Obama’s recession remedy: Tax the poor!
It’s baaaack. Remember S-CHIP? The Democrats are racing their universal health care Trojan Horse through the House today and in the Senate by Friday. Yesterday evening after I filed my syndicated column (printed below) on Obama and the Democrats’ first massive tax increase of 2009, the 285-page text of the proposed S-CHIP expansion went online. It’s H.R. 2 and you can read the PDF in its entirety here — something a significant number of congressional members will not do before voting for the behemoth bill. The tax portion of the bill is broken out here (thanks to the Stogie Guys). Pelosi’s press release is here.
Every legal tobacco product from premanufactured cigarettes and cigarette papers to cigars to roll-your-cigarettes, pipe tobacco, and smokeless tobacco will be taxed out the wazoo. Take roll-your-own tobacco. It’s currently taxed at $1.0969/lb. The Obama/Democrat S-CHIP plan would hike that to $24.62/lb. Cigarette taxes would rise from $19.50 per thousand to $50.00 per thousand for small cigarettes and from $40.95 per thousand to $105.00 per thousand for large cigarettes.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to have an open debate on the bill. House GOP leaders lodged a protest. (But remember that 42 Republicans sided with Pelosi last January in a failed attempt to override President Bush’s veto.)
So much for transparency and openness. And so much for those promises to provide tax relief to “ordinary Americans.” As usual, Barry O was just blowin’ smoke:
Stay tuned. I’ll be keeping track of the non-debate debate today and the Trojan Horse Republicans who will get along, go along, and bend over. (Update: Liveblogging the floor proceedings here.)
***
My column…
Obama’s recession remedy: Tax the poor!
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008
“Everybody’s going to have to give,” President-elect Barack Obama warned over the weekend. And some people will have to give more than others – starting with low-income smokers. Democrats are rushing this week to impose massive tax hikes of at least 61 cents on every cigarette pack sold in America, in addition to new increases on other tobacco products. The money will fund a long-plotted federal expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP).
Yes, this is Dr. Big Nanny’s prescription for recession: Punitive tax increases on the poor to feed a universal health care Trojan Horse.
Obama and his liberal Democrat colleagues sure have a funny way of demonstrating “progressive” values, don’t they? Health surveys show that smokers are more likely to be blue-collar workers, minorities, and have less than a high school education. The National Taxpayers Union noted that tobacco taxes take a 50-times-larger share of income from those earning less than $20,000 than those earning more than $200,000. Put another way: Families making less than $30,000 per year pay more than half of all taxes paid on cigarettes, while families making more than $60,000 pay only 14 percent.
That’s the dictionary definition of “regressive,” not “progressive.”
And what will that money buy? S-CHIP, you’ll recall, is the joint federal-state program that covers health insurance for children and families at or near the poverty line. Over the past two years, President Bush and the Republicans took a rare, fiscal conservative stand against widening eligibility criteria far beyond the working poor. Democrats wanted to be able to enroll families with incomes at 300 or 400 percent of the poverty level – adding an estimated $35 billion over five years to the existing S-CHIP funding costs.
Opponents of this Hillarycare-esque push were lambasted as cruel child-haters for arguing that the program should not be extended to include well-off families, illegal aliens, and single adults. They were attacked as heartless penny-pinchers for questioning the wisdom of subsidizing the S-CHIP expansion with a dwindling and unstable funding source (smoking is on the decline and cigarette tax revenues are shrinking). Left-wing comedienne Joy Behar called me a “b*tch” on national television for reporting that the Democrats’ poster family for S-CHIP expansion to cover the “poor,” the Frost family of Baltimore, owned middle-class assets including two properties and three cars.
But if these do-gooders truly cared about The Children, they’d be cursing mightily over the squandering of current S-CHIP funds and the cheating of the very children the program was intended to help. State data analyzed by the Department of Health and Human Services reveal that 13 states spent more than 44 percent of their S-CHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women. Michigan topped the list with more than 70 percent of its federal children’s health insurance funds earmarked for adults who have no kids.
In New Jersey, people earning as much as $295,000 were enrolled in its S-CHIP program dubbed “NJ FamilyCare.” Like many states, New Jersey failed to check eligibility for all program enrollees and refuses to do stringent assets tests. As I’ve noted before, the refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. After an audit found that the program had paid $43.1 million to participants without knowing if they were eligible, Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris observed that it “called into serious question the state’s competence to run health insurance programs.” Multiply that by 50 states.
