Comments on: Radio show about cigarette taxes

By: Dr. Nick

Dr. Nick — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 06:04:37 +0000

Nobody has to pay the tobacco tax; it’s voluntary. Don’t buy cigarettes and you won’t have to pay the tax.

By: BigBrother

BigBrother — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:53:18 +0000

Smoker’s opinion…

First, you’ve got to love it when people don’t take into consideration that the people who came up with this increase took into consideration themselves that there would be a decrease in smokers.

Second… the decrease you both mention in smoking would lead to a decrease in conditions such as lung cancer, high Cholesterol, and high BP to name a few. Conditions that surely “tax” our healthcare system.

As for the poor, two things…

1) If the groups that are currently speaking up for the poor concerning this tax increase did so for the fact that those same poor are missing meals, I might think of taking them seriously. Not speaking of you two… but rather these fronts popping up under the guise of some “Fair Taxation” group.
2) If someone is living below or near the poverty line and dropping even $2 a day on smokes, then they are fools who need to reset their priorities. No doubt they are the same people who opt for the 42″ LCD at their local “Rent-a-Center” rather than a more modest set that will meet their needs.

Taxes on tobacco meet little resistance because we ALL know that smoking is a foolish thing to do to oneself.

By: Where’s my Aricept |

Where’s my Aricept | — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:24:13 +0000

[...] I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on my radio show or my blog…but Aricept would be a fabulous [...]

By: Where’s my Aricept? | Kiss My Gumbo

Where’s my Aricept? | Kiss My Gumbo — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:17:40 +0000

[...] I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on my radio show or my blog…but Aricept would be a fabulous [...]

By: Don Singleton

Don Singleton — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:26:12 +0000

What really upsets me (a non smoker) is when they justify taxes on cigarettes by saying the revenue will go to pay for some other expense, like a bigger entitlement for health care, knowing that increasing taxes on cigarettes will make it more expensive, and therefore harder for poor people to afford them, thus will cut down on smoking, and reduce the revenue, so they won’t have enough for the new entitlement that was supposed to be funded by cigarette taxes, but it is now an entitlement, so it must be funded by taxes on something else.

By: Lord Bitememan

Lord Bitememan — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:44:35 +0000

Only because this seems to be topical (and not because anyone was dropping any hints to check out your blog or anything ) I’ll share a nugget of wisdom about cigarette taxes that came up elsewhere.

Tax increases on cigarettes cost more money in the longrun than they generate. Cutting taxes on smoking has a pro-revenue effect.

It follows simply; when you raise taxes on cigarettes you discourage smoking. When you discourage smoking you lose revenue. Furthermore, people who quit smoking live longer. The longer they live, the more they draw in social security. In contrast, when you cut taxes on smoking, you promote smoking. When more people smoke, it creates more jobs in the tobacco industry. More jobs in the tobacco industry provides more income taxes. Furthermore, smokers don’t live as long, and so do not draw as much from the system in social security (though most will live full working lives and so pay in). Lung cancer kills very quickly, and so is not as expensive to treat as other conditions whose onset is associated with advanced aging. In the end, it is more revenue efficient to allow those who choose to smoke to carry on with their habit devoid of the burden of heavier taxes.

By: Fat Lester

Fat Lester — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:24:32 +0000

I am outraged!

Why can’t we just tax tofu for once?

By: Janette

Janette — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:40:56 +0000

I think it’ll be a great show!