Federal Tobacco Tax.

[Tom Earp]

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!

Go to this web site and post:

www.NoCigTax.com.

[PM_Mama00]

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.

[sageofages]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[PM_Mama00]

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?

[DeltAlum]

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by AGDee

And, what happens if we manage to eradicate smoking completely? What is going to be taxed then?....

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.

[KSig RC]

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.

[kddani]

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.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by kddani

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?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

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?

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

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

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?

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.

[Soliloquy]

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.

Big brother man... big brother..

[AGDee]

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...

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Soliloquy

Smokers, generally, only harm themselves.

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.