To: SheLion
Maybe I'm missing something but raising taxes on any item becomes cost prohibitive beyond a certain point. Consequently less people will buy that item ( in this case cigarettes). The result will be less taxes collected. It's a self defeating purpose.
6 posted on
07/01/2005 4:37:52 AM PDT by
Man50D
once again, liberals think more taxes=less spending...but not the reverse.
8 posted on
07/01/2005 4:46:49 AM PDT by
KneelBeforeZod
( I'm going to open Cobra Kai dojos all over this valley!)
To: Man50D
Maybe I'm missing something but raising taxes on any item becomes cost prohibitive beyond a certain point. Consequently less people will buy that item ( in this case cigarettes). The result will be less taxes collected. It's a self defeating purpose. Oh, you haven't missed anything, they just haven't hit that point yet with cigarettes. Smokers seem able to absorb a good amount of increases so the criminal class will continue raising these taxes.
9 posted on
07/01/2005 4:49:51 AM PDT by
Dahoser
(The UN makes Mos Eisley Spaceport look like a clean room.)
To: Man50D
Maybe I'm missing something but raising taxes on any item becomes cost prohibitive beyond a certain point. Consequently less people will buy that item ( in this case cigarettes). The result will be less taxes collected. It's a self defeating purpose.You aren't missing anything. It's the LAWMAKERS that are missing everything.
They think that cigarette taxes will over flow their state coffers. Well, guess what? This tax increase is just going to force smokers to go over the borders; buy from the Internet or by rolling their own.
The lawmakers can't balance the budget with raising taxes on 25-30% of their state smokers, so what if all smokers went else where for cigarettes? WHO would the lawmaker go after THEN to make up for the loss.
The talk out of both sides of their lying mouths!
10 posted on
07/01/2005 4:52:18 AM PDT by
SheLion
(Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
To: Man50D
Maybe I'm missing something but raising taxes on any item becomes cost prohibitive beyond a certain point. Consequently less people will buy that item ( in this case cigarettes). The result will be less taxes collected. It's a self defeating purpose.
It's simply history repeating itself:
In 1604, James I of England was the first government official to find taxes on tobacco to be enormously profitable. He increased taxes 4,000%. The funds dried up and he quickly lowered the taxes to get the income he desired.
Other interesting facts:
The Revolutionary War (1776) is financed by a loan from France (ACK!) engineered by Benjamin Franklin. The collateral? 5,000,000 pounds of Virginia tobacco.
The first United States federal tax on tobacco was instituted in 1862 to help pay for the Civil War. And in 1863, cigars were only to be sold in boxes (by law) that the IRS could attach Civil War excise tax stamps to (This was dropped in 1883). The cigarette tax began this year as well
In 1893, the state of Washington bans sale and use of cigarettes. The law is overturned on constitutional grounds as a restraint on free trade.
In 1898, Congress raises taxes on cigarettes 200% due to the Spanish-American War, but this is rolled back a year later.
In 1910, 13% of federal tax revenues are from cigarettes.
In 1930, 80% of federal tax revenues are from cigarettes.
In 1945, cigarettes are the unofficial currency in Germany ($0.50 each)
Tons more out there.
13 posted on
07/01/2005 6:45:36 AM PDT by
RandallFlagg
(Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson