Posted on 10/06/2016 5:19:48 PM PDT by Drango
Pack of cigs was 24 cents in 1968... heh heh
Government will lose it’s cash flow from increase cigarette tax when fewer people smoke. It’s not about health with those people, it’s all hyperbole. If you think that a prohibition on tobacco will result in better health you’ve not read history on the Prohibition era.
I quit in 1980, refusing to pay more than ten dollars a carton.
Sure, somewhat. But Indian reservation cigs aren't as big a part of the market in California like they are in NY state.
Never looked
This is very strange .. but I’m wondering how many States are having a smoking tax increase ..?? all over the country.
We’re having one here in CA.
Now, I’m wondering if this has another purpose ..??
How about a WAY TO PAY OFF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BECAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE OF OBAMACARE ..???????????
Anybody know ..??????
But there’s no inflation.
No, there won’t be any smuggling from Mexico. None. Nada. /s
HUH? Didn't read the article did you??
Yeah, I read it .. it’s about a tobacco tax increase here in CA; but if you read the fine print of the Proposal, I can see how they might use the funds for paying off Health Insurance Companies in the State of CA - because of the demise of ObamaCare ..??
that’s what it’s about.
It’s another bait and switch.
I think looking at Prohibition is instructive, but not conclusive. There is a different level of consumption between alcohol in 1920 and smoking in 2016. For whatever reason, anti-smoking efforts have been much more successful than temperance movements could’ve ever dreamed of 100 years ago.
The real reason is to get their regulatory hooks into vaping. It must piss them off that people are escaping the tax on cigarettes. I don’t smoke or vape, but I know smokers who have switched to vaping and are much healthier. I’m not saying vaping is safe, but it is arguably more safe than smoking. And much cheaper than cigarettes. For the past year here in CA I’ve seen advertising targeting vaping as a threat to children. It was obvious that the tax revenue on cigarettes is slipping and they are looking to plug the escape hole.
Yeah, that’s what Mae West said.
But with required condoms for porn films on CA ballot, the whole concept has taken on a new perspective.
More lube, less smoke. That’s true for automotive applications anyway.
No, it will result in an increase in the number of hold-ups at the local 711’s. Not to mention the trading of foodstamps for cigarettes. Around here, many on foodstamps get the “not qualified” items by literally taking another individual to the store and buy them what they want in exchange for their purchase of liquor and cigarettes. Duh! It is a racket.
All I can say is that I’m glad I never started smoking cigarettes. Cigars and pipes without inhaling another story. But gave those up too. I am sympathetic toward those hooked who are paying $6-$12/pack for those coffin nails. And they are usually lower-income people. American cig manufacturers will still do fine with their addicts in Europe, South America, and especially Asia where they still smoke like chimneys. But thanks to cigarette smokers for providing a lot of revenue that governments would otherwise have to obtain elsewhere.
I empathize with people with addictive behavior. . .toning down the sugar in my life has been a journey. But I figure (at least from what I have observed and been told) the taxpayers are being duped by paying taxes that go toward much of the foodstamp/cigarette fraud.
I predict that smoking cigarettes willl be the next generation’s great act of rebellion. It will be so abhorrent to their tattooed and pierced snowflake parents that many of them will disown their teenagers in our soon to be dystopian society.
“The iron law of supply and demand. An increase in price will result in a decrease in demand. ECON 101”
The Kennedy exception to the law of supply and demand:
The ultimate tax is a ban, such as the ban on alcohol. In such a case, smuggling is very, very profitable. The Kennedy family (papa Joe, JFK’s father) got wealthy smuggling liquor into the U.S. during prohibition.
Anyone who smuggles cigarettes into these high tax states takes a risk but could make a pile of money.
If I had the power, I would make it the law of the land that no legal product can be taxed more than 5% of the cost to produce the product
Good point. The smoking wars are over. Just a few skirmishes with people on the fringes objecting. But for the most part society won and smokers lost.
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.