Federal Tobacco Tax.
 

While some may not beleive in smoking tobacco the tax that is proposed is very repressive.

The Congress is trying to put a 156% increase on tobacco of $6.10 a carton of cigarettes.

So, just what will this do?

1. Lose tax money as Kansas and Texas did.
2. Close Retail Stores such as mine and the people that work for them!
3. Close Wholesalers as has happened in my area-3 in 9 Months. The people that work for them are gone.
4. The Growers and their employees.
5. Drivers who deliver.
6. Manufactures with all of the people they employee.

While you may not smoke, think about the ramifications of tax money, Billions that will be lost. Where will it be picked up? Your pocket book!:mad:

Go to this web site and post:

www.NoCigTax.com.

Every business that closes puts more people out of jobs, and that includes the tobacco business.

Even though people are against smoking, they need to realize that we need these tobacco shops in our economy.

I guess onocologists, other doctors, nurses, hospitals and the funeral industry who deal with the fall out from smoking, then do too.

If the tax gets high enough that people can't afford to smoke, they quit. Then they take that money spent smoking and spend it somewhere else, and shore up another section of the economy.

I'm not so sure how it's helpful to our economy for our Medicare and Medicaid programs to be paying out the nose for the health problems the smoking industry causes.

Ok, I see the error of my post. I didn't think about all the rest.

But I guess the fall out also keeps other occupations busy too.

I guess I just don't understand why smoking has become such as issue now when people have been smoking for hundreds of years. What did people do back when there weren't smoking sections in restaurants? Or when you could actually smoke in the emergency room?

I'm gonna stay out of the argument. Nothing new will be said, most likely. I've still never smoked.

I did run across a very old TV commercial (from back when tobacco companies could advertise on TV.

The tag line was, "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.

My how times have changed.

This argument would make sense if the monies raised from those taxes actually went to Medicaid or Medicare for the treatment of tobacco related illnesses. However, it doesn't. It would make more sense to have tobacco users pay more for their health care (Medicare/medicaid taxes, health insurance premiums, etc).

I am never really clear on the goal of increasing tobacco taxes. If the goal is to get people to quit smoking, then why not just bite the bullet and make smoking illegal. Why keep farting around with it? Making more and more laws about when/where people can smoke and making smokers pay more and more to do it.

If the goal is to increase revenues, this has backfired on some states because, as they increase the tax, more people quit smoking and they end up getting fewer revenues in the long run.

And, what happens if we manage to eradicate smoking completely? What is going to be taxed then? High fat foods? Trans fats? Sugar? If the goal is to make people pay for poor health decisions (ie. a punitive measure to deter unhealthy behaviors), then how about a lazy tax for people who don't exercise regularly? An STD tax for people who get an STD because they didn't use protection? How do you tax the people with hypertension who eat a ton of salt? The diabetics who don't follow their diet? The heart patients who don't exercise and eat right?

I can truly say at this point that I'm a non-smoker (as of Mother's Day) and I'm glad that this new tax won't affect me, but I have no doubt that after they are done attacking the smokers, there will be another group to go after and another tax to come around.

Lol brass knuckles and guns because if that many people had to quit smoking, it'd probably raise the crime rate! Seriously have you ever seen someone who just quit smoking? Some people could probably kill someone.

Umm, yeah, that's me.. STILL! Seriously, I hate the world, cry at the drop of a hat and have not felt truly relaxed since May 13th. I constantly feel like I want to wring someone's neck. I have this tight feeling in my throat and clench my teeth all the time. I go through a tin of cinnamon IceBreakers a day and have gained 10 pounds. It's the hardest thing I've ever ever done in my entire life. I can't even take it one day at a time.. it's more like 8 hours at a time. On my way to work, I tell myself that if I really HAVE to have one, I can buy a pack after work. After work, I tell myself that if I really HAVE to have one, I can get a pack before bed. Before bed, I tell myself that if I really HAVE to have one, I will get a pack before work and then the cycle starts again. At first, it felt like a huge victory when I made it without buying a pack but now, I just can't help but wonder when it's going to get better. Will I ever be able to just sit and watch tv again? I have to stay busy CONSTANTLY and it's exhausting.

My dad smoked heavily for close to seventy years.

He was put on oxygen full time a year or so ago, and had to quit cold turkey.

That wasn't easy, but it was better than blowing himself up.

