!!! make smoking a rich man's game, smoke are 10-12 bucks a pack here, people still buy them, make them 50 bucks a pack and see how fast that stinkie doesn't appeal as much, so many people quit when you raise the price and that's why they do it, a smoker is way more expensive on society (healthcare etc) than a non smoker and they know it

 

[DC2]

i for one think they should raise the taxes even more!!! make smoking a rich man's game, smoke are 10-12 bucks a pack here, people still buy them, make them 50 bucks a pack and see how fast that stinkie doesn't appeal as much, so many people quit when you raise the price and that's why they do it, a smoker is way more expensive on society (healthcare etc) than a non smoker and they know it

1) Raising the price that much will just create a huge black market and corresponding criminal enterprise
2) The way I understand it is that very few people quit due to raising taxes
3) I've seen studies that show smokers are less expensive because they don't live as long

 

[Petrodus]

Several years ago ...
I went on a fishing trip in Canada and ran out of smokes.
Went to the store and was SHOCKED at the High prices.

Remember saying to the cashier ...
WOW, I bet these prices really caused many to stop smoking !!
She replied: Not Really