Raise cigarette taxes for children's health care?
Governor Ted Kulongoski has launched his campaign to raise cigarette taxes for children's health care. From the O's blog:
His new chief of staff and two deputy chiefs testified together in public for the first time, telling the House and Senate revenue committees why they should enact the govenor's proposals to raise corporate taxes modestly and boost cigarette taxes a whopping 70 percent. ...Kulongoski wants to use money raised by a higher cigarette tax to provide health insurance for 117,000 low- and moderate- income children who now are uninsured.
As the only state in the nation to lower its cigarette taxes in the past decade, Oregon has suffered from rising tobacco use in the past several years, including a sharp increase in mothers smoking during pregnancy, [Tim] Nesbitt told lawmakers.
Kulongoski's plan is to raise Oregon's cigarette taxes by 84 cents to $2.03 a pack - matching Washington's tax rate, the third-highest in the nation.
Buzz poll on the jump...
Discuss.
|
January 19, 2007 |
buzz poll | Comments (129 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: JHL | Jan 19, 2007 6:52:16 AM
Credit where credit is due -- Good job, Governor Ted!
Though it almost reminds me of something...
But I vote YES. Support the Gov on this one!
Posted by: PID | Jan 19, 2007 6:52:26 AM
I'm hesitant. I'm all in favor of raising taxes for children's health care. I'm also in favor of the state levying a tax on cigarettes to recover the cost incurred by smoking.
But I fear that tobacco taxes have become popular because most of us don't have to pay them. The last sentence is most telling:
Chip Terhune, Kulongoski's chief of staff, said he expects voters would readily agree to a cigarette tax hike to fund children's health care, if the question were put to voters.These taxes make it possible for all of us to pay for things like expanded health care for kids--things we should pay for--by putting the cost on a small segment of our society. Never mind that this segment has, on average, lower incomes and hence a decreased ability to bear that cost.
Also, as Frank points out, it puts the state in the absurd position where its efforts to meet one policy goal, decreasing nicotine addiction, trade off with its ability to meet another, providing health care to children.
It might be more difficult politically, but I might be happier if we were trying to secure children's health care in a way that spread the costs more fairly. I realize, though, that this might be the best we can do.
(By the way, just so I don't get accused of being a disgruntled smoker, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life.)
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Jan 19, 2007 7:26:18 AM
just so I don't get accused of being a disgruntled smoker
I guess I need, for full-disclosure, to point out I am an ex-smoker, though I quit back when a pack of smokes was still around a buck.
I think PID's point is well taken on the unfair tax burden we put on the weaker-willed when we tax their addictions, and suck up their lottery dollars ("playing is not for investment purposes!) All the while failing to adequately tax the corporations that keep those campaign contributions a'flowin'...
Whatever happened to the concept of "fair?"
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jan 19, 2007 8:10:41 AM
The gov’s proposal is disappointedly timid, hackneyed, and lacking in vision, especially in light of the political support he gained with the Democrats taking control of state government.
Where indeed is the fairness of targeting one small group of chemically addicted citizens to pay for the health care of children? Is this really the best he could come up with? And no, I am not a cigarette smoker.
If this is a preview of Gov K’s next term in office than it sadly looks be more of what we've seen in the past.
Posted by: Anon | Jan 19, 2007 8:29:24 AM
The fairness is that every pack of cigarettes costs the state a little less than $3.50 in additional uncovered health care costs. This plan wouldn't so much as add to the cost of cigarettes as it would end a long-standing subsidy of cigarettes.
Where indeed is the fairness of having me subsidize one small group of chemically addicted citizens?
Posted by: Anon | Jan 19, 2007 8:29:27 AM
The fairness is that every pack of cigarettes costs the state a little less than $3.50 in additional uncovered health care costs. This plan wouldn't so much as add to the cost of cigarettes as it would end a long-standing subsidy of cigarettes.
Where indeed is the fairness of having me subsidize one small group of chemically addicted citizens?
Posted by: Antonin Scarpini | Jan 19, 2007 8:31:14 AM
Seig Heil is about all I can say to this.