How will the Democrats prevent such fraud? I’d give you more details about the Obama/Democrat tax hike on the poor to expand children’s health care coverage for the non-poor and non-children, but as of Tuesday afternoon, there was no legislative text available. And no hearings are planned before the expansion is rushed through for Obama to sign. The Wall Street Journal did report that Democrats plan to lift decade-old restrictions to allow legal immigrant children to tap into S-CHIP. (Open-borders activists hope it’s the camel’s nose under tent for illegal alien applicants.) But there’s no word on whether (or how) citizenship eligibility requirements will be strengthened. The Democrat leadership hasn’t responded to Republican entreaties on that issue, either. Hurray for the deliberative process.
What I can tell you for sure is that the S-CHIP expansion is a rest stop on the road to a universal health insurance entitlement, built on the backs of overtaxed, low-income workers. (Listen to Democrat Tom Vilsack admit it openly here.)
Welcome to the era of “shared sacrifice.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- GOP + BAM = BFF? « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Nobody asked me, but....
- BizzyBlog » Things I’d Like To Post About Today ….. (011409, Morning)
- Dems ALREADY going to TAX US MORE | Generic Rant - NOT always Politcally Correct!
- Half Right on S-CHIP | BobMaistros.com
- Right Angles » Blog Archive » Who will these taxes hurt, exactly?
- NMP’s recession remedy: Tax the poor! < jimreport.com
- First Tax Hike of the Year, First Broken Promise by Obama on the Poor « Rantings of mine
- Health Care BS - SCHIP AND THE STILL-DUMB TOBACCO TAX
- Michelle Malkin » S-CHIP Trojan Horse gallops through the Senate; kiddie human shields in full force
- Michelle Malkin » Stimulus stupidity alert: $75 million for smoking cessation
- Michelle Malkin » Stimulus stupidity alert: $75 million for smoking cessation
- Michelle Malkin » Senate S-CHIP roll call vote: 9 B.O. Republicans vote for raising taxes in a recession
- The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Obama: Racist Persecutor Of Black Farmers
- Michelle Malkin » First, they came for the Cheerios
- Michelle Malkin » Dems: Hey, let’s take over tobacco industry! Obama: Great idea!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Health care
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftDoug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» OGreen Room
» Times Slimes Obamic Climes
But you wouldn’t think it acceptable government could discriminate in such a way, I would guess.
WHO CARES what anyone does with their vices? But for those who have already CHOSEN to smoke, I don’t cry that they have to pay higher taxes on their death sticks. They raise my insurance rates, so no sympathy for them.
The slippery slope argument doesn’t fly either. The dems are going to look for everything they can to raise taxes on and predictably they are stating with the sin taxes. What do you expect?
Save your outrage for the big stuff. It will come soon enough.
Bingo!!!!!!!
This is why I am against sin taxes. Ironically they like to CLAIM the money goes to the schools.
Agreed.
When the government finally raises tobacco taxes enough, even the poor will not buy tobacco or will buy tobacco in the underground market, thereby reducing overall revenue to their SCHIP program that depends on people buying tobacco. Only government idiots can reduce revenue by raising taxes. Maybe then will then mandate that all properly indoctrinated citizens to take up smoking to support the health care caused by the increased number of people smoking.
I pay my own health insurance. Send my kids to private schools. Pay 50% of MY earnings in taxes. Obey most of the laws. Why is it my responsibility to help others who can’t afford to, make as many choices?
WHAT MORE DO YOU ALL WANT IN A CIVIL SOCIETY?
I think there is a difference in a vested interest in keeping people smoking and a realization that people are going to do it in any case.
I would think that, if tomorrow everyone quit smoking, the amout the government would save on Medicare and Medicaid alone would offset the loss in tax revenue.
I agree. My comment on this was more tongue-in-cheek on a liberal “untouchable” subject.
For the record, I’m a non-smoker and rather passionate about attempting to convince smokers I know to quit.
That said, I would point out that Philip Morris is a $50+ billion dollar company and a member of the S&P 500. I’m not quite sure what you mean about tobacco being a localized economic effect. There’s also something to be said for the amount of tobacco product that is exported from the U.S.
This country has a long history in the tobacco industry. While I personally detest smoking as well, I acknowledge that there is a significant economic impact to attempting to get rid of it.
