Oh dear you say, has Kat gone off the deep end and taken up the forbidden vice??? Was all the blogging pressure just TOOO much? Nah...its just that the Utah State Legislature is starting up on Monday and one of the proposals on the table is to raise cigarette taxes to $3.00 a pack. It is currently at $.69 (and a half) per pack. Governor Huntsman would like to use the 'extra' tax revenue from the $2.30 (and a half) tax hike to replace funds that would be lost by repealing the food tax. As you may know our tax on food has already been reduced significantly over the last 4 years and the Gov would like to finish it off this year. The question is...is this a good idea? Just to be clear...here are a few blanket assumptions as to my thinking on this subject.
1. I HATE smoking. I hate the smell--I hate the litter. I hate that when I am in my car and a smoker is in the car in front of me I can STILL smell their smoke through my air system. I hate that smokers hack and cough. I hate that the stench can be so ingrown in a car or house that it leave its mark on unsuspecting passerbys. In short...I think smoking stinks!
2. I think it is a great idea to do away with food tax. It is an unfair tax. It puts a greater burden on those that have fewer means. Those that have a lower income spend a greater percentage of their money on food and therefore have a higher percentage tax burden. It seems only fair to lessen the burden of taxes on those essential items we need to survive. (I'm not talking necessarily about Ding Dongs and Twinkies but rather fruits, veggies and the like)
3. I would favor a tax hike on cigarettes. We rank 34 in the country on cigarette taxes. This has nothing to do with religion, it has everthing do with creating cleaner air and saving lives. The American Medical Association has found a correlation between increase of tobacco tax and decrease in usage. 'Studies show that for every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes, youth smoking is reduced by seven percent, and overall consumption by four percent.' http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/17693.html Our tax currently is low...only 16 states are lower and most of those are in the South where they produce the tobacco. The states with the highest tobacco taxes are liberal states interestingly enough...New Englad, New York, Washington...etc.
Now to the real issue. Does it make sense to tax a minority...with the 'hope' that the tax will ultimately discourage use and use the money to help the majority? I'm not so sure. If smoking rates do take a nosedive...where will the money come for the shortfalls then? And, is it really fair to tax a minority for everyone elses benefit? If the taxes were going to go to cessation or education programs I would be all on board. But something about this proposal just doesn't sit well with my sense of fairness. Rankings and tax info found here: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html
Thoughts???
Ok now to the really important stuff. Kung Fu Panda Movie Review.
Yes we are quite behind on the 'hip' movies but we finally watched it tonight. Judging by the kids laughter my guess is they would give it very nearly 4 **** (STARS--not bad words) I laughed too, my rating would probably be around 2 3/4 ** not my favorite movie of the year, but fun for a laugh and a Friday night with the FAM.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You bring up a compelling argument regarding taxing a few for the benefit of all. But, here is another angle. Conventional wisdom is that smokers use up more healthcare dollars than non-smokers. If there are smokers on public assistance and Joe Taxpayer is paying those bills, then it might be fair to tax the smokes as a way of offsetting the extra burden on the healthcare end.
Okay, here comes a tangent....
I am surprised that health care insurance companies don't tax smokers. At least in my insurance plan, I (as a jogging, non-smoking, non-drinking client) pay the same as the my less healthful counterparts. I'd like the Responsible Person discount.
I would agree if the taxes were going to healthcare costs I would have no problem with the idea. You know in 1998 when we had the big 'settlement' from the tobacco companies the cry was that all that money would go to healthcare related areas. While I think Utah did a wise thing with a portion of their funds...i.e. setting up a trust fund for 50% of the funds then using the interest to reinvest and the other part for health related issues, it is a far cry from what the money was intended from the outset. HEre is an interesting link on where our tobacco money really goes. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/state.php?StateID=UT
The thing with this new tax is they aren't even portraying it as a help to defray health care costs it is just going to go towards removing food tax.
ugghhh .. it's too early in the morning for my brain to be functioning at an intelligent level. maybe i'm un-phased by the politics of everything these days, but it doesn't surprise me that they're using something like this to fill the gap for something else. i'm not sure my opinion is unbiased because i'm with you, kat, about smoking. clearly, i don't use them and don't appreciate those that do so i can't say i really care if they tax cigarettes or not. if i were a smoker, i'm sure i'd have an earful to say about it. of course, more on my mind these days is how barack obama is allowing tax-payer money to fund abortions. why should my tax dollars be applied to something i am morally opposed to? it's all politics.
I'm still stuck on the health care angle. It doesn't really matter to me if the cig tax actually goes toward health care costs. Rather, it just makes me feel vindicated (as a Responsible Person) that people who use a lot of health care dollars because of cigs are at least paying a high tax for their cig use. But, I realize that this is not addressing your main point.
Let me see if I can't get to the main point. The state regularly taxes for using or owning certain things: land, homes, cars, boats, etc. So, back to your question: Does it make sense to tax a minority...with the 'hope' that the tax will ultimately discourage use and use the money to help the majority?
My guess would be that those who, for instance, own and pay taxes on recreational vehicles, are also in the minority. I'm sure that that tax revenue isn't set aside just to help the recreational vehicle owners. It probably--again, a guess--flows into a fund that serves a wider population. So, if cig taxes are taken from a minority and given to the majority, to me that sounds like business as usual. No problems there. And, second, if the tax discourages cig use, then great!
Next issue....I can see the problem of a revenue shortfall. If the food tax is reduced or eliminated and cig use drops, then we would have a shortfall and have to find the money elsewhere. That's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
But, here is another problem. Is it ethical for the state to work itself into a position in which it depends upon tax dollars that have been gained by the sale of a product that is known to be harmful? And, it is there an ethical dilemma if the state were to benefit from increased cigarette use?
Wow Kathryn. I can see I'm going to enjoy you being in the blogging world. Don't know if I've e-mailed you this, but one of my awesome visiting teachers writes at http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com. I'm sure she would love to hear from you and your readers. I'm sending her a link to yours right now.
P.S. We haven't seen Kung Fu Panda. I get more and more leery about these 'kids' movies, knowing the material isn't always for kids. Maybe one of these days we'll have to take the plunge.
Brenda, I think you hit my uncomfortable feeling on the head: "Is it ethical for the state to work itself into a position in which it depends upon tax dollars that have been gained by the sale of a product that is known to be harmful? And, it is there an ethical dilemma if the state were to benefit from increased cigarette use?"
I can see your point with the RV tax idea..but it doesn't seem laced with the ethical questions above.
For the record...I am for increasing tax on cigarettes regardless of where the money goes. It just seems wrong to benefit from the sale of a harmful product.
Brooke,
That is an interesting point to bring up on abortions. I heard that there was a provision in the next stimulus bill to spend hundreds of thousands of dollar son birth control...as the house member said in his sound bite...how is that going to stimulate the economy??? (Sorry I can't reference that point so I don't know 100% that it is true)
Marni, Thanks for the tip...I'll go check her blog out. :)
If I dig deeply enough, I am sure I could come up with an ethical dilemma regarding those RV drivers.....
cogitating......
still thinking.....
Changing subject: Aren't you just loving the blogging?
You are feisty today Brenda. *laughing* I love it!
Post a Comment