Posted by: BlueNote | Jan 19, 2007 8:47:39 AM
I don't smoke but it seems to me that proposing sin taxes on tobacco (or alcohol, or gambling, or sex) is not courageous leadership. Courageous leadership is proposing to tax the difficult targets like wealthy individuals and corporations in order to fund the unmet needs of society.
I think I remember having seen statistics that show that smoking tends to skew along economic and racial lines. An easy target for the governor and legislators, but not a very worthy one!
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 19, 2007 8:56:24 AM
The fairness is that every pack of cigarettes costs the state a little less than $3.50 in additional uncovered health care costs. This plan wouldn't so much as add to the cost of cigarettes as it would end a long-standing subsidy of cigarettes.
That seems to neatly tie up all the loose ends... until one asks why? Why does smoking costs so much in uncovered health care costs?
If 95% of smokers were in the top 50% income bracket how do you suppose those stats would change?
The reality is that, as PID alluded to, smokers are more concentrated in the lower income brackets. So essentially the Governor's rational goes something like this:
1. We have lots of poor people who can't afford to provide health insurance for their kids.
2. Smoking is unpopular.
3. Smokers are addicted to cigarettes.
4. Therefore let's increase cigarette taxes and essentially force those same economically disadvantaged Oregonians to pay for something that they could ill afford to pay for.
And this is "progressive"?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 19, 2007 9:42:28 AM
When you're in the majority, you get to do things like this. What, you gonna vote against cigarette taxes to pay for children's health care? It's one of the reasons you *want* the majority.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 19, 2007 9:53:42 AM
Having been raised by a father that smoked 3 packs a day, living a clouded smoke filled rooms, watching him slowly decline to the point where he cannot walk due to shrinking veins in his legs, 3 heart attacks and realizing that as I child I was subjected to this... yes, I support cigarette taxes.
Frankly, I am amazed how many young people smoke today just to be cool or rebellious. I am glad that I never took up the habit.
Let's face it, if there was no nicotine in cigarettes, less people would smoke. It is an addiction like any other.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 19, 2007 10:00:59 AM
Being rich doesn't keep you from being sick--and having insurance doesn't prevent your illness as a result of smoking from having great cost to society.
I'm sorry, but if you're economically disadvantaged I'm not going to fight for your right to buy cheap cigarettes. If you're poor, you could probaby stand to have cigs priced out of your range anyway. Raising the price does indeed cut consumption, apparently. As for there being a cross purpose in needing enough smokers to pay for child health care, I think there's a fairly stable core of smokers for the forseeable future...20%? 15%?
Posted by: Mike Landfair | Jan 19, 2007 10:04:04 AM
Has anyone hanging around the governor suggested that users of cigarettes may quit or smoke less and that the tax will not raise $160 million?
Has anyone close to the governor whispered in his ear that this will mean we have a vested interest in keeping smokers smoking?
And if it is our intent to maximise the number of smokers to provide $160 million, has anyone tripped to the notion that with all that secondary smoke there will be more kids in need of health care?
I smell stupidity!
Posted by: Dave Lister | Jan 19, 2007 10:11:21 AM
As some of you know, I quit smoking three months ago after 33 years. I'm feeling great and wish I'd done it a long time ago.
I had been contemplating quitting for a long time, but the impending 84 cents per pack tax increase was the final motivator in my decision to quit. I had been spending about $180 a month on cigarettes and this was going to put my habit up to about $218. That's a lot of money to spend on a product which, if used properly, will kill you.
I don't know how many there are like me, but this tax increase may have the unintended consequence of decreasing overall tobacco tax revenue.
Secondly, I don't like sin taxes. People say, "I don't care because I don't smoke". True. But remember, for a pack and a half a day smoker that's $37.80 per month that will not be spent in your laundromat, your hardware store or your restaurant. Addicted smokers will buy cigarettes before food for their children or anything else. How about the unintended consequence of children of smokers going without because their folks keep smoking?
Sin taxes are very popular when the sinners are a minority. But remember what happened when Seattle floated a latte tax?
The next sin to be taxed might be yours.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 19, 2007 10:22:59 AM
Dave, first of all hearty congrats for sticking to your promise to quit! You're over the big hump; now it's just a matter of maintaining. Very impressive.