Leaders in this country did not agree with this when they signed the 18th amendment. Looking at alcohol from a purely scientific point of view, it is a toxin. The anti-oxidants and other benefits from moderate drinking could be attained from other sources as well.
But, that wasn’t really my point… I drink in moderation and would not want to see taxes increased on alcohol any more than I believe they should be increased on tobacco. My point is that I would rather the government did not intercede in more of our personal decisions. When they feel the need, they can invent or abuse statistics to make just about anything in life a matter of “saving the children”.
Anyone shocked at a socialist tax and spend liberal raising taxes is just ignorant and doesn’t understand history and idealogy.
Words. Just words.
NO. You understand the difference chap.
If the government has a vested interest to “make sure” that people keep on smoking so they can continue raking in tobacco tax revenue… I’m sorry, I can’t go on, that is just too silly. Go back to the conspiracy websites you came from.
Chap, but it’s not like the gov’t is one big monolithic beast. It’s not like your personal bank accounts where if you have a more-than-expected loss in one, you can just transfer that amount from another. SOME gov’t program is going to have a vested interest in keeping people smoking- to me that is a disturbing thought.
No, it would not be acceptable for a government entity to discriminate on the basis of a person’s color/sex, etc. I am talking about privately owned companies. Government is an entirely different matter.
Of course, but with respect to corporations, LLCs, etc. (i.e. almost all businesses) their articles (and thus their independent existence) are issued by the state. Their entire existence owes to the fact that the state allows them to. That to me makes them very different from a private citizen.
happy2behere, I’m sure state lotteries (legal gambling, to help the public schools, ha ha ha) are some big conspiracy too right? What planet do you come from where your gov’t always has your best interests in mind?
Their existance owes to the fact that someone had the guts to take the risk of operating a business. The state just cut themselves in because they could.
Never said that Tex. Go back and read the post.
The “state” ALLOWS them to exist? So, then there is no such thing as a private company. I bristle at anything that says the “state” allows something to exist. If that is the case, we are all serfs.
chapoutier said:
Someone slap me, I actually agree with chap for once.
Huh? Do you think the state has to go around begging businesses to incorporate so it can get a cut? The revenue from business will be taxed one way or the other, either directly as income to the owner or as business income.
Quite the opposite. Businesses almost invariably seek a charter from the state to incorporate because the state offers the owners this handy dandy thing called limited liability.
I believe the point is that the government is not really all that concerned about whether or not this is an effective deterrent to smoking, but rather that it is a politically-safe place to raise taxes.
If they’re counting on that money to fund SCHIP and other programs, I would wager that there would be many that would be disappointed if it really did turn out to be an effective deterrent. Sure, they’d get their money elsewhere, but it’s not a conspiracy theory to recognize that their motivation is the money and not really the health of the smoker.
People, people, people. I did not say the state allows businesses to exist. I said the state allows a business to exist AS A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM ITS OWNERS. This is huge. Ask any business owner on this board if they run an unicorporated sole proprietorship. I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts there is not one (or if there is they should not admit it).
I’m sorry happy2behere, would you mind explaining to me what your point was, then? To me it seemed like you were saying it is just “silly” and conspiracy-minded to suggest that the gov’t would get in bed with tobacco companies…?
My typing sucks today. Oh wait. it sucks every day.
Its interesting to note in the final paragraph of the proposed Bill, that in one year the government will undertake a study regarding the increased tobacco smuggling that is expected.
I guess the War on Tobacco is about to generate the same law enforcement penalties/actions as the War on Meth.
But did anyone else comprehend the $500 credit to offset the tax inceases?
It was rhetorical chap. Your statement that the State “allows” a business to exist is an oversimplification and you know it.
Further, your last several posts are off subject.
While I believe that quitting smoking is a benefit to one’s health, there could be something to be said for the fact that more people would live longer which would mean an increase in Medicare and Medicaid.
It could still be a net difference in your favor. I’m just suggesting that there are likely more variables involved.
Be fair. There were others involved in this off-topic discussion and I don’t believe Chap even started it.
Happy to get back to the vice-tax discussion, though.
chapoutier said:
Now that’s the chap I know, saying things I disagree with!
It doesn’t make sense for all businesses to incorporate. Some kinds of businesses have no need to incorporate.
Lets see… die of Emphysema/heart disease at 65 or cancer/degenerative diseases at 80. Which is cheaper?
