Comments on: The Cost Of Taxing Ciggies http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/ Unfair ... Imbalanced Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:03:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Representative Schizo | FITSNews For Now http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/#comment-23043 Representative Schizo | FITSNews For Now Fri, 23 May 2008 15:40:15 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3604#comment-23043 [...] Well, apparently Gullick isn’t totally opposed to the concept of vouchers - provided they’re associated with a massive expansion of government funded by a diminishing revenue stream. [...] [...] Well, apparently Gullick isn’t totally opposed to the concept of vouchers - provided they’re associated with a massive expansion of government funded by a diminishing revenue stream. [...]

]]> By: Silence Dogood http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/#comment-21949 Silence Dogood Fri, 16 May 2008 06:11:03 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3604#comment-21949 Rob W, thanks for a well reasoned response and the link - I will check it out. Rob W, thanks for a well reasoned response and the link - I will check it out.

]]> By: Rob W. http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/#comment-21881 Rob W. Thu, 15 May 2008 17:24:11 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3604#comment-21881 Will- I can't find the information you quote anywhere on the SC Policy website; the only tobacco-related items I can find are a brief summary in the "week in review". Did they actually do an analysis, and if so, where did they put it? Silence- I can accept that this is not strictly a "regressive tax", but that it does have a regressive effect. More poor people end up paying the tax than rich people. I would also accept that not all people in poor health save the government money; we don't have any data on it, but yours seems like a reasonable assumption. We do, however, have some data on how much one group of people in poor health (smokers) cost the government, even if those studies are a bit old. A number of the studies are cited in the link I put in earlier, but one 1997 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (linked below) concluded: "If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs." After reading that conclusion, I tried to delve a little further into the issue. There is a link from that article to a (partially pay-walled) letter challenging it's conclusions, but since I'm not a health economics researcher (just a chemistry one) and I couldn't access many of the papers that cited the original, I can't tell who is correct. Since the New England Journal of Medicine is one of the top journals in the field, I would guess that they put the paper through pretty vigorous review before publishing; if anyone on here has a better handle on this stuff than I do, please fill us in on the current consensus. In conclusion, it would seem that the data (not our assumptions) argues against the possibility of lowering health care costs by hiking cigarette taxes. NEJM Article: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052 Will- I can’t find the information you quote anywhere on the SC Policy website; the only tobacco-related items I can find are a brief summary in the “week in review”. Did they actually do an analysis, and if so, where did they put it?

Silence- I can accept that this is not strictly a “regressive tax”, but that it does have a regressive effect. More poor people end up paying the tax than rich people.

I would also accept that not all people in poor health save the government money; we don’t have any data on it, but yours seems like a reasonable assumption. We do, however, have some data on how much one group of people in poor health (smokers) cost the government, even if those studies are a bit old. A number of the studies are cited in the link I put in earlier, but one 1997 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (linked below) concluded: “If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.”

After reading that conclusion, I tried to delve a little further into the issue. There is a link from that article to a (partially pay-walled) letter challenging it’s conclusions, but since I’m not a health economics researcher (just a chemistry one) and I couldn’t access many of the papers that cited the original, I can’t tell who is correct. Since the New England Journal of Medicine is one of the top journals in the field, I would guess that they put the paper through pretty vigorous review before publishing; if anyone on here has a better handle on this stuff than I do, please fill us in on the current consensus.

In conclusion, it would seem that the data (not our assumptions) argues against the possibility of lowering health care costs by hiking cigarette taxes.

NEJM Article: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

]]> By: Wiliam http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/#comment-21816 Wiliam Thu, 15 May 2008 10:28:29 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3604#comment-21816 There are two problems with this bill. The "money” is not about the end user...the persons needing the insurance. This new tax has been pushed by doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, consultants, etc...this is a huge windfall to them. Sure, there will be SOME benefit to SOME people needing insurance, but this tax amounts to a huge handout to special interest. Secondly, is that Health and Human Services is the most wasteful and inefficient unit of state government. The average person in this state cannot imagine how poor the management and oversight is…nor the distressing effect it has on the poor and sick people of this state. There are two problems with this bill.

The “money” is not about the end user…the persons needing the insurance. This new tax has been pushed by doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, consultants, etc…this is a huge windfall to them. Sure, there will be SOME benefit to SOME people needing insurance, but this tax amounts to a huge handout to special interest.

Secondly, is that Health and Human Services is the most wasteful and inefficient unit of state government. The average person in this state cannot imagine how poor the management and oversight is…nor the distressing effect it has on the poor and sick people of this state.

