I don't have strong feelings in favor of a higher tobacco tax and would not have promoted a tax increase, but now that it's on the ballot we need to vote “yes” or “no.” If someone wants to vote “no” to send a message of “our taxes are already too high,” that's okay with me.
However, I think a case could be made for this specific tax increase even if nearly all other taxes can and should be opposed.
Here's why.
As conservatives, we understand that taxes hurt businesses, and we want to have taxes at the lowest possible level that will avoid harming businesses while still providing the legitimate services that government should be providing (i.e., providing for the common defense and the justice system). Normally I'd oppose tax increases, but as far as I know tobacco is not grown in Missouri. Can someone explain to me the argument for helping the tobacco industry by having a lower tobacco tax in Missouri than in states which actually grow tobacco?
I might have a different opinion if I were in a state that grows tobacco and I wanted to help local business, but in this case the low tax means helping out-of-state businesses. I don't see a reason for that.
We also need to recognize that this specific business creates significant health problems for individuals and for the public. I would be happier with a tax designed specifically to pay for costs that smokers impose on the health system, but I understand the politics of the issue and why most of the tax money is designated for education.
Bottom line: I'll probably vote yes, but I have no problem with people who vote against a tax increase.
There are a lot of businesses on the eastern side of Missouri that are selling a lot of cigarettes to Illinois citizens.
See my posts 8 and 14 for reasons why I don’t think it is a good idea.
It doesn’t impact me, cause I don’t smoke, but I will be voting no.
At best they reach a point of lesser returns, or even no returns.
As far as health concerns, I have studied the health question of smoking tobacco extensively. I can tell you that, at most, for overall health, smoking ups your chance of ANY health issues by approximately 30%. It ups your risk of a health issue that could be life threatening by approximately 10%. Note, not a health issue that WILL kill you, but one that MIGHT.
In addition, smokers pay more than enough in taxes to pay for any health costs they may incur. This includes shorter life span causing smokers, in general, to not get as much during their later years.
Now, WHY is this tax being promulgated? Not to pay for education, or health issues. Read the article. It is no more than social engineering. Someone doesn't want smokers to smoke. That's it, that's all, the end.
First they came for the smokers, then the soda drinkers of New York, and the slippery slope gets a coat of grease.
I am running for state rep who WILL NOT RAISE TAXES PERIOD!
The cause is that we will raise revenue for the Kids, well BULL.
Those who it is supposed to help, the lowest incomes will be hurt by them smoking, because we all know that the low income and lower class folks smoke. Well for the record I SMOKE, and I also vote. When does it end, this constant attack by those who oppose something and try to find a way to make it more expensive. If this passes maybe I will attempt to tax, fast food, sex, cars, marriages (the leading cause of divorces), etc. After all it is to protect the kids. Now I hope you were all smart enough to realize I was being sarcastic, however if not vote for my opponent on Nov. 7th.