That said--
the difference with the latte tax is that one, there was no connection between drinking coffee and helping children, and two, the addictive and harmful properties of coffee and milk are pretty benign as things go. It's a big stretch to call it a "sin tax." What's the sin? Deluding yourself (as I do) that getting 2% milk somehow makes it less of a non-nutritional cup of useless calories?
Smoking cigarette has direct societal impacts and costs, primarily around public health. To link the two with a tax makes logical sense.
As I said, I doubt we'll get rid of all the smokers, and if revenue becomes that much of a problem we'll get it from somewhere else. But for now, it's perfectly rational to bring Oregon's tax in line with Washington's.
One thing that no one's mentioned yet on that score though, is that if the price of OR cigarettes goes up that much, South Washingtonians will probably stay on their side of the state line more often and buy their cigs locally.
Posted by: j_luthergoober | Jan 19, 2007 10:24:36 AM
Why do Oregonians think that smoker's should cover the responsibilities of society? I wish all Oregonians would step up and take credit for funding childrens' healthcare instead of dumping the costs on addicts that partake in a legal product. Since kids are fat, how about to funding childrens' health programs by taxing Nintendo games, potato chips, fast food and Pepsi? Why use an "adult" vice to pay for kids; modify children's behavior by manipulating the destructive items that they themselves consume...
Posted by: Justin | Jan 19, 2007 10:41:32 AM
torridjoe
As I said, I doubt we'll get rid of all the smokers, and if revenue becomes that much of a problem we'll get it from somewhere else. But for now, it's perfectly rational to bring Oregon's tax in line with Washington's.
Don't forget, too, that the amount of revenue the state needs will actually decrease along with the number of smokers. Fewer smokers means fewer health care costs, which means less revenue needed to fund health care for low income families.
Yes, the state could eventually reach a point where the number of packs of cigarettes sold decreases so much that, even with the increased tax on each pack, the total revenue received decreases. But if your costs are decreasing, too, net income could remain unchanged.
Plus...
Since people tend to live longer when they aren't smoking, you'll be able to tax them for a longer period of time (amount of tax revenue from a dead smoker? $0...). :)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 19, 2007 10:45:25 AM
Dave Lister wrote: I don't know how many there are like me, but this tax increase may have the unintended consequence of decreasing overall tobacco tax revenue.
Dave, that's unlikely. Right now, the tax is $1.19. Under this proposal, the tax would be $2.03.
It's a good thing if fewer people smoke (or just smoke less), but in order for the revenue gain to be zero, we'd have to drop to 58.3% of the current level of packs smoked.
Now, I'd be the first one in line to congratulate our fellow Oregonians if we were able to cut smoking by 41.7% in one fell swoop - and we'd have to find another revenue source - but I doubt that's going to happen.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 19, 2007 10:45:27 AM
"Since kids are fat, how about to funding childrens' health programs by taxing Nintendo games, potato chips, fast food and Pepsi?"
Given some of the recent research which indicates that soda actually can directly CAUSE obesity, I'd have no problem with a health care recovery tax on pop. The links to fast food and snack chips are much more tenuous, and despite their bad ingredients, they do have some measure of redeeming nutritional value. A Big Mac may be disgusting, but it's also high in protein, which is good for you.
Nintendo? Bzzzzt.
Posted by: nina | Jan 19, 2007 10:50:08 AM
this is going to garner support because it's easy to want to penalize those "nasty smokers" so that "our innocent children" will have health care. it is however much more difficult to go after the corporations and the wealthy to find funding for health care for our children. much easier to judge something that has been labeled unacceptable.
one of the posters claimed that being rich doesn't dismiss you from being ill. what is true is that the wealthiest enjoy the best health because it is their wealth that buys the best health care coverage and treatment, the best, most healthiest organic foods, the best homes in the best (zoned) neighborhoods that are removed from electrical power substations and the like.
this is a stupid idea. it is time for our politicians to begin discussing policies that redistribute the wealth to ensure ALL have access to affordable health care (amongst other basic necessities). you cannot have a healthy, fair and just society unless this is part of the picture.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Jan 19, 2007 10:54:27 AM
It wouldn't hurt any to take just a passing glance at alcohol's cost to society, and perhaps tax it at the same kind of rate. Oh, ooops, that would take the tax out of a minority. It always helps to have better lobbies and advertising.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 19, 2007 11:06:12 AM
Calling the tax on cigarettes a "sin tax" is misleading. Cigarettes cost governments and society huge amounts of money. Taxing them to recoup some of these costs isn't merely a punative, Puritanical act. Taxes on liquor, beer, and wine may also fall into this category, but with distinctions. There are no health benefits to cigs, and substantial benefits to booze. For booze, the net cost is probably negative, but it's worth making the distinction. Finally, cigarettes do harm innocent bystanders, which is a societal cost.
