Federal Cigarette tax would hit poor hardest

I thought the "Democrat's" were supposed to be the friend of the Poor? This goes as virtually a direct blow to the less wealthy. This is their way of compensating for the "unfair" progressive income tax that puts a heavier "burden" on the wealthy.

< br />
It goes on to say that the Democrat's don't deny that it hits the poor the hardest, but "all the better they say" if it might reduce smoking.

That's too bad because it's well known that taxes on things like cigarette's & alcohol along with other stealth maneuvors like state run lotto's almost directly target the have-not's. This might seem like a contradiction, but study after study shows the same.

For instance, the study titled Cigarette Prices, Smoking, and the Poor: Implications of Recent Trends, published in the American Journal of Public Health, in October 2007, is the latest to suggest the same conclusion:

Despite cigarette price increases after the MSA, income-related smoking disparities have increased. Increasing cigarette prices may no longer be an effective policy tool and may impose a disproportionate burden on poor smokers.
www.ajph.org...

The resulting findings was that "real cigarette-pack price over time was associated with a marked decline in smoking among higher-income but not among lower-income persons." This makes sense because financial woes are clearly stressful issues, and cigarette's are an immediate remedy to stress. Quitting smoking only increase's stress in way that are difficult to describe. In short it can be described as literally a change in brain chemistry that causes misfire's between neurons.

The National Center for Policy Analysis Task Force on Taxing the Poor repeats the same conclusion while adding more detailed specifics and perspective of the tax issue:

The income tax is highly progressive. It takes a higher portion of the income of the rich than the poor. But federal, state and local governments raise revenues in a number of ways that are regressive, taking a greater portion of the incomes of the poor than the rich. In some cases, the total dollar amounts paid by the poor are higher than the amounts paid by the rich.
www.ncpa.org...

One relevent thing they point out, amongst many others is:

One-third of lower-income adults smoke versus one-fifth of middle- and high-income earners, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Adding that to the reality that the poor have a harder time quit makes it all to obvious who is the target in these sorts of taxes, especially at the state level. Evidence indicates that "these taxes are designed to raise revenue, rather than discourage unhealthy behavior". NCPA points out that a 5th of the states "charge higher taxes on smokeless tobacco than cigarettes". Smokeless tobacco is safer than smoked.

Besides, if they really wanted to stop people from smoking they'd do a massive camapign providing people with free Varenicline (aka Chantix), the highly effective quit aid. But of course the poor probably can't afford it and many health insurance companies won't cover it for the average Joe. This same concept applies in many others way with those better off being able to spend money on ways to give them a better piece of mind during their attempts at quiting their vices.

And you don't only find this taxes undermining the poor with just tobacco either. The same cna be said of taxes on things like alcohol, and then state monopolized lotteries. State lotto's tend to hold back some 30+ percent of ticket revenues, where most other competitive private forms of gambling only average a 4.5% take on the money that changes their hands.

With these tyrannies they say each case is to help the poor, but in truth they're to tax the poor and then pretend they're helping them while driving them further into patterns of instability which further undermines their health and focus to find a way up. When you add these cases with all of the other 'tax cuts for the rich' moves the Bush Administration and the GOP did during their rubber stamp days it constitutes a direct assault on those less well off. Then when you take everything else into account such as Inflation it's no surprise that my college edition 2006 Sociology textbook even says that the old cliche "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is truly the way our system operates. The irony is that it states that for many other reasons. This all systematic instutitonalized inequality, and since the majority of the American people live by lesser standards than those who are behind these sorts of policies the odds are you're on their hit list.

Yet that's not even the worst of it. Last week the Government of Michigan performed what is known as "Distaster Capitalism" when they announced that they were going to shut down the state due to a budget crisis. They stated that most state services would be affected, and at the top of the list was that state lotto tickets would no longer be sold after the shutdown, and once vendors sold out of liquor and cigarettes they would no longer be available because those items first have to go through the state's taxation system. Of course the lotto drawings for tickets sold would take place, they said.

The result according to friends in Michigan was that people were stocking up on the obvious goods and buying more lotto tickets. This only added fuel to the fire caused by the fact that the Canadian Dollar Officially Worth more than United States Dollar.