Oxygen canister refills are negligible compared to chemo/radiological therapies. And old people will be a drain on Social Security in the long haul. Plus they are taking up my future retirement condos at the Villages in Florida.
If my ‘escort’ starts charging me a sin tax, I’m cutting back to twice a week with that little lady.
I instigated dozens upon dozens of posts on the impending zombie threat on one thread, and I get scolded for being off topic for discussing discrimination in American businesses?
Thank you chap. You just made my point. I’m sixty three years old and my father is ninety six. Between the two of us we eat six pounds of beacon a week and have very low cholesterol levels. Do I need to be aggravated because some people have a genetic propensity for clogged arteries? All human behavior can be controlled. But should it?
Where do you draw your lines.
Tex, I dont know FOR SURE one way or the other but your point about BIG TOBACCO and BIG GOV being “in bed” is far-fetched. If not, please explain SPECIFICALLY who, what, when, where, why and how. Otherwise, I’ll leave you to your conspiracy theories and you can leave me to mine (except I don’t have them).
A lemonade stand, maybe. Other than that, it is almost considered malpractice for an attorney to allow a client to run a business as a sole proprietorship.
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my pudgy greasy fingers.
RabbidSquirrel said:
Yes, I agree! It is much better for everyone to smoke, be sickly, and die young, than for people to live longer and healthier lives!
And likey voting Democrat there too.
Michelle
If Joy Behar thinks you are a “b***h” thats good enough for me.
I just hope you are their worst friggen nightmare “bitch” of all times.
Love Ya, burn their tootsies.
PC is Thought Control
LEE
Post #110 – see the word “entire.” The is what I was responding to.
Sorry – the typing is off today too.
We were discussing a counterpoint to the comment that Chap said about the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. Neither RabbidSquirrel or I said it was “better” for people to die young (at least not seriously from RS’s joke about Florida). We were just pointing out that there may not be a economic benefit from that perspective.
Happy,
I gotcha. And I hope I clarified.
…but who would count all the chads?
The problem is with the tax laws and the amount of controls it burdens individuals and business with.
Our system of taxation , in my opinion, is unconstitutional. The “Fair Tax is the only way toward real freedom.
To hell with government manipulation.
Zombies are amusing, therefore they are tolerated.
It is that type of thinking that will get you killed.
Zombies are most definitely not amusing. I find nothing at all funny about having my brain eaten by the undead.
See. Salt will be one of the lucky few.
Salt said:
OK, I question the sanity of anyone who thinks our bottom line is overall better off with smoking than without.
chapoutier said:
I am looking into getting back into the art business. I can make my own, custom art. I’ll probably sell my own clip art, prints of my work, and the originals. Why should I incorporate?
People can get sick from bad lemonade and sue you, but my art never made anyone sick.
happy2behere, do you know what a “hypothetical” is? Based on how the government already deals with tobacco companies, I don’t think it is too far-fetched. Unless you think that congress getting kick-backs from tobacco companies to limit regulation is also a conspiracy, in which case you are just totally naive!
I agree with Salt here. The increased tax on tobacco is just a way to get in the door. Once in place, there will be people who quit, but the program(s) will be in place.
To cover the loss of revenue from people quitting, then they raise taxes across the board to fund the program(s).
And actually it was almost a reverse joke on myself, since none of you had insight into my family.
My grandmother was in her 80s and my mother was in her 50’s when they both died within a month of each other. My grandmother died of Emphysema and my mom of cancer. Grandmom lived balls to the wall, while mom lived a very conservative religous life. Life does what it wants to do, irregardless of global warming or climate change or a nanny state.
Th real issue is that of government controlling your behavior through taxation.
Do you think you will be entering into any contracts? A lease for studio space maybe? Licensing agreements(hopefully for you)? Do you think that it is possible to be sued under any of the above contracts?
I don’t know what kind of art you are talking about, but don’t think its not possible for someon to come up with some way in which your art harmed them.
Clarification confirmed, however I’m not sure you got me chap, but OK. For example: our business’s “entire” existance does not “entirely” rely on the state, my husband and I had something to do with it.
And without the zombies…
Darn it! I was typing while a Zombie topic was going on!
It is only a matter of time before killing zombies is taxed.
Is there a rebuttal in there? Or are you content to label us as having questionable sanity for not automatically assuming it is an economic net positive? I’d be happy to read and discuss supporting evidence to your belief.