The latte tax is good to mention because it has only a single dimension--raising revenue. Coffee is not harmful, does not cause accidents, and doesn't harm those sitting nearby.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 19, 2007 11:16:01 AM
NINA WROTE: this is going to garner support because it's easy to want to penalize those "nasty smokers" so that "our innocent children" will have health care. ... this is a stupid idea. it is time for our politicians to begin discussing policies that redistribute the wealth to ensure ALL have access to affordable health care (amongst other basic necessities). you cannot have a healthy, fair and just society unless this is part of the picture.
Is it just me - or does Nina sound like a right-wing troll? Do progressives really talk about "redistributing wealth" in this day and age? I don't think so. It's just not language we use. It is, however, language that right-wingers fantasize that we use.
This sounds an awful lot like that aide to the Republican congressman in New Hampshire anonymously commenting "We won this campaign, let's go help Lamont in Connecticut!" last fall.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 19, 2007 11:18:20 AM
The bottom line is this: It doesn't really matter much what the revenue option is. We need to improve health care for kids.
Anybody who doesn't like the cigarette tax idea - which is popular, and has beneficial side effects besides revenue - has a responsibility to tell us their revenue proposal.
If you don't have a better idea for revenue, then you gotta tell us why you oppose univeral health care for Oregon kids.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 19, 2007 11:24:46 AM
Coffee is not harmful...
My doctor says otherwise.
Caffiene is linked to high blood pressure and stomach ulcers/acid reflux. And I believe that it's also linked to stunted growth in children.
Posted by: Mike Smith | Jan 19, 2007 11:24:53 AM
Chuck Butcher
It wouldn't hurt any to take just a passing glance at alcohol's cost to society, and perhaps tax it at the same kind of rate. Oh, ooops, that would take the tax out of a minority. It always helps to have better lobbies and advertising.
This might be worth looking at: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/245.html
The Spirits tax is already pretty high in Oregon, although none of the taxes listed for Oregon are as high as Washington's. Perhaps increasing all of them (excluding sales tax) would make some sense, as there are also strong health links to fuel exhaust and alcohol (especially among children whose mother drinks while pregnant).
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Jan 19, 2007 11:27:37 AM
It wouldn't hurt any to take just a passing glance at alcohol's cost to society...
Oh, oh...I can already hear Paul Romaine busily writing out checks!
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 19, 2007 11:31:47 AM
Is it just me - or does Nina sound like a right-wing troll?
Kari, I'm disappointed. Who was it that said that "when the argument is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"? Socrates?
I couldn't help noticing that you didn't even attempt to engage Nina's argument or it's logic. You just went straight to demonizing her.
Posted by: Thomas Ware | Jan 19, 2007 11:45:55 AM
I support it just as I support taxing the obese` ten cents a pound for every pound over AMA recommendations. As smokers are a minority in Oregon, and fat unhealthy people are the majority, I'm thinking we can probably generate enough of a revenue stream to not only provide our children with health care but perhaps even educate them.
Caveat: I hand roll "imported", i.e. exported to Cananda then "imported" to US, two or three cigaretts a day.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Jan 19, 2007 12:00:49 PM
Frank Dufay:
I voted "yes" but I have to add I think it is bizarre
to have any dependence on funding children's health
care tied to feeding people's addictions.
Bob T:
Exactly. Smoking would need to be encouraged, as it
already is in order to get the pot-hole filling
money some of the tobacco tax already goes to.
This is the usual tax-hungry trick - we tax them
because we can, and they can't go anywhere.
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: BlueNote | Jan 19, 2007 12:01:02 PM
I have a solution. Raise the marginal state income tax rate by 0.25% in all brackets and dedicate the proceeds solely to children's heath care and children's nutrition. At such time as we have national uiversal health care, the money can be spent solely on addressing childhood nutrition issues and maybe early childhood education (a/k/a readiness to learn).
