Letter writers have expressed the opinion that if the recently enacted high tobacco tax discourages smokers from smoking, there will be some sort of economic dividend to society for making these people healthier. Most likely, however, society will realize a negative economic impact if a sizable number of people quit smoking because of this tax.
Of course we will see the immediate downturn in the tax revenue from tobacco sales and the negative economic impact on the tobacco industry. But beyond that, I think we will actually see the cost of medical services go up so as to cover the lost revenue from tobacco-related illness. And then there is the cost factor of supporting an ever-increasing senior population.
Not to over-dramatize, but it seems to me that smokers might actually be performing a valuable public service.
Kenneth A. McGee
Overland Park
The problem is not the consumption tax, I do not smoke and if they want to charge consumption taxation, so be it. I have a problem with some idiot lawyer signing off on an already defunct socilaized health insurance, expanding the recurring program and costs then attching this tax to it THEN claiming they want people to reduce their smoking hence reducing the revenue that is allocated to fund the welfare expansion. When they fall short (as usual), guess who will get burdened with paing for it? The middle class and up. Meanwhile these "poor" families will still get nig phat tax returns on money they did not pay into the system and the are not monitored on their expenditures so getting their nails did and Lil' Tyrese can sport the multi colored salmon and fuscia Nikes on our dime.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | April 02, 2009 at 09:31 AM
Since the percentage of smokers is higher in the lower income (12k-year) this is nothing but a tax on those earning less.
The American Cancer society thinks this is great that smokers should help pay for higher health costs because of smokers - very old school thinking.. A person who smokes all their life, usually drops dead after short battle with the big C, or a massive heart attack... those who dont smoke, and live 20 years more, with ever increasing health costs as they get older, cost more to maintain, (natural age related maintenance).
So, as Kenneth pointed out... smokers provide tax revenue, which wouldnt exist without the cigarette taxes...
When all is said and done, and they've finally eliminated tobacco from everyone's lives.. who will they go after then?
Yep, you got it.
Posted by: taxedtodeath | April 01, 2009 at 03:19 PM
Here's some stimulus for ya.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090401/ap_on_re_us/cigar_tax
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | April 01, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Well the best way to keep any vice legal is to keep the govt addicted to the special tax revenue.
However, more smokers wont do us nonsmokers any good. The tax revenue will be wasted. And your individual insurance premiums will go up.....but we dont have socialize medicine....right?
Posted by: Stifled Freedom | April 01, 2009 at 09:44 AM