Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
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.
|
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.