Not sure my math skills are up to date, but wouldn't a marginal tax rate increase of 0.25% be equal to $250.00 extra tax per $100,000.00 of taxable income? With due respect to those getting by on minimum wage or whatever, that's not a lot of money.
My proposal requires guts and true leadership. Sin taxes (or whatever you call them) are just more of the same old BS.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 19, 2007 12:01:21 PM
If you don't have a better idea for revenue, then you gotta tell us why you oppose univeral health care for Oregon kids.
Nice job of framing. Putting this paragraph in bold letters, thus drawing the eye to it rather than the preceeding one where you asked that those who oppose this tax offer alternative suggestions, neatly frames opponents of this tax as anti-health care for Oregon kids.
As for alternatives... how 'bout something that spreads the burden more equitably? Or perhaps something that spreads it to another source which can more easily afford the burden?
In her comment which you glibly ignored Nina hinted at one that correlates strongly with the negative side-effects of smoking: corporations. The NYT piece that Anon cited CDC studies showing lost job productivity due to premature death. I can't remember where at the moment but I believe I've seen studies that show lost job productivity due to health related time loss from work too.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Jan 19, 2007 12:27:43 PM
Coffee is not harmful, does not cause accidents, and doesn't harm those sitting nearby.
NOT HARMFUL? NOT HARMFUL? WHY IT MAKES ME TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS AND BE REALLY HYPER AND well, oh, I guess it wore off.
The latte tax was a generally progressive tax; taxing luxury coffee would disproportionately hit those who can afford $3.25 a day on a drink.
But here's what I'd like to know: what's the breakdown on income levels of cigarette smoking? My guess is it's pretty reflective of the population at large, but some people think poor people smoke more. Anyone have data?
And, yes, I would argue that we should deal with progressivity as a separate issue if this may hurt poor people.
Generally, we should be taxing things we want less of, and cigarette smoking is among those. Pollution is another. That doesn't mean we tax them out of existence, but that we internalize the societal externalities into the cost. Obviously, this won't tax them out of existence.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 19, 2007 12:47:30 PM
People, it's not a sin tax. It's a cost recovery tax. That's why charging non-smokers for the costs created by smokers makes no sense. People who smoke in Oregon cost all of us money. This is one way to directly retrieve some of it.
Posted by: Garrett | Jan 19, 2007 12:55:12 PM
I'd raise the cigarette two dollars over what it is now instead of 84 cents.
There is always a choice. If you don't want to pay for a pack of cigs don't pay for it. I have this to add though. If you don't want to breathe smoke don't go to places that allow smoking and don't work there. You have a choice in the matter, we all have choices.
Posted by: Anon | Jan 19, 2007 1:31:05 PM
Torrid -- thank you for getting this discussion back on message! This is about cost-recovery. If we get half of Oregon's smokers to quit, then yes; there will be less money coming in from this revenue source... and because the cigarettes cost the state's health care system $3.50, there will be even more money in the system to get these kids back on OHP (or whatever plan gets passed this session).
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jan 19, 2007 2:08:48 PM
Anybody who doesn't like the cigarette tax idea has a responsibility to tell us their revenue proposal.
Wrong my friend. It is the responsibility of our elected leadership and paid policy wonks, who have far more time and expertise than the average citizen, to present sound, fair policies for taxation that can stand up to public scrutiny.
Otherwise I could pull a 10% flat tax out of my ass and have a more fair proposal than the governor’s.
Is it just me - or does Nina sound like a right-wing troll?
Simply put, anyone who proposes ideas that don’t conform with Democrat Party ideology as presented on this forum is a potential troll. Consider it a badge of honor.
Posted by: LT | Jan 19, 2007 2:44:31 PM
Raise the marginal state income tax rate by 0.25% in all brackets
Would someone please explain "marginal tax rate" in terms someone who almost flunked college econ. could understand?
That is a very popular phrase, but am I the only person who doesn't understand it?
What about more income tax brackets so that people barely hanging on aren't paying at the same rate as management people making low five figure salaries or 6 figure salaries?
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 19, 2007 3:22:44 PM
The marginal rate is what you pay over a certain threshhold.
