Is This Cig. Tax Reasonable?
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 04-01-2009 - 12:59pm |
The new cigarette taxes take effect today.
I don't roll cigarettes, but I found this to be quite harsh. The average cost of a pound went from $15.99 to $60.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6352568.html
Are they just haphazardly throwing taxes out here and there, and hoping for the best? If the real reason is for people to quit smoking.. and they do, what are they going to go after next to make up that revenue? Should one section of the US be more responsible for child health care than the rest?
I'm disappointed in this new tax. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that this could cause many stores to fail, and leave people without jobs.
I think smokers are such an easy target that no one's thinking ahead on this issue.

Pages
>"The .69-cent tax per-pack increase is to help fund the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill signed into law in early February by President Barack Obama."<
Info from....
http://www.examiner.com/x-5734-San-Diego-Page-One-Examiner~y2009m4d1-County-residents-voice-opinion-on-federal-smoking-tax-increase-effective-today
Ahhh, thank you for the explanation.
zz
Well I have to say that I'm at a disadvantage because I don't understand the convoluted and highly bureaucratic American health care system (or should I say....systemS).
What I do know is that it is costing American taxpayers (and industry) a lot more money than in other countries who do have universal health care and from what I understand, the way things are going, it isn't sustainable.
<>
There are many models to chose from (or many aspects that can be borrowed from other systems)...At any rate, I think that just being able to streamline the administration side and introduce more fairness and simplicity into health care would be an improvement (from a cost as well as a delivery perspective). For example, denying people health care based on pre-existing conditions strikes me as an absolutely cruel and inhumane thing, particularly in a nation who has the wealth, resources, abilities and values that America does. To me, that's absolutely horrifying.
I think it's very possible to develop something where private insurance companies are still playing a major role and remain viable as businesses...however, a major shift in attitude, priorities and focus on the part of all the players (including the American public) has to happen in order for this to be possible. This is (or it should be) a non-partisan issue and MUST be tackled from a non-partisan perspective. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Edited 4/3/2009 10:25 am ET by moxysuvous
Hi, lurking here, thought I'd chime in...
If they're so concerned with the children health services, why are they targeting a very low percentage of the population? 1 in 5 Americans smoke (I was/am one, I'm on the patch now trying to quit) so that's 20% of the population. What happens if 5% manage to quit, how will they afford the health services then?
If they were smart, because the children health services are for children, why can't they tax children products? (diapers, toys, rattles, clothing etc) Why are they relying solely on the smokers when there's so few of them? Tax the children products and they won't have to worry ever about how to fund the services.
Or is it that the government won't touch the products made for children? What's next? Alcohol? Mileage you drive to and from home? Groceries? It's just the start here people, sooner or later they will tax us out of everything that we enjoy. Our lives won't be ours anymore, they will be under the property of the government and obligated to fund every ludicrous thing they pass.
Pages