My mom had quit 5 years before her COPD diagnosis and a good 10 years before she was on oxygen. My next door neighbor though? He was put on oxygen last month and turns it off to smoke, which I think is nuts, but I think it's a good example of what a horrible addiction those things are.

You're really missing the point here - many studies that have been done show that smokers would be willing to pay MUCH more than they currently pay for cigarettes - up to something like $10/pack before you'd see an appreciable decline in smoking.

So really, the risk of "backfiring" is quite low - and the 'hardcore' smoker is being quietly replaced by the informed casual smoker, and as a result, cigarette sales have actually increased even while companies are forced to promote stop-smoking campaigns, etc. I'm not sure why you think that increasing total revenues has no effect on health care - there's no doubt in my mind that, no matter how the money is slated, a net increase only aids in reducing the load for 'mandatory' expenditures such as people dying from smoking-related illness.

Cigarette taxation is about maximizing revenues, pure and simple - so there's little chance Tom will go out of business, assuming he fits a profitable business model. You'll see the same number of packs sold, just with more whining about the cost (even as they shell out).

It's economics, not the politics of sin.

Wrong KSig RC, Tom will go out of business and become a welfare person.

Oh, who cares some will say, it will not only be me but many others.

When Kansas and Texas raised their taxes many did go out of business and so did wholesalers. But who cares? Maybe the people who work for me and all of the rest.

Where do thay go? Oh, I guess no one cares. These people were my friends and I cared about them.

How many more and what will be the next taxed issues? Who then will be out of work and lives hurt.

Gross margin on cigarettes is something like 17-20%, right? It's clear that your interest here isn't the smoker, it's keeping your high-margin cash cow viable. So it would make sense that people are switching to 'value' brands to offset the cost, right?

Except they're really not, are they Tom? The actual increase in movement has been in specialty brands, imports, and etc. This was what I meant by "profitable model" before - there's still tons of money for you to make . . . you'll just have to figure out where. Remember: the number of cigarettes sold has fallen nationwide, but actual dollars spent has increased. Sure, this is partly due to tax increases, but it shows the raw cap on available disposable income hasn't been reached. Studies have shown that it's not even close to being reached. The sky isn't falling, no matter how poorly your friends performed in your anecdotal evidence.

If anything, you should direct your anger at the state taxes, which are hilariously high compared to the obscene amount of money they get from previous tobacco litigation.

Let me guess. He goes to the casino too? MGM? Or this guy is my uncle. Lol true stories.

I am opposed to this.

Wrong Bucko, It is 8 % Mark up which equals @ 2/1 gross prfit, not 8 % profit even close.:rolleyes:

True, the money has raised, is not at the retail or wholesale level, but at the State and Federal level.

So each level of Government wishes to use Tobacco as a cash cow, they are losing money, jobs, and taxes.

The disposable income is raising (?), well I am not so sure about that?

Little do you know or have a clue of how much profit is there for a Store like mine or others who have finally given up and said screw it.

Get a little experience from a store like mine and then Please come back and tell me what you find!:rolleyes:

If your business is no longer profitable, then you need to take steps to make it profitable. That may mean changing products, changing advertising methods, downsizing, etc. That's the nature of being in business. Times change, you have to be able to adapt in order to be a good small business owner. All business owners face challenges and hardships.

It's been no secret for the past several decades that cigarettes kill people and that the government and the public in general have been cracking down. Taxes, stricter laws, smoking bans in public places. This hasn't exactly just popped out at anyone.

If people quit smoking, they're not going to magically start saving that money under their pillowcase. They're going to spend it elsewhere, creating jobs in those fields.

Wow, how Proffetic you seem to be as you have never seem to have been in a small business.

Changing Product line up in My business is very hard, and I have tried to expand out somewhat. Say soft drinks, chips, nuts, incense or meat snacks.


Yes, there is a crusade about tobacco killing people per the AMA. But what else kills people? Perscription drugs maybe? Air quality from gasoline etal?

So, where are all of these Dollars that they use from not smoking going to?

What fields are they going to spend the $$ in?

Oh, maybe spend them over seas for outsourcing, or recalled Chinese lead based toys that Our Big Companies buy from? They then are recalled from the dangers of death?

Thanks for Your response, now are you going to send a report to Mod Corner about this post?

Tobacco kills 1000% more people than these, Tom. They're not even comparable.

This is just trite - if you really just want to whine, get a blog. If you actually want to discuss this topic, posts like this add nothing to the conversation, Tom.