My friend who owns a Jewelry pawn shop, in the Detroit Metro area, noticed a clear increase in panicked citizens selling their gold to adjust to their perceived crisis. Then when the state shutdown deadline came they proudly announced that they solved the budget crisis. First they banked untold millions, perhaps even billions, in lotto sales with liquor & cigarette tax revenues, then they increased income and other taxes.

This is all in a state where the already existing cigarette tax is literally $2 dollars a pack, unemployment is nearly double the national average, the home foreclosure rate is also in an unprecidented lead and Windsor Canada is right across the Detroit River via the Ambassador bridge. Capitalizing on disaster at its finest.

How ironic is it that the Michigan state governor is a "poor friendly" Democrat. This all goes to show that the Democrat's won't save us either, and it's time for the end of the two party strangle hold on our system.


[edit on 4-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

So how much is the average pack of 20 cigs in the US? In the UK it's just under £5.

The Democrats are not the friends of the poor. That's just their ploy, since the poor don't pay much in taxes, if any, and are usually the beneficiaries of the Democrats' wealth redistribution schemes.

Of course, without the poor the Democrats wouldn't have much of a base, so entitlement programs, which they support, really keep people poor by removing incentive to do better.

I'm not really feeling sorry for smokers, regardless of whether they are poor or rich.

While I no longer buy cigarettes, it's my observation that cigarettes cost somewhere between $3.50 and $5.00 a pack here in New Mexico.

If you're poor, you don't really need to be spending your money on cigarettes.

As a former smoker, I do understand how addiction can influence priorities, but nonetheless, I'm not very sympathetic about this issue.


[edit on 2007/10/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Wow you guys responded fast. I added in an important section at the end that I first forgot in case you missed it.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm not really feeling sorry for smokers, regardless of whether they are poor or rich.

While I no longer buy cigarettes, it's my observation that cigarettes cost somewhere between $3.50 and $5.00 a pack here in New Mexico.

If you're poor, you don't really need to be spending your money on cigarettes.

As a former smoker, I do understand how addiction can influence priorities, but nonetheless, I'm not very sympathetic about this issue.

So then should they be taking the hit from being unjustly taxed? Which of course seems to decrease the odds of them actually quitting?

It's not that hard to quit smoking.

I'm not that crazy about taxes, but one way to avoid taxes on cigarettes is to quit.

It's kind of like the lottery, which is a tax on the mathematically-challenged.

If you don't play, you don't pay.


[edit on 2007/10/4 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Ok, so since you were lucky enough to quit that means everybody else should have no problem, and because that's your attitude then it's ok to unjustly tax everybody else. Glad we could get that cleared up.

I can't help but wonder how long you did smoke and what your situtation $/etc was when you quit. Oh, I'm sure you smoked for 10+ years and were totally stressed financially as well, right? Tax 'em! Better them than you, right?

It's not that hard to quit smoking.

Right. That's why the vast majority spend the rest of their lives trying to quit once they cross 'rubicon'. Why 4 out of 5 even relapse after a year using even that miracle drug mentioned above. I guess you wouldn't acknowledge that many people are even genetically predisopsed to advanced addiction. I know, they were young and dumb and started smoking so now we should tax them to death (literally).



I'd also like to point out that because they do tax cigarette's etc the way they do we're technically not even FREE to smoke. And I'm not talking about the way we have to buy them (property) from the manufacturers. Dumb when they were kids, tax em!

[edit on 4-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Luck had nothing to do with my quitting.

I have lived in poverty almost all my life.

And, yes, I bought cigarettes when I should have been buying food.

That's the nature of the addiction.

As to your other comments, I think I explained my position quite well.

Well there, you're informed enough to tell us it's ok to tax the poor. I'm not even arguing. Let the poor pay for the roads... that they walk down. Tax them dumb kids. Destablize them while they're down. Here we'll even freak them out telling them the government is shutting down and they wont be able to get their stress relief. 1... 2... 3... everybody freak out, we've got a deficit to cover.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Well there, you're informed enough to tell us it's ok to tax the poor.

You did a pretty good job of researching your original post. I happen to disagree with your conclusions, so I don't know what all the fuss is about.

However, I will make one more statement about your topic, then you're on your own.

The tax is on cigarettes and anyone who buys cigarettes will pay that tax.