In Oregon you pay a certain rate for the first $10,000, I believe. That's the base rate. From there, depending on your income you pay a varying marginal rate, assessed only on that portion of your income that exceeds the threshhold.
In general terms, you pay X% for the first Y dollars in income. You then pay Z% for higher incomes--but you only pay Z% on the amount OVER Y. Because the rate is only applied to the margin between what you actually earned, and the base rate threshhold, it's called the marginal rate.
How'd I do?
Posted by: TomCat | Jan 19, 2007 4:09:45 PM
This looks good on the surface, but there's some fundamental unfairness involved. When Oregon settled it's lawsuit on our behalf with the tobacco companies, none of the revenue went to help smokers quit. I've been a smoker for 45 years and have tried to quit more times that I care to think about without success. I have no problem with a tax increase on cigarettes, if the revenue raised goes to help me, not someone else. How about directing at least some of that revenue into programs for smokers to help us to quit?
Posted by: David English | Jan 19, 2007 4:28:15 PM
I voted yes. Please don't tax soda. I'm guilty!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 19, 2007 6:13:12 PM
Well, it appears I owe Nina a bit of an apology. I did a little investigating, and it seems she's a real person - at least on the blogosphere. Her blog is here.
That said, Buckman Res is wrong: "Simply put, anyone who proposes ideas that don’t conform with Democrat Party ideology as presented on this forum is a potential troll. Consider it a badge of honor."
There are lots of right-wingers who are perfectly welcome here. Ask Rob Kremer or Ross Day, if you'd like.
I've got other concerns -- which I won't get into, for fear of creating an incentive for our right-wing friends to give it a try.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Jan 19, 2007 6:59:05 PM
Since we know that:
- smoking is bad for you,
- smoking cigarettes is horrible for children
- second hand smoke is horrible for everyone
- smoking costs society a LOT of cash
why don't we just skip the middle-man, and ban smoking. Period. No smokes to be sold in the state?
Seriously, here: if you really want to stop the destructive costs of smoking, AND are convinced that its such a burden on society, then you should work to ban it. <--if that is your opinion then anything LESS is being disingenious and meanspirited.
Oh, and I *do* smoke, but would love to see them banned for two reasons: 1. the chaos factor. Imagine the howls of protest from retailers, and the general public on quit day. Makes my anarchy bone tingle--the one next to the funny bone. 2. it might actually give me a good excuse to quit...sure I'd be grouchy for a week or so, but I wouldn't be alone.
of course, this won't happen.
But it would be funnier than anything else I have seen in a long while.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Jan 19, 2007 7:09:02 PM
I'll put a disclaimer right up front, I smoke 1/2 pack Camel straights/day. I pay $5.00/pack for the privelege.
Now I certainly do not make any claims that cigarettes don't harm one's health but I'll be damned if I'll sit still and listen to junk about liquor taxes coming even close to recovering the cost of that particular drug. Physically & societally you'd be farther ahead to use heroin (assuming it were legal & dose controlled). Addiction would be a drawback. The prison population is composed of just exactly how many cigarette related crimes, just exactly how many women have been beaten within an inch of their lives, etc, how many car crashes are cigarette related? How many children go hungry or left alone over cigarettes? How much liver & brain cell damage from alcohol is ignorable?
I'll be damned if I'll try to say one good thing about cigarettes other than I enjoy it, don't play stupid games about liquor, you like it and that's end of that story. But don't even talk about social & health costs and ignore the brontosaurus in the living room and say you're "being fair." BS. You're being self-interested and self-serving if that critter stomping around in your living room doesn't get your attention.
Posted by: Brad Rydman | Jan 19, 2007 8:04:32 PM
Chuck nailed it, IMHO....
Why not just tack on a 'child tax' to anyone claiming children as dependants on their tax returns? At least then those with children would bear the costs, plus those of you who appear to believe that taxation is the magic cure for all of society's problems would be able to get your 'fix' as well....
For the record, I smoke a pack a day, and I have a child. Also for the record, [b]I[/b] provide health insurance for myself and my dependants. Perhaps if more would actually take responsibility for themselves this wouldn't be an issue now. Oh, that's right. It's easier to just take a handout from the government. Pathetic.....