There is no evidence that "money is going overseas" - the US economy is not exactly in shambles, and MORE MONEY is spent on tobacco each and every year, even while smoking is on the decline. If you want citations, I'll find them - but since you're in the industry, it's shocking you don't know these things.

This whole thing just rubs me the wrong way. God forbid the government taxes alcohol! Alcohol is more likely to injure someone else then tobacco is. Smokers, generally, only harm themselves.

But then again, it's not PC to smoke anymore. :rolleyes:

Big brother man... big brother..

This one goes even further. It's an employer who is charging employees if they are obese, smokers, diabetic or have high cholesterol or hypertension. Check it out:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/070802/au...&.pf=inusrance

I can understand charging smokers more because there is some life choice there but the others cannot always be controlled...

Really? Ever heard of 2nd hand smoke? It's just as, if not more dangerous than smoking the cigarette yourself. And, what's worse, normally the "victims" are the person's children that cannot speak for themselves... And while we're on that topic, let's discuss smoking while pregnant. I suppose that's only harming themselves as well? Cigarettes are just as bad as alcohol as far as harming others.

So? Even if we accept that they cannot be controlled (which I'm not sure is the case for obesity, and may be arguable for hypertension), these people cost more to insure and miss more time at work on the whole.

This means something has to give, and if they are more expensive to insure, their employer has every right to force them to pay the additional cost.

These people aren't "victims" - this is common sense and sound business.

So, where does it end? Is there anybody on this planet who doesn't have some health problem at some point in their life? Is someone with high cholesterol more expensive to insure than someone with all the other diseases in the world?

What about the logistics of this? Do you run blood tests and check blood pressure every pay period? How many times do you have to have a high reading to get fined? What if you typically have great blood pressure but just had a very stressful event happen and you have a one time reading of a high blood pressure? How in the world do you figure all this out? Aren't these people already paying by paying more co-pays for prescriptions and doctor visits?

When do we get to the point that everybody has to have genetic testing to make sure they aren't predisposed to illness because employers don't want to pay for their health insurance? Who would be employable then??? Where do you draw the line on this concept?

Hence the word choice "generally" in my statement. So there is no need for internet snarkiness...

Second hand smoking cannot be compared to the devestation created by drunk drivers.

I would rather see more rules in place to prevent drunks from behaving violently or possibly murdering someone by getting behind the wheel, then extreme taxes on smokers. Obviously hard time isn't effectively controlling people's will to drink and drive.

Anyway, second hand smoking has been controlled a great deal by states banning it in public places. We have no right to say what people do inside their homes, so we have to rely on education and proper resources to take care of young children exposed to it. I know plenty of smokers with children and they smoke outside to prevent just that. My mom smoked, but quit when she was pregnant with me. Lots of women do just that, the women that don't... well that's their idiotic choice. Hopefully their growing child won't be punished for the mother's poor judgement.

ETA: I looked up a few state laws and apparently Louisiana has a state law that bans smoking in vehicles when anyone under 12 is present. I couldn't really find any concrete information on any other state laws that are similar to this.

Sins of the Fathers...
 

The ole "sin taxes"...

Well, I don't like smoking although I myself have tried it... I drink alcohol, but drunk drivers suck. And well, abusing drugs--I have "scripts" for them! :rolleyes:

And what your med insurance pays for vs. Medi-who-cares pays? If you get hospitalized you will be paying for the 2X2 gauze...

What to do? I dunno. I guess they are legislating more ways to get money from the taxpayer. Make folks pay for their sinful delights? Is it right? Probably, because we all are adults that know these things are harmful for us. To think it is not, is to live in denial.

But, like I said, we are ADULTS... We make decisions all the time. The difference is, the kids. Especially for fattening food, like french fries and sodas everyday. Kids' brains are still developing, you get your knowledge of satiety from what you are eating and the timing you fed. Who knows?

On another note: Hypertension have several affected genes that are environmentally responsive. Increased blood pressure may precede organ failures: namely kidney, brain, and heart. There are others. Diabetes is dysregulation of blood sugar and may be due to loss of pancreatic function and/or insulin resistance. Heart Attack, the genes are numerous. And we have not started the discussion about cancers...

Unless a smoker is alone 100% of the time when they smoke, I don't think that "generally" works either.

