Posted on 11/10/2006 6:34:38 AM PST by Conservababe
Lost in the national attention of the senatorial race and stem cell research amendment was amendment #3. It was a proposal to raise taxes by four cents a cigarette. Some of the revenues collected was to go to smoking cessation education and health care of the uninsured;none being allocated to general revenue. Blah blah blah, you know the drill.
It was defeated by 51.5 to 48.5 percent. There was not much of a discussion of the amendment in my area in the media or local talk shows. Twenty-four percent of the adult population in Missouri smokes. I would venture to say that most smokers just assumed it would pass readily.
But, it did not pass and I'm trying to figure out why. Did voters reject another tax even though they have distaste for smokers? Did they not trust the state to spend the money wisely?
Lots of one issue voters on this one!
Actually may have helped McCaskill, in my opinion.
You had a wierd combination of businesspeople, Republicans who oppose any tax, and smokers. Most of those are middle/lower income these days. They also showed up to vote for the minimum wage increase.
Maybe a few more Americans still believe that it's the individual's right to make his own decisions than don't.
Personally I think that using cigarette revenues to punish people is the sort of thing that the despotic social pharisee types engage in to make themselves feel more righteous than the evil sinners. That and naked greed.
A) We have a unique perspective on new taxes in MO because they squandered the tobacco settlement money and the last time they got taxes for roads, they didn't build the roads in STL or KC.
B) People who raise taxes on products they condemn are no better than street corner drug dealers.
C) Who wants a tax in their constitution?
D) Trying to raise revenue on a product at the same time as trying to get people to quit using it is folly.
E) Our cigarette tax is so low that people from other states buy them here and we would have lost that revenue. This is such a phenomena that KS passed a law specifically addressing this because they were losing money.
F) The Gas stations all lobbied against it.
Yes, and yes.
Then there was also concern about hurting small businesses, the talk that people near state borders would just drive to another state to spend their money.
When the ad I heard assured the voters that the money would not go into the general fund, I thought, 'Uh oh. Another bunch of tax money for lawyers and special interest groups to allocate to each other.'
We saw already what happened to all the money tobacco companies paid out over the years. Lawyers got it. Missouri lawyers are rich enough.
Beyond that I hope some of it was because they were smart enough to figure out that the politicians won't be willing to give up the tax revenues they're getting from it if they do get people to quit smoking - a tax increase on tobacco and smokers now is going to get transferred to something else later just to keep the dollars coming in.
Because Stem cells will save us from lung cancer! McCaskill said so! (/sarcasm)
Why do we need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMDENDMENT to pass a tax? I voted against everyone of them. These are not CONSTITUTIONAL issues. Have you tried to wade through the current state constitution. It's impossible to understand because of all the amendments. How ridiculous can it get?
Did voters reject another tax even though they have distaste for smokers? Did they not trust the state to spend the money wisely?
LOL! Spend the money wisely? Wisely?? Where did all that tax money from smokers go since the Tobacco Settlement came about?
That money WAS supposed to be spent for health care and uninsured sick smokers should there be any. So, where did the billions in cigarette money go that they need another raise in the tax?
I know where it went in Mass and Maine! What is it being spent on in Missouri?????
I voted against it. Missouri is 49th in the nation when it comes to cigarette taxation. It has been a tough sell for over a decade.
If an amendment is clearly understood by the voters in Missouri, then tax increases are rather difficult to get passed--especially if we think it's a regressive one.
could be they don't want to pay more for their smokes
I live next door in Kansas, so we got a lot of the commercials on the Kansas City stations. Let me also state for the record that I am an fanatical ex-smoker with no love lost for those who are still stupid enough to puff their lives away, and no sympathy for what them when the suffer the effects of their habit. But even with all that I would not have voted for the ballot initiative and I'm not surprised in the least that it lost. The commercials all had one common theme, people talking about how great it would be to stick it to the smokers and screw them with another tax, with no clear message on where the tax money would be spent. I think people are naturally anti-tax, and don't like to see anyone targeted unfairly.
How much is a carton of "premium" cigarettes (Marlboro, Virginia Slims) in MO?
In TX, the legislature has upped the taxes on a carton by ten dollars, beginning January 1, 2007. The money goes to fund schools.
I'm beginning to think your A was the determining factor. Also the casino revenue was supposed to be used exclusively for education. Instead it went into the general fund and was squandered.
You sound disappointed. Do you believe we should tax people more when we find them to be distasteful?
I don't know why it failed in Missouri, but I'm glad that it did. A cigarette/tobacco tax ballot proposition also failed to pass here in California.
Proposition 86. Tax on Cigarettes -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute - Majority Approval Required)
Should the state impose an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack...
Failed:
3,561,922 / 52.1% No votes
3,271,455 / 47.9% Yes votes
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.