Posted by: politicallogic | Jan 19, 2007 8:11:29 PM
Having already commented on this in another thread, let me add my support to what some others have said: This is a morally bankrupt proposal by incompetent leaders and selfish interest groups whose agendas are not nearly as noble as they so dishonestly argue.
As framed by the proponents themselves, this is not about raising tobacco taxes with all the allegedly salutory effects that would result if it discouraged people from smoking. The issue here, as framed by the proponents, is raising tobacco taxes as the primary means to pay for children's health care because he and our own party lack the moral courage and political competence to provide a sound financial basis for health care for all citizens including children. At the bottom line, the message we are sending to the children that we disingenuously profess to care so much about is that we will only pay for their health care if somebody else ruins their health. Otherwise, if this was about discouraging smoking as some of the dishonest proponents offer the rationalization, the very success of the effort would seriously harm efforts to provide health care for children.
I think it is instructive that many of the folks behind this, including the American Lung Association and other anti-smoking groups, also have been pushing measures to ban smoking in public places including parks. Although the fact is that all too frequently these folks have serious character defects and just want to control people for several reasons, when questioned they acknowledge there is no legitimate second hand-smoke issue and dishonestly argue it is because of the example it sets for kids. As I have already noted, their support of this measure proves they really don't care too much children or the hypocritical example they are setting.
I also want to squarely take on the point made early on by Anon because it demonstrates so well the fraudulent tactics of supporters. He/she cites a NY Times story that reports that asserts every pack of cigarettes sold costs $7.18 in health care costs and lost productivity and then goes on to make the false arguement that this plan wouldn't so much as add to the cost of cigarettes as it would end a long-standing subsidy of cigarettes. As already noted, the true dishonesty of that statement is that the taxes being raised would not go to pay for the health care of smokers. Instead they would go to provide health care for another group of people who don't smoke, that we are not paying for right now, and don't actually care about enough to establish a sound financial basis for funding their health care costs..
Furthermore, although I don't smoke and never have, unlike the proponents I am intellectually honest enough to admit that the claim of the industry spokesperson that the study presents the figures in a vacuum, without comparing smoking to the financial burdens other people place on society, nonsmokers with diabetes, for example. is valid. I'll go beyond that, though, and say that it is contrary to the values we profess to hold as progressives and Democrats to judge people based on the financial burdens they place on society due to health problems, self-induced or not. This proposal is nothing more or less than demanding that a group of people atone for what some selfishly and ignorantly judge to be unacceptable behavior.
If that is the disgusting and dangerous position that we now hold, count me out of the Democratic Party and instead as a political opponent.
Given the real problems we confront in this state and country, we could do with just one person of character integrity like Edward R Murrow, smoking cigarettes on TV if that is his choice, instead of all the low-quality elected representatives and activist leaders who have linked providing health care for children and taxing cigarettes in this way.
I'd like to know here and now what folks here who support this measure, and particularly our Democratic elected officials and anti-smoking activists, think of the fact that Barack Obama is a smoker?
Posted by: Greg Tompkins | Jan 19, 2007 10:00:29 PM
I don't agree with their piecemeal bans. Just ban cigarettes altogether! They are a public health hazard.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Jan 19, 2007 10:08:56 PM
Greg Tompkins:
I don't agree with their piecemeal bans. Just
ban cigarettes altogether! They are a public
health hazard.
Bob T:
I often wonder what it would be like now had
tobacco been banned in the 20s or 30s. Would
freedom-loving people be wearing T-shirts with
a bog tomacco leaf on the front?
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 20, 2007 12:17:12 AM
Who is judging smokers? That's why calling it a sin tax is inappropriate. It's a cost recovery measure. And while I agree with Chuck that ultimately alcohol and its effects on people are far more damaging to the social fabric, purely on numbers about 4 times as many people die specifically due to tobacco, than from anything related to alcohol. And nobody ever died of secondhand booze.
That's neither here nor there, however. I can certainly see the irony in funding health care for children on the basis of health-destroying behavior by their parents. But irony is not really a good basis on which to decide public policy, is it?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Jan 19, 2007 6:20:37 AM
I voted "yes" but I have to add I think it is bizarre to have any dependence on funding children's health care tied to feeding people's addictions.