[edit on 2007/10/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Yeah, just like anything thing else they tax. So there. It's ok then; people will still buy cigarettes so therefore it's ok to tax it to death because people will still buy them; those sheep. Many people are both chemically and habitually addicted to cigarettes. Virtually everybody is addicted to gas. How about we have them tax only something that targets a specific part of the population (oh, yeah, cigarettes). Tax coffee. Make it cost an extra $2 per cup like how Michigan taxes $2 a pack. Are you game for that? What else can we come up with? Some people like tattoos. Well that could be considered visual polution. Let them charge an $20 per square inch of tattoo tax. Many tattoo people actually become addicted to "ink". You game for that? Let's hear some of your ideas. Let's tax everybody's vices and items of stress relief and addiction. Many are even addiction to TV (try taking it away from them), and use it for stress relief. It makes people lame in the brain, lazy and overweight. Charge an extra $25 per TV set, and then $2 per hour they use it. Oh, wait, everybody uses TV. We need to target the poor.


I dont think you mentioned how long you smoked, how long it took for you to quit, adn then how long it's been since you've smoked or had a near-relapse. That would be relevent.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

My mother was a smoker for 30 years, I remember when a pack of cigarettes was only 35 cents and I used to get them for her from the cigarette machine in our local home store I was only 10 at the time.

She doesn't smoke anymore. I never was a smoker either.

I don't agree with the cigarette tax but not because it is not good for the poor that are the hard smokers but because we are taxing the wrong companies, let tax the companies making billions on the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

We should all have a war tax.

I find your title misleading, the cigerate tax does not only effect the poor, it effects anyone who buys cigarettes.

It is a total reasonable Tax, if you don't want to pay it, then don't buy cigarettes.

Its that simple, personaly i voted last elcetion to raise the cig tax here in California, it was a raise by almost $3, unfortunatly, it did not pass.

I hate most forms of taxes, but taxes on goods that are not nessicary, i don't have a problem with. I smoke the ocasional ciggarette, i have had the same pack of cigs now for well over 6 months, and i have had mabye 6 or so cigs in that time, i have smoked cigarettes for about 5 years, never smoking more then a pack every few weeks.


So lets not quible about legitimate taxes, when thier are so many illigal ones levyied on us each year.

reply to post by marg6043


Great idea! I'll bet you could get the Kucinich campaign down with that. Ron Paul is too against taxes probably, but he might like it too.

reply to post by TKainZero


How is that legitimate? How about they put a extra $8 tax per Xbox game title? You know, "goods that are not nessicary". Put an extra $50 on the price of the XBox unit. Maybe only do $3 per game controller / etc. Actually, extrapolating the price of 2 cartons before taxes (about $50) would give an even more outrageous figure on a game title (about $50). $3 per pack times 20 = $60. How bout we'll cut you a break... how about only a $50 extra tax per game title? Sounds legitimate right?


This all sounds good right? If you don't want to pay the tax then don't buy them, right? What else do you like that isn't necessary? We'll hook that up with a outrageous tax too. You dig?

[edit on 6-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

well, let's see......over here on the left, we have this person maybe he's a machinist, grinding lead or some other heavy metal....and breething in the dust, or maybe he's a printer....or maybe he's working for one of the plastic manufacturers....

his work environoment is toxic, his pay is such that he's probably finding it hard to insure his kids and wife, and well, his pay is also high enough that he's not eligible for any of those gov't programs like the one that's to be the beneficiary of this new cigarette tax....

so, you are telling this guy that's breething lead all day that if he doesn't want to pay the tax, well, he can smarten up and quit killing himself with those cigarettes?? but you don't want him that smart, or he will decide to quit killing himself by doing the job you want him to be doing!!

and well, then there's the other question...why should this guy, who is struggling to find a way to pay for his own kid's medicine, have to pay more so someone's else's kid can have their medicine...hardly seems fair, does it??

my message to the fine people who are running this government.....
I am more than likely gonna refuse a surgery because if would cost about every cent I make for the next two years of my life..one that might make it easier for me to keep walking, and working..go ahead, increase the danged tax on the cigarettes....and well, I will take some of the pain out of my life and not work.....and you will overall get less tax from me!! and you can find someone else to kill themselves making stupid little pennants and banners for the college kids!