I don’t have all the facts, but I am reasoning that it might be a bit more complicated than a simple guess. The fact that people live longer now is most certainly an increased burden on social security and medicare. Increasing the average age would increase that burden.
Does that imply that I would not wish to see a longer lifespan for people? Certainly not. I just question government’s role in making decisions for us, especially when they are more focused on the revenue.
Feel free to share with us you personal experiences with zombies, how they have affect you, your family, your friends. Have you found yourself withdrawing from social situations for fear of zombies? Have they affected your work performance? Has your overwhelming desire to clean your guns and sharpen your blades begun to impair your marital relations?
Don’t be shy. This is a safe place. We are here to help.
Yes.
This tobacco tax is nothing but a smoke screen. California has already taxed tobacco products to the point of diminishing returns. Adding federal tax will only reduce the total tax revenue.
This is about expanding government control of health care. There is no intent of any kind in actually paying for the costs of the takeover, they just want to expand government control of the health care system, and they feel they can just do it without even looking themselves at the details.
I would not put it past this congress to actually be enacting a complete federalization of health care with the details of this bill. Something small like not specifying the detail of what a ‘child’ is due to the ongoing controversy from the last time they pushed a ’similar’ bill.
As a word of advice, DO NOT EXPECT TO SEE ANY DEBATE of many of the actions that will be comming from this congress. The Democrats have learned, from Hillary’s ‘private’ meetings in 1993, to not have the details exposed to an ignorant public that might not agree with them.
Agreed. I believe that this is exactly the theme that Michelle has been tracking on SCHIP with her posts.
Ho Ho! Tex honey, naive is definitely not a term used to describe me, at least not to my face.
Before my conversion to Christianity, I used to smoke, drink and do lots of other things I would not admit to in writing. I got around a bit and made some friends in governmental circles. It is my personal opinion that folks in goverment can barely keep a secret, much less conspire to keep millions of people enslaved to tobacco.
And you dodged the question about specifics. If you dont want to answer, fine, just leave me to my “naive” musings, fair enough?
It’s okay. You can tell us. This is a safe place. We are here to help.
You’re not inferring that she hung out with zombies… are you? /shudder
I can’t say. But until we get specifics, the mind does tend to wander to the most sordid things…
Well said, Freddy. Scary as hell, but completely accurate.
The zombies made me do it. You know the kind with rum, OJ and pineapple juice with Bacardi 151 floating on top?
Oddly enough, I don’t mind a huge tax on smoking. If everyone quit, nearly all lung cancers would disappear. Sorry, I know, beat me, it’s ok…
I have not gone back to re-read the comments, but I don’t believe there was a notion of a grand conspiracy to keep people smoking. The points made were more about politicians not really being too interested in getting people to stop smoking. Since it is reviled by many, it gives them the perfect opportunity to increase taxes.
The tobacco lobby shouldn’t be discounted either, as referenced by a previous poster who mentioned the potential kickbacks to induce a legislator to vote a certain way.
Bottom line, it’s not a conspiracy to keep America smoking, but neither is it an altruistic and caring group that is concerned about our health. It’s all about the money.
Where’s my hymn book…
I love that drink! Only I substitute the rum, OJ and pineapple juice for more 151.
what’s next with these liberal morons? I’m surprised they just don’t legalize drugs and prostitution so that they can tax that as well…ooops shouldn’t give them any ideas….while I don’t smoke and have seen the results of live-long smoking in my relatives, I don’t agree with this kind of tax increase….
Aloha – I have been mosty alone here this morning making the same argument. No sympathy for those who chose to smoke then have to pay higher taxes.
And to both you and Salt, there was one guy making the BIG TOBACCO/BIG GOVT conspiracy argument and calling me naive, thus my testimonial. Scoff if you like, it was supposed to be amusing.
Don’t worry. That crazy leftist moonbat William F. Buckley already endorsed that crazy idea years ago.
Yes, but then the zombie becomes even more flammble, another reason I stopped smoking first.
happy2behere, sweetums, a quick google brought up hundreds (well, a lot) of things that support what I’m saying, here are a couple:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/weekinreview/31saul.html?fta=y
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/QuitToLive/story?id=1342001
I mean, I don’t get where you are coming from. You don’t believe in the tobacco lobby? You don’t think members of our gov’t are susceptible to such lobbying? You don’t think that increased tax revenues would only increase that susceptibility? You don’t think the gov’t pushes other vices in order to receive tax revenues (I mentioned state lotteries specifically)? You think the government is more interested in our well-being than in MONEY?
