Replies

As a Missouri Freeper, I don't have a problem with this.

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.