New York tried to tax sugar drinks didn't they?

The whole not taxing cigarette argument sits very hollow with me. I know that cigarettes bring in a lot of money, but there comes a point where we spend millions on research to cure diseases caused by smoking — not to mention the medicare money and money spent by some states on the uninsured with smoking related illnesses — and if as a nation if we can't find a way to profit without the profit being from something so detrimental to the health, of not only those who smoke but those around those who smoke, than we are really not doing much to progress are we?

The country really doesn't like to support things which take away profits. I have a friend with Juvenile diabetes whose doctor a Harvard graduate told him that the profits made on the supplies to treat and keep his illness in line, not even to mention the insulin and the new fang led pumps to deliver insulin, are so huge that to cure it would be devastating to the economy and that is why he should not hold his breath on a cure.

I think it is time to start figuring out a way to do tings differently. I'm hoping that time is now. The discussion about this kind of thing and policy regarding it has been the same for ages, it is time to progress.

Also as far as hurting the lower class, there are plenty of things the government has tried to do which could hurt the less socioeconomically fortunate, privatization of schools and services for one, this is not one of them.

In Maryland, which has it's own extra tax for smokers, and where cigs are now around 7 bucks a pack, even the lower socioeconomic class of people you speak of are quitting, so I think we need not be so patronizing of people who happen to be less educated or have as much money as we might, and worry about the t hings which really are hurting them, like crappy schools in poorer areas and so on and so forth.

So, with this argument are you also saying the FDA shouldn't regulate cigarettes either? Because if the FDA regulates them, then they could become less addictive and therefore more people would be able to quite smoking them. Thus, cause a drop in sales and a drop in taxes from them.

People don't smoke necessarily because they want to. My whole family has been trying to quit for years (with the exception of my stepdad who quit cold turkey after being a chain smoker for years-but he's an exception) with no avail. They are physically addicted to them. They are forced to pay taxes, just like someone who needs to buy supplies in order to live needs to pay them.

I don't want to pay a ton of taxes, just like everyone else. But I do think that taxes are necessary for our government to run-that's the way we are built and if we can make a buck off some idiot who became addicted to cigarettes to help pay for kids programs and medical treatments, then I say go for it!

I was a smoker for 15 years (yes, I started very young, at the age of 10) and after a 2.5 year stop, began smoking again last month. So as someone who is directly affected by this tax, I can personally say I don't mind at all. Whether it becomes a catalyst for people to stop or a way to increase revenue (or both), this tax has no affect on people's freedom to smoke. It just increases the cost. And black-market cigarettes? I doubt 95% of people would even know where to get them, much less go through the hassle as opposed to just getting a pack at the local 7-11. And for the record, it was a $0.61 increase, not $1.00 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/01/cigarette.tax/)

I have more of an issue with cities and states than ban smoking for private businesses, without allowing the owner to make a decision on their own. THAT is a loss of freedom, for both the individual and the business owner. An example: On a trip to Cleveland last year, I had a bite to eat in the hotel lounge. The bartender told me that the lounge used to be a cigar bar, but since the state of Ohio enacted a smoking ban, it was no longer allowed. By his own estimate, was losing $500 - $700 a month in tips, and the bar was losing $6,000 or more a month in loss of sales.

@Milena - I am not sure what your response is saying, that the taxes are interfering with people's right to smoke? Or that we shouldn't tax one product over another due to the risks involved for those who use them?

Also, for what it's worth, the majority of the taxes per-pack on cigarettes are levied by the states or cities, and not the federal government. Even at the new $1.01 per-pack federal tax, the average non-tobacco producing state tax is $1.32 per pack. (http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0099.pdf). On average, cell phone taxes are higher, and those affect everyone.

@Chris - I'll be the first to admit that the government isn't the most effective spender of money. Although, most people themselves aren't either. But in terms of increased taxes over time, I'd like to see that number in relation to (a) inflation, (b) general services received by all people (including military spending, which is 54% of the federal funds spending and thus indirectly affects everyone), and (c) percentage spending per-person.

@Chris - "How about the government uses our taxes more wisely and then we won't need to be taxed on everything and taxes wouldn't have to be raised!"

Exactly. Why aren't we talking about downsizing the federal government? They've managed to convince many people they are the solution to many of our problems. They've managed to convince me that not only do they not have solutions but they mismanage money and spend it inefficiently. My reference point is my local town taxes and how they're spent. I occasionally make it to the town board meetings and I'm impressed with the planning and cost saving measures they implement with my tax dollars. The same holds true with the town fire department. My observation with government officials is they are more tuned in with the problems and potential solutions and more responsible with the budget if their reach is limited to a local level. Basically there are just too many layers of government so that by the time the money reaches the local level much has already been siphoned off.