It doesn’t need to be a grand conspiracy. I never said that. I only said that if certain programs relied on tobacco taxes, then there would be elements within the government with a vested interest in keeping people smoking. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
On January 14th, 2009 at 11:21 am,
That would take most of a generation to take effect. And the government telling us how to live our lives is still fascism. When THEY have all your medical records you a little bit less citizen and a little bit more subject-the whole point of the Liberal/Progressive.
You will have the Rights they decide to bestow on you-which makes your Rights privileges subject to a political flunky’s whim.
Our Declaration Of Independence is too little taught and read, as is the Second Amendment.
Using Joe Biden’s logic, it would be unpatriotic not to smoke…
Arizona,
I never endorsed the government taxing smoking into oblivion.
After all, if people didn’t smoke, how would you know who the really cool guys are and which women are easiest to pick up at last call?
OK then – in post #96 when Tex said “I can easily see the goverment in bed with the tobacco companies just to keep those revenues coming in,” Tex did not mean there was a grand conspiracy. OK, if you say so. And the “if/then” question right before your statement was not conspiracy-speak as well? Alright, I take people at their word.
You don’t understand where I am coming from? I’ll try to explain. I don’t care to speculate on such conspiracies because it is a waste of time, thus point of my posts. You can waste blog space all you want, it is a free country. I prefer to deal with facts.
Except for the zombies…
Thankfully, we’ll have our valiant Republican Congressmen standing up for Conservatism, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. Well, at least we’ll have those whose turn it is to vote against leftism so that they can say they have a conservative voting record.
The problem is, taxing a minority for, a public good. If nationalized health care is considered a public good, all people should pay. I don’t own a cell-phone so, let’s add a $50 a month tax on them since, it does not affect me personally. It’s the same mentality.
hey Happy, after you pestered for specifics, did you even bother to read what I linked to? I was responding to your comment that thinking gov’t and tobacco were in bed was “far-fetched”- one of the most naive things I have heard in a long time.
If speculating on the outcome of congressional moves is a waste of blog space, then I guess about 80% of this blog is wasted space! If all you want to deal in are the “facts” then maybe you shouldn’t be commenting on a speculative thread like this to begin with… just a thought so you don’t waste any more of your precious time!
If Zombie-ism is a disease, does that mean my ammo purchases will be reimbursed under S-CHIP? Are they subject to deductible? Or is this one of those boondoggles where they don’t pay for prevention.
2 1/2 years smoke free thanks to Zyban.
At a certain level, taxation does reduce the consumption of tobacco. Would the government cut off its nose to spite its face? Or will the savings in health care costs off-set the loss in revenue? It’s a question the New York Times has yet to answer.
I skimmed the article, and need to read it again but I must leave for the office. Later..
Taxation will only decrease legally purchased tobacco. Good for the Native-Americans, no?
This is reminiscent of Hill-Dawgs plan for funding her “Universal Healthcare”. Tax the hell out of tobacco in order to fund it, then work to get people to quit smoking, thus leaving it unfunded.
Well, looks like I will end up quitting my Copenhagen. I’ll be damned if I am going to put forth any more money than is absolutely necessary to that SOB. Besides, my kids will be happy I quit anyway.
Never thought I would see the day when it became cheaper to be a coke or marijuana junkie than a smoker. I can’t wait until the underground black market for cigarettes starts. This is only creating a new and better criminal opportunity. If anyone thinks that certain outlaw organizations will not be stepping in to make sure people have their smokes, tey are merely fooling themselves.
It didn’t work with booze, it ain’t gonna work with tobacco.
As long as they dont tax the “special” high tobacco ..
THis is also an unfair tax. It is a tax that requires a minority of people in this country to fund and care for the majority. I fail to see how such a thing is legal.
this sucks
Time to grow my own.
I shouldn’t have checked in before I left.
It seems the jist of Michelle’s column was the concer about the disproportionate taxation of the poor over tobacco use. Then my skim of the previously mentioned articles implied that at least part of those taxes are going to fund SCHIP. So taxes from mostly-the-poor would be going to fund health care for mostly-the-poor? If that is bad, or some kind of conspiracy, I must be missing something.
Like I said, I better go back and read the articles mentioned in Google for clarification. I could be totally wrong here. But I need to be in the offce ASAP, so later…..