]]> By: sunshine39 http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/#comment-21807 sunshine39 Thu, 15 May 2008 07:26:35 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3604#comment-21807 Job loss? That pales to the loss of worker productivity and lost income due to direct smoking-related illness! Heck with the claim that there'll be $180 per year paid in increased SC cigarette tax that won't "otherwise be spent" by SC smokers in local stores buying other goods (per Vagabond) -- Assume that said smoker earns $10 per hour on his/her full-time job. Then, figure that $180 equals 18 hours of earnings: tell me that a smoker is *not* going to have at least two sick days unpaid out of work each year due to direct smoking-related illness -- there's your $180 (at least) right there in *lost earnings* that will simply never be available at all to "otherwise be spent"! Job loss? That pales to the loss of worker productivity and lost income due to direct smoking-related illness! Heck with the claim that there’ll be $180 per year paid in increased SC cigarette tax that won’t “otherwise be spent” by SC smokers in local stores buying other goods (per Vagabond) — Assume that said smoker earns $10 per hour on his/her full-time job. Then, figure that $180 equals 18 hours of earnings: tell me that a smoker is *not* going to have at least two sick days unpaid out of work each year due to direct smoking-related illness — there’s your $180 (at least) right there in *lost earnings* that will simply never be available at all to “otherwise be spent”!

]]> By: Calhoun Fawls http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/#comment-21796 Calhoun Fawls Thu, 15 May 2008 04:51:20 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3604#comment-21796 Perhaps there should be a higher tax on coffee and other like products. The liberals wanting to tax ciggarettes and ban them all together drink those mega lattes loaded with sugar and vessel constricting cafeine. Then, let's go after health foods. Yes, health foods. Because if people eat those and excericise they end up getting more out of SSI than they paid in. Fair is fair. Perhaps there should be a higher tax on coffee and other like products. The liberals wanting to tax ciggarettes and ban them all together drink those mega lattes loaded with sugar and vessel constricting cafeine.

Then, let’s go after health foods. Yes, health foods. Because if people eat those and excericise they end up getting more out of SSI than they paid in.

Fair is fair.

]]> By: Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/#comment-21765 Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) Thu, 15 May 2008 01:02:38 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3604#comment-21765 What the h@ll is this about. Cigarettes have killed eleventy brazillion people and cost taxpayers mega-brazillions of dollars every year in health insurance costs. Let's start the non-partisan effort here and now: Ban The Butts!!! What the h@ll is this about.

Cigarettes have killed eleventy brazillion people and cost taxpayers mega-brazillions of dollars every year in health insurance costs.

Let’s start the non-partisan effort here and now: Ban The Butts!!!

]]> By: Silence Dogood http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/#comment-21727 Silence Dogood Wed, 14 May 2008 23:04:50 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3604#comment-21727 Rob W. you noted "Basically, it says cigarette taxes are regressive (since lower income earners smoke more cigarettes)," I have seen other places where people call this a regressive tax because more poor people - apparently - choose to smoke then rich people. However since this is a 'sin' tax as properly pointed out earlier by those who choose to smoke it is not correctly a labled a regressive tax. It may have a regressive affect. But for instance on things that everybody does - or practically everybody, like a strict sales tax on groceries or on everything that is a regressive tax. As smoking is a choice then it is not correct to call this a regressive tax. Also, by the logic that "since smokers die earlier, they actually cost the government less money than nonsmokers" would you agree that everyone in poor health is actually much cheaper to the governmet than everyone in good health BECAUSE those in poor health die sooner than those with good health? P.S. I really hope your answer is not yes. Rob W. you noted “Basically, it says cigarette taxes are regressive (since lower income earners smoke more cigarettes),” I have seen other places where people call this a regressive tax because more poor people - apparently - choose to smoke then rich people. However since this is a ’sin’ tax as properly pointed out earlier by those who choose to smoke it is not correctly a labled a regressive tax. It may have a regressive affect. But for instance on things that everybody does - or practically everybody, like a strict sales tax on groceries or on everything that is a regressive tax. As smoking is a choice then it is not correct to call this a regressive tax.

Also, by the logic that “since smokers die earlier, they actually cost the government less money than nonsmokers” would you agree that everyone in poor health is actually much cheaper to the governmet than everyone in good health BECAUSE those in poor health die sooner than those with good health?

P.S. I really hope your answer is not yes.

]]> By: Vagabond http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/#comment-21716 Vagabond Wed, 14 May 2008 21:55:02 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3604#comment-21716 The average pack-a-day smoker would spend an extra $180 per year on cigarette taxes under the Senate plan. That's money that otherwise would be spent on groceries, gas, DVDs, etc... and go into the pockets of South Carolina businesses. When businesses earn less money they hire less staff -- that's how you get the job losses. The average pack-a-day smoker would spend an extra $180 per year on cigarette taxes under the Senate plan. That’s money that otherwise would be spent on groceries, gas, DVDs, etc… and go into the pockets of South Carolina businesses. When businesses earn less money they hire less staff — that’s how you get the job losses.

]]> By: how the mighty have fallen http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/05/14/the-cost-of-taxing-ciggies/#comment-21715 how the mighty have fallen Wed, 14 May 2008 21:44:28 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3604#comment-21715 using words like "toile" isn't exactly bailing you out of the gavin rossdale comment, buddy. using words like “toile” isn’t exactly bailing you out of the gavin rossdale comment, buddy.

]]>