My mother owned a DUI counseling center, where I worked for MANY years. I've seen all the videos, training materials, etc, etc. and I've met the clients...hundreds of them, and out of all of them, more rules might have stopped 10 of them from drinking & driving. You can make all the rules you want, but until car companies start putting foolproof BAC meters on ALL cars, there will always be drinking and driving. I wish rules and stipulations and fines and etc would stop people, but it doesn't.

Oh, and about "hard time" controlling people's will to drink and drive...you must be talking about the 5 hours before their buddy comes and bails them out of the city jail, DUI offenders don't do "hard time" unless they kill someone. At least not in most states.

No, but people with "other diseases" often . . . pay more!

If you have AIDS and switch employers, see how quickly you're placed onto their insurance - or see what rates you get when you go outside your employer if you've had even something like plantar warts removed.

This is just employers catching onto what the insurers have done for decades - and that's how it should be.

Insurance is nothing more than pooling risk among a large group - and if you make up more of that "risk pool" why on Earth shouldn't you pay more? For that reason, who cares "where it ends"? It SHOULDN'T end!

Co-pays are a small to negligible amount (depending on the type of visit), and don't account for the increased risk you carry . . .past that, all of these are logistical elements that the company can work out on its own, and don't seem particularly invasive to me.

Why is this so scary? If you're predisposed to, say, MS, shouldn't that affect what you pay in? If it doesn't, aren't you charging the healthy people more?

I think you're being needlessly alarmist - especially since if people do indeed find this offensive or invasive, then market forces will handle whether employers do this sort of thing.

If you're a healthy individual and you're paying the same as an obese smoker with a tendency toward long-term, expensive, debilitating illness, you are getting screwed by the system, right?

Ummm . . . the government does tax alcohol.

Well, last I heard, one couldn't be criminally charged with smoking and driving. In many places, drunk driving that results in death is being prosecuted as murder.

You're right that hard time isn't deterring some people, but I'm not sure what "rules" would be more effective than the threat of prison. Not higher taxes, certainly.

Following that kind of logic, why not just get rid of insurance completely so the people who use the system don't pay anything?

Interesting comments to be sure.

Thank you one and all.

But when tobacco, the first profit item of this country is banned and all of not only Me, but the thousands are put on the streets, who pays for them? We do.

Ow, everyone says that tobacco is the cause for so many things. What about all of the other things that are not listed here?

Booze Taxes, Yes, I am familiar with that from owning a Booze Joint and they wanted to raise taxes yearly.

But, we have to love the Legislatures as they love to drink and do not want to screw that up.

I just love the rightous who want to be so PC just like the other A W in the world!:mad:

Why don't you get off of your asses and try to try to run a real business instead of kissing Corp. rears.

Thank you! Try to really be important.;)

That conclusion doesn't follow my logic at all.

Restated:

Insurance is nothing more than pooling risk among many people. Therefore, those in the pool with the greatest risk should pay more.

I don't see a problem here . . .

Hmmm... I think heavy smokers will likely pay whatever to smoke to a certain extent. They're addicted. Yea it might curb some younger people smoking (possibly) but I don't think it will have a huge impact.

If people really do smoke less at least that's some long-term savings that the country makes paying medical bills for people who have lung disease or whatever that developed because of smoking.

Maybe they should put a huge tax on fast food too so Americans might be more prone to eating better.... and then we wouldn't be the fattest country in the world and there might be less cases of heart disease or diabetes or whatever that results from being really overweight.

Smoking is a disgusting habit anyway.

It doesn't say that this money is going to pay for their higher insurance premiums. In fact, it doesn't say that they HAVE higher insurance premiums. It doesn't say that the insurance companies they use are lowering their premiums due to this program. Those are all good questions about the plan though.

I'm also not convinced that these are the highest risk employees. I would guess that elderly employees are higher risk for insurance use. Also, I would think something like cancer would be the most expensive thing, both in terms of time off and expense of treatment. I think pregnancy would be up there too. Maybe women of child bearing age who aren't on birth control should also pay more? I know that some of the researchers do cost analysis for certain illnesses too. I'll try to remember to ask them about it at work on Monday.

Ironically, I cost the system the most money when I lost 65 pounds in 5 months (because it was due to a chronic illness) so, in my personal situation, I would have gotten to pay less when I was the most sick.

You said that co-pays don't count, but the purpose of them, when they were implemented, is to discourage overuse/abuse of the system. The thinking was that people wouldn't rush to the doctor so fast or be willing to be on as many medications if they had to pay a portion of them.

Have you seen the movie Gataca(sp?)? That's what this reminds me of...