Posted on 04/06/2012 4:02:20 PM PDT by Drango
Big Tobacco is going all in against Proposition 29, the June ballot measure that would hike cigarette taxes by $1 per pack.
On Thursday, the parent companies of Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. reported nearly $9 million in contributions to the opposition campaign. That gives the tobacco companies a war chest of more than $23.5 million ...
~snip
Tobacco companies appear to be fighting public sentiment. A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll last month found that 68% of California voters favored Proposition 29, compared with 29% who opposed it.
Still, the public has rejected a variety of tax increases in recent years, including tobacco levies. In 2006, voters spurned a proposal to increase cigarette taxes by $2.60 a pack to reimburse hospitals for treating uninsured patients and to expand health insurance coverage for children.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
So I assume there will just be that much more mail purchases and smuggling? I am sure organized crime very much likes this tax.
http://24hrcigarette.com/mail-order-cigarettes.html ...problem solved!
I think the principle of such taxation is antithetical to liberty.
Not being contentious, just curious. Why do you favor the tax? Why do you think most conservatives will vote for it?
An increase in the price of a commodity will produce a decrease in demand. Econ 101. Particularly among children and teens.
Conservatives in election after election, have marched into voting booths and said “enough”. I believe once again they will support this. I know I will.
You know, if they just made a law against children and teens smoking, this would be all solved...
Newt didn't mention smoking but he should have.
The title should be “Big government tax tries to screw tobacco companies out of 9million.”
Well you would be going against George Washington, except it was a tax on whiskey.
I don't have a major problem with "sin taxes" but tobacco is taxed enough already. At this point you are trying to get blood from a turnip.
Doesn’t it require a credit check to take out a loan big enough to buy a pack of cigs in California?
I am an ex-smoker but don’t begrudge those who continue to smoke. Freedom doesn’t start where my desires end — it must be upheld for all, especially those who do unpopular but free actions/
There is no freedom in addiction.
>>There is no freedom in addiction.<<
So you want to outlaw/tax/criminalize alcohol as well? Fast food? Twinkies?
The worst tyranny is those who would impose their sensibilities on others. Nanny Staters are the lowest lifeforms on earth.
Thomas Jefferson has been spinning in his grave for years — this just sets the spin cycle on high.
An oxymoronic statement, if there ever was one.
You support the addiction of 95% smokers who start under the age of 21? Sorry I don’t.
Particularly the addiction to government interference in people's everyday lives and the perpetuation and expansion of the nanny state.
I see the tax as punitive and a tool for behavior modification. I don’t think taxes should be levied on sugary products to dissuade people from eating candy bars or soft drinks. I don’t agree with increasing gas taxes to encourage citizens to use public transportation or buy “green” cars.
Perhaps this move will stimulate the economies of border towns in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon.
I support free people, freely voting. Sorry you don’t.
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.