Anyone have a link to the proposed new tobacco tax legislation?

[Penguinfan]

I'm not a cigarette smoker, I will have the occasional (maybe more than occasional) cigar.

I have heard bits and pieces on various forums I visit about the new proposed legislation being voted on as early as tomorrow.

I have heard bits and pieces on various forums I visit, but would like a link to the actual legislation being debated.

 

[Morris]

I have more than a casual interest in this and haven't seen anything. Is it a particular state that is involved?

 

[Penguinfan]

I have more than a casual interest in this and haven't seen anything. Is it a particular state that is involved?

I am getting bits and pieces, thus I was hoping for a link, but I believe it is a Federal tax to supplement the children's health care fund, Chip, I believe.

I'm OK with an additional tax to support a cause like that, but what I am hearing is .61 per pack of cigarettes and, get this, a 53% tax on the retail price of cigars, WTF?

I'll post anything concrete I find out, but I'm not seeing much solid info, which may be a good thing.

 

[Morris]

OK now that you say .61 I do remember something about that. I saw it last Fri. I'll look for it.

 

[Morris]

The senate is proposing a .61 tax to the already existing .39 tax to make it $1.00 total. Didn't think the vote was as early as tomorrow because they are urging contacting your senator. The opponents say it's just another tax on the middle class that hurts the average guy.

 

[Penguinfan]

Right, I see where it is going to debate this week and they are hoping to have it in place for January 1 2008.

I have a real concern over the cigar tax part of it to be honest.

Lotta cigars I like are near the $10 price tag now, this law would put them over $15, sheesh.

 

[ImFeklhr]

Problem with a tax such as this:

It taxes bad behavior, and the government is, in theory, opposed to people smoking...

But they will become dependant on the tax money, so will they actually try to get people to stop smoking once they see the cash cow it is?

Creates a conflict of inerest.

Better off just letting smokers such as myself puff away and die young, before we are old enough to collect social security.

 

[IE]

$7.50 (cdn) $7.75 (us) a pack (25 in a pack) for "lower quality rate" brand like peter jackson lights up here right now........

taxes.....you wanna talk about taxes.....yikes....

 

[Morris]

Problem with a tax such as this:

It taxes bad behavior, and the government is, in theory, opposed to people smoking...

But they will become dependant on the tax money, so will they actually try to get people to stop smoking once they see the cash cow it is?

Creates a conflict of inerest.

Better off just letting smokers such as myself puff away and die young, before we are old enough to collect social security.

You're right I believe Altria is the biggest tax payer in the country. The gov. is anti smoking but they get the most tax dollars from the smokers. No win situation. The gov. wants more tax dollars but that would condone smoking, can't win. When Altria spins off domestic tobacco the gov. won't have the tax dollars coming in. International tobacco is where the money is right now.

 

[saint]

But they will become dependant on the tax money.

Better off just letting smokers such as myself puff away and die young, before we are old enough to collect social security.

The gov. is anti smoking but they get the most tax dollars from the smokers. No win situation.

I don't care what other people do with their lives but lets get one thing straight...the tax revenue gained from tobacco use can in no way make up for the long-term cost to our health care system that smokers present.

Again, since I'm sure someone's panties will get ruffled, I don't care what people do with their lives. I just felt the need to respond to the inaccurate comments above.

 

[Morris]

Saint, I believe the MSA agreement was to go toward anti-smoking programs. The tobacco industry gave governments millions of dollars and what did they do with that money? They spent it on everything but anti smoking programs. I do care what the gov. does with my tax dollars but to say they are funding anti smoking is just a slap in the face.

 

[saint]

To be honest I'm not knowledgeable about the topic and if so that's a shame. I was just saying that even though the tax increase is indeed at the greed of our govt it doesn't really balance out the true costs to our healthcare system.

 

[Morris]

To be honest I'm not knowledgeable about the topic and if so that's a shame. I was just saying that even though the tax increase is indeed at the greed of our govt it doesn't really balance out the true costs to our healthcare system.

I know what you're saying here. The gov. sued the tobacco industry about 10 years ago. The industry settled for 25 billion that's right 25 billion dollars over a 20 year period. The money was to be spent to prevent kids from smoking. Have you seen anything that supports this? The only anti smoking commercials I have seen are from the tobacco cos. themselves. State govs. sold out and took lump sum payments to finance their own projects the had nothing to do with health care.

 

[ImFeklhr]

To be honest I'm not knowledgeable about the topic and if so that's a shame. I was just saying that even though the tax increase is indeed at the greed of our govt it doesn't really balance out the true costs to our healthcare system.

I have absolutely NO data to back up what I am about to say... but, this is something I have often wondered.

If someone smokes, gets sick, and somewhat rapidly dies in thier 60's (or whenever the average smoker dies)... isn't that cheaper than a healthy person drawing on the social security system for an additional 25 years?, and probably have TONS of minor medical needs (hip replacements, arthritis etc. etc.) along the way.

I'm not sure they can predict this stuff, but it's what I always think when they talk about how expensive smoking is for the health care industry.

I'm not sure living is cheaper than dying. :shrug: