Donna Peeples writes:
I have seen a lot of articles in the paper about taxing sodas and foods that are bad for you. I say, “Why not?”
I used to be a smoker. At one point, I was up to two packs a day. When New Jersey raised their cigarette tax, I stopped because my cigarettes were almost twice as expensive as when I had started smoking. I couldn’t afford it anymore. You know what? It was the right choice. I am healthier today because I stopped smoking. And I might not have done it if cigarettes were the same price as before.
I think this idea of taxing unhealthy behavior is a smart one. I think we should tax things that make us sick: cigarettes, alcohol, fatty foods and sugary foods. I know that people don’t like the idea of the government telling them that they shouldn’t do things like eat foods that are bad for you but all of these things are adding to our health care problem. I don’t think it’s fair that I should have to pay for health care for people who didn’t stop smoking or who eat too much. And I have read that most of the cost of health care in the US is to pay for diseases and sicknesses that could have been prevented with a better lifestyle.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be able to buy cigarettes, beer and candy but I do think if you do continue to buy those things, you should pay more. Maybe some people will stop because of the cost. And those that don’t will pay for their own health care. If this happens, maybe we won’t have to raise income taxes to pay for health care.
Nevada legislators got an earful (and an eyeful) on Tuesday during a hearing about whether to tax prostitutes. The tax would be $5 per sex act and would raise more than $2 million per year for the state (I did the math on that one for you, it’s 400,000). Nevada has not collected any direct taxes from the industry since prostitution was made legal more than 30 years ago, though local governments have benefited through fees to the individual brothels.
Sen. Bob Coffin, who chairs the Senate Taxation Committee proposed the tax to help Nevada climb out of its current economic situation. Four of seven committee members oppose the measure. But Coffin got some surprising support at the hearing: prostitutes and brothel owners. Deanne “Air Force Amy” Salinger spoke in favor of the bill, saying “If $5 per person can raise $2 million a year, I’m all for it.”
In response to his critics who have labeled the tax as “blood money” derived from “paid rape,” Coffin said, “Can we be so proud as to refuse money that is offered, that can be levied on a legal business?” Seizing on the legitimacy issue, Dennis Hof, owner of the Moonlite Bunny Ranch agreed, saying that brothels were “looking for respectability and acceptability.”
However, Sister Diane Maguire of the Sisters of the Holy Family in Las Vegas disagreed, noting that the bill “normalizes prostitution and makes it seem like it’s a legitimate occupation.”
Yep, a hearing full of nuns and hookers. There’s a joke in there somewhere.
Despite the flurry of interest in the bill, largely driven by the relative “celebrity” of many of the prostitutes who have recently appeared on a number of HBO productions, it’s likely to go nowhere. Politicians don’t want to be seen as supportive of prostitution in the state, which, while legal, is still considered immoral… like, oh say, cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are legal and taxed?
These days, you have to really want to smoke to be a smoker. In many cities (like Philly), you can no longer smoke in public buildings or restaurants. Many workplaces are smoke free. There are fines for smoking in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And now, it just got even more expensive.
On Wednesday, the single largest federal tobacco tax increase ever takes effect. Yep, ever. The federal tax on cigarettes will jump from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 per pack, a more than 250% increase. Taxes on chaw (that’s what we folks down South call chewing tobacco), cigars and pipe tobacco will see similar increases.
The rate hike is expected to raise nearly $33 billion over the next 4-1/2 years used to fund insurance for children’s health care. Interestingly, the Bush administration had opposed almost identical legislation in 2007.
The increase is not an insignificant number. Dr. Timothy Gardner, president of the American Heart Association, claims that “every time that the tax on tobacco goes up, the use of cigarettes goes down.”
As if that wasn’t enough, in a move that’s raising eyebrows, tobacco giant Philip Morris raised its prices between 71 cents and 81 cents a pack in advance of the legislation. Their CEO says if you don’t like it, complain to Congress about the tax. Apparently, the folks at Philip Morris believe that it’s okay to put extra cigarette money in their own pockets but not the Treasury.
So, I know what you’re thinking: who even smokes anymore? The statistics show that about one in five adults in the United States smokes cigarettes. That includes our President, who may be remembered in years to come as one of the most anti-smoking Presidents in history if the current Congress has its way. Go figure.
The tax is expected to deter younger smokers more than older smokers. Experts believe that the rate of younger smokers will drop by about 6-7%. That’s higher than the predicted overall drop of about 4%.
Why does DC even care about smokers? Consider these stats: according to the CDC, cigarette smoking results in an estimated 443,000 premature deaths each year, and costs the economy $193 billion in health care expenses and lost time from work. Those are staggering numbers.
But does it mean that tobacco is any worse than, say, alcohol or fatty foods? Should we make it harder to buy beer and wine? Or cheese fries? Or god forbid, chocolate cake? These are tough questions. Where do we draw the line?
Okay, don’t get me wrong. I think that providing universal health care options for children should be a priority in our country. However, shifting the burden to smokers to avoid what is essentially a political fight (the “who will pay for it” argument going on between the President and the Senate) is just a bit offensive.
I don’t smoke. I think people should not smoke. I do not like having smokers pollute the air around me, stink up my clothes and ruin my dinners. But cigarettes are legal. We have chosen, in this country, to make cigarettes available to the public without much regulation. If we’re going to do that, let’s not make the smokers scapecoats for political causes.
How much of a tax are we talking? That’s exactly my point. It is not unsubstantial. The proposed increase is a 61 cent increase over the current 39 cent tax. In other words, a 156% increase.
Fair? Of course not. It’s political maneuvering. If we had chosen to increase, say, the gas tax by 61 cents, there would have been a public outcry against it. But smokers? Who are they to complain? They’re not a sympathetic lot in today’s society, so somehow we’ve decided it’s okay to target them for relatively unrelated health care costs (remember this is for children’s health care, not to fund cures for cancer or other smoking-related causes).
Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) has said, “In the long run, maybe it’ll stop people from smoking.” Really, Senator Reid? I’m not buying it. If there are fewer smokers to tax, who will you hit up next?
