Posted on 10/30/2006 7:38:17 AM PST by DogByte6RER
Monday, October 30, 2006
Prop. 86 a tax-the-poor scheme California focus Hospital industry singles out smokers to enrich itself
By MATT SCHUMSKY
Real estate developer, state field inspector for freedomworks, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank
If passed by the California electorate Nov. 7, Proposition 86 would almost quadruple the current tax on cigarettes to $3.47 a pack and would stand as perhaps the most ill-conceived tax increase of all time, although, to be fair, there's a lot of competition for that distinction.
The "Tobacco Tax Act of 2006" is a creation of California's hospital industry, which wrote the initiative in such a way that it will receive about 40 percent of the $2.1 billion a year the higher tax is expected to generate. Whether that figure is realistic is a point we will get to a little later.
This is the hospital industry's second attempt at singling out a consumer product for a special tax. In 2004, the hospitals put forward Proposition 67, a tax on in-state telephone calls that was overwhelmingly rejected by an electorate that included a lot of people who like using their telephones. This time, the hospitals got smart by targeting a much slimmer slice of California's population – the 14 percent of us who smoke.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
For more inforamtion, go to:
http://www.noprop86.org/
and
http://www.freedomworks.org/
So, smokers are poor, or only the poor smoke? Awww, the pooor smokers!
Another tax on Cigarettes. What will they do when it finally gets high enough that everyone quits smoking?
Probably tax candy bars or Big Macs.
I found it interesting that the telephone tax that cost people pennies per month was rejected, yet the 1% rich tax that cost individuals thousands of dollars passed with flying colors. That's the problem with Propositions.
The real issue here is the addiction of the state to sin tax revenue. When smoking dies out, (as I sincerely hope it does) the taxes smokers were paying will still be needed to come from somewhere.
"The real issue here is the addiction of the state to sin tax revenue. When smoking dies out, (as I sincerely hope it does) the taxes smokers were paying will still be needed to come from somewhere."
If (hypothetically of course) smoking magically vanished from the American landscape, the long-term savings in health care (especially medicare and medicaid since smokings deadly effects occur most prominently amongst the elderly and poor) would equal if not outweigh the loss in tax revenue.
People would stop getting sick and dying? Right.
"People would stop getting sick and dying? Right."
They'd die sooner or later, sure. But diseases like lung cancer and emphysema are very expensive disease to treat, and patients with them linger for a long time and consume a great deal of health care.
Perhaps, but smoking and other sin taxes are not going just to address problems in those areas, but general revenue (roads, citis, schools, welfare...). The state is addicted to money, it can not stand losing any of it and needs more every sesssion. When sin tax revenues drop the hue and cry is amazing and other forms of revenue need to be found *for the children*.
PUFF!
FMCDH(BITS)
"Welcome to freerepublic and thank you for posting, you chump."
FMCDH(BITS)
"Welcome to freerepublic and thank you for posting, you chump."
It's nice to see mature, reasoned disagreement is not yet dead. </sarc>
Nanny-State Ping..............
The more people smoke, the more money these a**holes get. They have no desire for anyone to quit nicotine.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please do some research on your own instead of spouting the normal nanny-state propaganda BS.
YOu are correct - however, they only want people to consume "proper" nicotine - that which is supplied by the pharmaceutical cartels, which in turn fund all the anti-smoker groups, including the insidious Hospital organization pushing this tax.
"The more people smoke, the more money these a**holes get. They have no desire for anyone to quit nicotine."
I agree, but neither do the tobacco companies; they've been boosting the nicotine content of their product more and more. When the day comes that the tobacco industry promotes a no-nicotine variety of tobacco, that will be the day I have a better opinion of them. Since that would be the equivalent of Rapala marketing a lure with no hooks, I'm not holding my breath!
Actually my analogy is not quite on point. Rapala does not market lures to hook the purchaser!
Again - spouting things you know nothing about...........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.