@Jason - in terms of bans and regulation, the issue I have comes with the outright banning of smoking for private businesses. If I, as a bar owner, want to allow smoking, then I run the risk of losing the revenue from non-smokers who won't come to my bar. But it should be my decision as an owner. If a mother with a toddler comes into a known smoking establishment (esp. a cigar bar, which by it's nature is a smoking place), then it's not my fault as an owner, but rather her fault for being a shitty parent.

@Mark W. - we must live in different states. In Florida, the local and state governments are falling over themselves and can't seem to figure out a way to effectively manage money at all. The follies of my state's legislature are, in my opinion, worse than the Federal. My feeling is that, in general, politicians are horrible at spending money, because they all have special interests or people they are trying to please. At a small local level, that might be alleviated to a large degree.

Andrew...I thought you were in Canada??

Andrew...I thought you were in Canada??

Do you have any evidence that the black market for cigarettes will grow other than drawing the speculation of the arbitrage opportunity due to the tax? Have you read anything about a national thriving black market for cigarettes? I can imagine the same scenario that you can imagine and I'm sure it can happen in some port cities perhaps. However would the tax cause any appreciable increase in a black market on a national level?

@Dead, from what I understand, people will travel well outside major cities to, from what I understand, reservations where they can get cheaper cigs. I have also heard of people buying those in bulk, discounting the price and then selling right out of a van or shipping truck within city limits.

@Jason, I knew this argument would come up actually, it only makes sense to say that and I am not upset that you did bring it up. You see, those are already illegal so taxing them wouldn't be a concern....IF they were legal, then I would take issue with that as well...cigs ARE legal and since we are in the realm of non-assumption, I am talking specifically to them.

Chris, what you described happens more when local taxes vary. Reservations are not wide spread and not that close to large population centers so I hardly think this would move the black market significantly. I worked at enough psychiatric facilities to understand what people on a fixed income will to save money on cigarettes so I was pretty sure there was no national black market. There was more crossing state lines but this is a national tax.

You have no statistics or evidence. It's a logical speculation but still a speculation. I called it out because I see people try to use economics to defend a social or political stance when the proof isn't there. If you think that everyone should able to own all the weapons, smokes, and booze they want without government inteferences or taxes, that's fine. You can have your opinion and if I was your neighbor, I would tell my kids never to go to your house. However, don't try to make it an economic case unless you really have a case and data to back it.

OK, I'm reacting to the comments rather than the original post.

So Obama 'stretched the truth' when talking about taxes.

Wait until you run for office and see how truthful you can be.

I doubt you'll even get elected.

I assume that all politicians are making promises they can't keep. The trick is to pick the politician that is veering closest to your personal beliefs, regardless of the campaign promises they make.

Because the vast majority of the voting public don't put a lot of thought into their voting choices. They base their votes on 30-second sound bites and political commercials. They will believe the campaign promises, and will vote based upon them, so politicians will continue to make promises that are not entirely truthful.

And they will get elected because of them.

Chris,

I'm surprised that you did not bring up the fact that Obama is a smoker himself. This tax would apply to him as well.

Also, what exactly is this sentence supposed to mean?

"Of course, Obama DID NOT raise your taxes if you are a non-smoker OR if you now plan on quitting."

First you complain that he said he wasn't going to raise taxes on a specific population (those making under $250k/year) and then you complain that he wants to institute a tax on a specific population (smokers).

And I don't recall Obama ever saying he wasn't going to increase ANY taxes. I think it's pretty obvious that when he said he wouldn't increase taxes on those making less than $250k/year it was implied that he meant federal income taxes.

Gina, I have heard Obama AND Biden on multiple occasions, on and off the campaign, say repeatedly that 95% of the population will not see any of their taxes increase, Obama even proceeds to name off multiple ones, and Biden...can't find that stupid video though.

"Of course, Obama DID NOT raise your taxes if you are a non-smoker OR if you now plan on quitting."

What is not to understand?? The administration will tell you that a lot of people did not get an increase in taxes. Those who plan to stop smoking can also include themselves in that group..self explanatory.

Kate, no I don't think that we should eliminate taxes (it would be fantastic though)but increasing a tax by 60 cents, 6 times that of any cig tax in the past (10 cents at a time) shows the direction of Obama's coming taxes.

As far as your argument about being a non-smoker, read what I said before...I completely agree. Even with this tax argument I am ALL FOR no smoking in bars and restaurants where you will affect non smokers.

When it comes to the "black market" argument..sure history has not shown so far a case for that...but look at the time line vs price of cigarettes...it is only a matter of time and wearing of patience that I am right and smokers get completely fed up.

I think instead of raising taxes, we should simply invade a few Third World countries and exploit them (ie. take slaves, loot their cities, hold rich people for ransom, build labour camps). Especially the oil rich ones, or the countries that aren't heavily defended and have no friends (ie. Botswana).

That way everyone wins. Taxpayers can pay less tax, consumer good prices go down, the government gets its money.