Proposition 29

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/prop-29-california-cigarette-tax-hike-lance-armstrong_n_1537858.html

Good or bad? I say good.

Revenue generated from the tax increase, which the state Legislative Analyst's Office projects could reach $735 million annually, would be used to pay for cancer research, smoking cessation programs and tobacco law enforcement.

Well, that sounds like a great idea when you have a huge deficit. How about using the revenue to (partially) close the deficit?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/prop-29-california-cigarette-tax-hike-lance-armstrong_n_1537858.html

Good or bad? I say good.

Any tax is a good tax. 😵

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/prop-29-california-cigarette-tax-hike-lance-armstrong_n_1537858.html

Good or bad? I say good.

Bad.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/prop-29-california-cigarette-tax-hike-lance-armstrong_n_1537858.html

Good or bad? I say good.

My answer would depend on how much money the state already spends on medical expenses related to smoking-caused lung cancer.

Ultimately, I would suspect that the short-term investment in prevention might pay off in the long run.

Australia did this around 15 years ago, put an extra tax on tobacco that added about 20% to the price, and used about half the funds earned to fund the Quit campaign which has had a remarkable effect. Few people smoke in public now, it's not permitted in buildings, the number of smokers outside the door has halved, then halved again, over time. Everywhere it's noticeable; street drains and footpaths aren't covered in butts, you can breathe in restaurants and on the buses and trains, and cigarette sales places are now small and their stock mostly under the counter. Here's the medical result, assessed by one of our most prestigious universities: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/7E318B2BCB5DAE26CA256F190004524F/$File/tobccamp_2-ch7.pdf

Anyone who votes against increasing tobacco taxes and spending at least half the money on relevant medical research has allowed their brains to be addled by smoking, IMHO.

Originally posted by Kewpie
Australia did this around 15 years ago, put an extra tax on tobacco that added about 20% to the price, and used about half the funds earned to fund the Quit campaign which has had a remarkable effect. Few people smoke in public now, it's not permitted in buildings, the number of smokers outside the door has halved, then halved again, over time. Everywhere i e money on relevant medical research has allowed their brains to be addled by smoking, IMHO.

Anyone who votes against increasing tobacco taxes

Increasing to what? By 100%? 200%? 1,000%? 1,000,000%?

The mantra that a tax raise is inherently good is the intellectual equivalent to the mantra that a tax cut is inherently good.

Originally posted by sh76

Anyone who votes against increasing tobacco taxes

Increasing to what? By 100%? 200%? 1,000%? 1,000,000%?

The mantra that a tax raise is inherently good is the intellectual equivalent to the mantra that a tax cut is inherently good.

Indeed. But aren't tobacco taxes in the US quite low? Over here it's about 200%. At some point you cannot raise them much more because evasion and illegal sale will become serious issues.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Indeed. But aren't tobacco taxes in the US quite low? Over here it's about 200%. At some point you cannot raise them much more because evasion and illegal sale will become serious issues.

Cigarette taxes vary by state. The problem of people moving cigarettes from state to state and even shipping to states and not paying their taxes is rampant. There was a recent story about people getting caught loading up in neighboring states and then re-selling cigarettes in NY, where taxes are high.

Australia doesn't have the problem of differing State taxes because after Federation the states handed over their taxing powers to the Commonwealth in return for an agreed division of the total tax take. We may be a "united states of australia" but all the important stuff is dealt with by the federal part of the system.

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/13-2-tobacco-taxes-in-australia shows how much of our cigarette prices goes to the govt - $7.03 out of a total of $11.25. They're 2007 figures, the current price of a pack of Winfield 25s is around $16 and the govt is still collecting the same percentage. Other countries appear to be taking even more of the cigarette cost as tax than Australia does.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Indeed. But aren't tobacco taxes in the US quite low? Over here it's about 200%. At some point you cannot raise them much more because evasion and illegal sale will become serious issues.

There is already a thriving black market in cigarettes in the US.

Most States, and probably the Federal government are already too dependent on tobacco taxes, and paradoxically still subsidizes tobacco growing.

Originally posted by Kewpie
Australia doesn't have the problem of differing State taxes because after Federation the states handed over their taxing powers to the Commonwealth in return for an agreed division of the total tax take. We may be a "united states of australia" but all the important stuff is dealt with by the federal part of the system.

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.a ...[text shortened]... er countries appear to be taking even more of the cigarette cost as tax than Australia does.

The United States decided in 1791 to remain with a somewhat stronger Federal government than under the articles of Confederation, but still with the States retaining the bulk of legislative and taxing power.

I don't want to be subject to the silly whims of California or its people. I choose to not smoke, but I don't choose to persecute and over tax those who still desire to do so.

Originally posted by sh76
Cigarette taxes vary by state. The problem of people moving cigarettes from state to state and even shipping to states and not paying their taxes is rampant. There was a recent story about people getting caught loading up in neighboring states and then re-selling cigarettes in NY, where taxes are high.

Aren't cigarettes in NY north of $10 a pack? Brand names are over $6 a pack in Michigan, and about 80% of that is tax. I suspect that States like Kentucky still have taxation over 100%.

If taxing cigarettes was the way to prosperity, and low deficits, then legalize all drugs, and impose similar taxes.

Originally posted by normbenign
Aren't cigarettes in NY north of $10 a pack? Brand names are over $6 a pack in Michigan, and about 80% of that is tax. I suspect that States like Kentucky still have taxation over 100%.

If taxing cigarettes was the way to prosperity, and low deficits, then legalize all drugs, and impose similar taxes.

Expensive cigarettes - the fancy girly flavored ones - cost $6 in CA from what I remember. Marlboros are like $4. I'm not a tobacco smoker so I'm not sure but those were the prices when I worked in a smoke shop some years ago.

Originally posted by whodey
Any tax is a good tax. 😵

What about sin tax?