Comments on: SC Policy Council Weighs In On Cigarette Tax Hike

By: Cooter Brown

Cooter Brown — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:29:10 +0000

I noticed that my stuff is not being posted– are you banning me?

By: Cooter Brown

Cooter Brown — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:26:44 +0000

Does i now I got to buy mi smokes on da blak market or strat a rollin’ mi own? I rekon I can grow a little ‘backey in my bean field or I could jest quit… naw! Fite da power! If you got ‘em, smoke ‘em… smoke ‘em fer liberty!!!

By: Cooter Brown

Cooter Brown — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:26:04 +0000

If’n dey is taxin fir revenue, dey’s exploitin’ nicotine addiction witch sounds a bit sleazy. If dey is a tryin’ to git folks to quit, den day is shootin’ demselves in da feets ’cause da monie will dry up as folks stop a smokin. Can anie one ’spain dis to old Cooter?

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:58:27 +0000

Nice article Will,
The bottom line in my view is that the tax on smokes proposal is justified so that they can add this program and that program. SIMPLY WOULD MAKE GOV BIGGER!!! NO MORE TAXES!! THROW THESE BUMS OUT OF OFFICE IN 010. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE TAXPAYER PLEDGE MOST OF THESE BOZOS SIGNED TO GET ELECTED??

By: StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM)

StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:52:19 +0000

What sort of logic is this:

“Relying on a declining revenue source to fund recurring expenses is a recipe for future tax increases”

If you really get right down to it – EVERY source of revenue is a declining source of revenue. Think about it. Applying the logic of the SC Libertarian Policy Council, no one should be taxed as we are ALL declining sources of revenue (e.g., we all eventually stop paying taxes at some point).

- SSHM

By: Cadetsuperintendent

Cadetsuperintendent — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:31:25 +0000

The report neglected to mention that raising the
tax would also cause the earth’s axis to shift
and probably lead to unpredictable weather patterns.
Not to mention the anticipated effect upon the
quality of SEC football over the next few years.

By: w

Fri, 08 May 2009 11:27:13 +0000

Wait a sec…..

didnt those folks say we will lose some 35,000 private sector jobs by taking the stimulus and now another 4,000 or so by hiking the tax on cigs? Good God talk about idiotic.

The problem with the policy council is that they prevent themselves from being relevant by throwing ridiculous numbers around that cannot in any way corroborate, other than some pie in the sky unrealistic “national economist” projections that nobody buys.

Why is the argument not that paying for a recurring need with a variable income source extremely dangerous and exposing the taxpayers to a great liability? or that we are spending millions of tax dollars on ads to get kids and others to quit smoking yet secretly atatching a tax paying for critical healthcare services and simultaneously praying that more people smoke more frequently?

Simply idiotic.

By: Elmo

Elmo — Fri, 08 May 2009 00:43:35 +0000

Hey I have a question. Can food stamps be used to buy cigarettes?

By: JR

JR — Thu, 07 May 2009 23:35:08 +0000

How about how much our state will save in the long run since it is well known that for every 10 cent increase in the sales tax, will result in a seven percent decrease in teen smoking?? Cigarettes cost the state MILLIONS in state health care dollars . How do you factor that into the lost revenue equation?

By: baker

baker — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:37:31 +0000

I don’t put a lot of stock in “reports” from the Policy Council. After all, they’re the ones who pushed the bogus “report” suggesting that less than half of public school money goes toward teaching kids (they excluded salaries for librarians and guidance counselors, for example).

But, in truth, it seems like both sides of so many issues come up with these studies. Whether liberal or conservative, seems like there’s always some study claiming that, oh, “20,000 jobs will be lost or created,” or “such-and-such event will generate $574,295.74 for the local economy” or “such-and-such social problem costs society $4 million a year” or whatever. It’s often economists with impressive credentials who come up with this stuff, though it’s usually through whatever bias they have (big government vs. small government, free market libertarianism vs. regulation, etc.).

Anyway, I guess I’m saying that I think these sorts of predictions are probably awfully difficult. It would be interesting to look back at some of these types of “reports” and see how accurate they were or were not.