Smoking in the Name of Kids
October 2, 2007 by IrishSpacemonk
I’m not gonna dive into this issue much but this is where I part ways with Liberals of the Left. I’m not against taxes. I’m just against unfair taxes. Slapping another “Tax for Children’s Health Care” is just such a tax. It seems whenever we Lefties want to get tax money, the easiest way is go after the smokers. Who really likes cigarettes anyway? I know I don’t (although IrishSpacemonk may be seen with a cigarette but that’s because he’s an entertainer.)
Here’s where I get confused. Hear me out. A cigarette tax is a regressive tax, in that it taxes harder the poor in society. The poor in society are often the very people that need health care assistance for their kids. Cigarettes are addictive and getting off the addiction isn’t easy, nor free. We want to have a society free of smokers. But a society free of smokers will not fix the problem that uninsured kids that still need health care. And where does the money come from then? I was reminded of this a month or so back when Hillary Clinton was asked about a ban on cigarettes. There’s no way a lefty could be for such a ban when you think of all the tax revenue that would disappear. That’s the bind.
So here’s my three points against with slapping smokers with another cigarette tax to pay for kid’s health care.
1. The tax is regressive, taxing the poor more heavily than the rich
2. The tax takes advantage of an addiction that we are trying to fight, and when the fight is successful, tax revenue declines, despite the remaining need for health care of kids
3. Increased prices for cigarettes will not make the use of cigarettes go down - look at illegal drugs for a perfect example
In Oregon, this tax attempt is called, the “Healthy Kids Initiative” (Measure 50). I’m not for big tobacco. In fact why not cap the price of cigarettes and tax the tobacco companies instead? Make it come from their bottom line. What I’m against is an $0.85 per pack tax on the poor, to pay the health case expenses of the poor….what do you think? Give me an argument to the contrary and I might change my mind.
(4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading ...
I’m a smoker myself. The tax on tobacco doesn’t affect how many I smoke, the addiction is in control of that.
They could make cigarettes $100 a packet, and people would still find the money (or buy black market), but the poor people would probably use the little money they have exclusively for cigarettes, and not eat, which would lead them to an accelerated decline in their health, which would lead to more money being paid to provide health care.
Giving up aids should be entirely free of charge, funded from the tax already in place on tobacco products. If the governments really wanted people to stop, they would do this!
I’m convinced that the goal of taxing tobacco is not to reduce the consumption of tobacco, but find a product safe to tax. Why not a fast-food tax? Or a gun tax? Perhaps even a gas hefty tax on alcohol to compensate for the deaths of teenage drunk drivers.