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

How is that legitimate? How about they put a extra $8 tax per Xbox game title? You know, "goods that are not nessicary". Put an extra $50 on the price of the XBox unit. Maybe only do $3 per game controller / etc. Actually, extrapolating the price of 2 cartons before taxes (about $50) would give an even more outrageous figure on a game title (about $50). $3 per pack times 20 = $60. How bout we'll cut you a break... how about only a $50 extra tax per game title? Sounds legitimate right?



[edit on 6-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

You can't compare ciggarettes with video games. If you still wanted to smoke cigerettes, and didn't want to pay the tax you could, ou could just buy tobacco and get some paper and roll them yourselfs, conversly, not many people could make thier own copy of Halo 3 from scratch. So, that just doesn't hold up, taxing the (blank) out of Ciggaretes and alchohal is fine in my book, if you don't want to pay that tax, you don't have to, you can roll your own cigs, or brew your own alchohal.

And on a side note, i did pay over $100 for a video games once, i was in a third world country and thats what it cost, so thats what i paid, i couldn't realy make my own copy of Zelda: Ocerania of Time, so i paid the 100% inflation in the price of the game.

Also, go ahead and put a tax on everythign that isn't nessicary, as long as you abolish the federal Income Tax, so we can choose what we are taxed for.

ya, and can we have colored coded tax stickers on everything also....
ya know, a red little dot with a sword through it means that the tax will go for war and conquest...green dot with flower is for ecological programs, black with a graduation cap....education, a pig...unnecessary pork, ect...
then we can all have the option as to what ventures our government is into we want to support....

by the way...
if we did away with the income taxes and taxed only those things that aren't necessary, seems to me, there's alot of us who don't have that much left over to buy the unnecessary items anyways. seems that there would be a deficit problem.

why not compare cigarettes to video games....we can live without our cigarettes, you can live without your video games, the people down the street can live without overly polluting SUV......you don't need a dog, she doesn't need a cat, and well, none of us need kids either...

no kids, no need to tax cigarettes to fund healthcare for the kids...problem solved, get rid of the tax.

What poor people?? The poor in the United States pretty much have it made, they own cars, computers, dvd players, can afford to smoke, etc so tell me where are these "poor" people?

Nothing about a smoke is vital to staying alive like food, or water. It's a luxury! Pure and simple.

In my state FOOD (food is not a luxury) is taxed at grocery stores! Talk about hitting the poor... oh yeah with food stamps even the free food from the government (read 'Tax Payers With Jobs') that isn't taxed either.

Two adults in my house work THREE jobs to pay our bills and feed our kids with food we had to pay taxes on to take it home. Where is MY pity??? I want some pity too!!!

julesmac8, sounds to me like YOU are the new poor (they didn't like the old poor having to live like they were poor, so they just shifted that to you!)....lower middle income, don't qualify for squat but couldn't manage to come up on the necessities with what you are making, so oh, ya got to do something, get another job!!
but, oh, ya, the little darling down the street, ya know, the one who's single mom is pregnant yet again, well, he has the sniffles, so come on and pitch in so she can take him to the doctor and he can tell her he has the sniffles!! what?? the only money you have left is for you're husband's insulin?? ahh, that's too bad, but ya know how it is......the kid has the sniffles so fork it over!!!

Dawnstar, are you making the argument for me? That we should tax what is un nessicary, and thus creating a society that is not so foucused on what is nessicary? And help the people at the lowest level.

The average American, who labors for a salary should not have to pay taxes on what they laubored for. My father works his a$$ off, and he ends up havign to pay OVER 1/2 of his salary in federal Taxes. For every hour he works, he then has to work another hour to pay for the money he made in the first hour.

Food, water, (nessicary) medical costs, shelter shouldn't be taxed.

Things like a $10,000 purse, or a million dollar diamond studded dog collar, are clearly not nessicary, so if we throw a tax on these absurdities, then less people will buy them, but each perosn would have more capital to spend on these extragences, after they have gotten the nessicities.

People should not be taxed on thier laubor, and should not be taxed on things that are nessicary.

In to days markets, if you work for $10 an hour, you are realy making about $7 an hour, and the more you make the more you lose.

IMHO, if you make $10 an hour, you should have earned $10 a hour, Americans need to start living with-in thier means, otherwise we will wake up one day, and the banks will own all the land, and we will have no money, and no freedom.