Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Audo files; End hint; Electric rates; Health insurance; Peterson; Smith; Rauschenberger; Minimum wage; Impeachment (Use all caps in password)
Next Post: This just in… *** Important updates in “red” - Donnie Snyder indicted ***
Posted in:
We’ve had quite a few debates on the rumored buck a pack tax increase on cigarettes. It’s all been pretty lively, so maybe some new info from RJ Reynolds will stir it up again.
According to this handout, which will likely be distributed to legislators soon (if it hasn’t already), in 2005 Illinois smokers paid $643.7 million in excise taxes, $166.6 million in sales taxes and $269 million in tobacco settlement payments for a total of $1.079 billion.
That works out to an average of $444 per Illinois smoker in 2005 for excise and sales taxes and another $147 for the settlement payments, for a total of $591.
IL smokers’ median household income, according to the tobacco giant, is $39,786, while non-smokers’ median income is $50,265. About a third of smokers had household incomes under $25,000.
The botttom of the page has this slogan: “Cigarettes don’t pay taxes - Illinois smokers do!”
I’m wondering if you think this is an effective message.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:04 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Audo files; End hint; Electric rates; Health insurance; Peterson; Smith; Rauschenberger; Minimum wage; Impeachment (Use all caps in password)
Next Post: This just in… *** Important updates in “red” - Donnie Snyder indicted ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The second part of that statement is missing “and Illinois taxpayers pay health care for Illinois smokers”
Comment by Leigh Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:10 am
But how much did smokers increase my taxes by way of increased Medicare and Medicaid, and how much did smokers increase the cost of my medical insurance?
All of us are paying for the “right” of smokers to inhale.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:10 am
And smokers pay for health care for fat people, those who ride motorcycles without helmets, people who speed, people that do illegal drugs, people that swim less than 30 minutes after eating, etc.
I don’t think the establishment of state healthcare should be used to stamp out “dangerous” or “unhealthy” activities.
Plus, there are conflicting number out there as to whether smokers cost more or less (due to premature death). This argument is totally bunk.
Comment by Gene Parmesan Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:16 am
I thought the tobacco settlement was to go for a health insurance program
Comment by DOWNSTATE Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:34 am
Who pays?
Well, it seems that a lot of bloggers here have no problem forcing their health care fiasco and it’s costs on low income smokers.
Some justify it by saying smokers cost more health care dollars, although facts prove the opposite - smokers die too quickly and soon to cost as much as you people believe.
Some justify it because these people are just trailer trash losers too ignorant to know what is good for them. Nice. How many Marie Antoinettes are out there?
Stop insulting the people you claim to represent. People with lower incomes who smoke deserve as much respect as the bloggers here.
Self righteous smug attitudes against your neighbors is not being very democratic, is it?
NO to increasing the tobacco tax. NO to Blagojevich’s health care meddling.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:50 am
ah, the M.O.D. squad! Thank You for Smoking is
a fun movie (and book ) but the M.O.D. folks are
always sad to watch in action. hey, let’s make it
equal… raise the taxes on the “products” of all
the death merchants…..
Comment by amy Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:53 am
Statistically
Smokers die younger than non smokers, thus they
Draw less social security benefits
Less demand on long term nursing care
Draw less in any defined benefit retirement plan
Pay in, if the above figures are accurate, $ 591 each year to the state. that the rest of us don’t have to pay to keep the state “in balance”
Looks to be a good deal to me and it is all voluntary.
I say send a thank you note to an Illinois smoker, he is contributing to the general welfare of the rest of us.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:04 pm
The smokers may be low income, but smoking is still a voluntary activity. They can quit anytime they want and free up the money they spend on cigs on other things and no longer have to pay the tax.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:05 pm
People will not feel sympathy for smokers. We have already seen widespread support for individual business owners not being able to set some rules about certain legal behaviors (smoking) that may go on in their restaurants/bars.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:35 pm
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:50 am:
My neighbor can do whatever she wants, but when it affects my livelihood, she infringes on my liberty. Smoke all you want, but don’t let your smoke dirty my lungs, your cigarette butts litter my property or your preventable health maladies cost me money.
Comment by cg Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:38 pm
To answer the QOTD, the message is terrible. It’s the right angle, but they are saying that 1.8 million adults in Illinois smoke. That’s more people than AARP has members, and let’s face it, politicians wouldn’t keep hiking cigarette taxes if 1.8 million people were raising a ruckus about it.
So what this handout is really saying is: we have identified a large group of people who won’t throw you out of office if you keep raising their taxes!
They’ve got to create some political backlash for raising cigarette taxes, and they are probably right that the best way to do it smokers the face of this issue(rather than store owners or tobacco companies), but if they can’t mobilize the smokers, they can’t create the backlash.
Comment by Underdog Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:45 pm
No more taxes, period. There is obviously plenty of waste left in the budget. It’s only right to have the state clean up its financial house before it raises yet another tax or fee.
Comment by Southern Right Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:50 pm
I think it is an effect message. What legislator wants to be in the position of supporting a tax that will be paid mostly by the middle and working class???
The standard rebuttal to this (which we have already seen here this morning) is that cigarette taxes are “voluntary.” But making that argument just leads to questions about whether it’s really responsible to fund a permanent entitlement program with an unreliable revenue stream.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:51 pm
I’m not a fan of smoking, but are the financial dis-incentives enough to cause people to stop smoking. I’ll say no.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:55 pm
As I mentioed yesterday, the best antidote to Big Tobacco propaganda is the comedy, THank you for Smoking. Highly recommended!!!
Although I am clearly biased against Big Tabacco companies, I’d say their message is completely irrelvant and ineffective, considering the source. Their campaign contributins,on the other hand, have been proven to be highly effective over the years.
Big tobacco companies have zero credibility on anything. Their product is poison. They lied for years about whether cigarettes caused cancer and other respiratoruy diseases. In many respects, the argument and tactics used by Big Tobacco in the mid-to-late 20th century are analagous to those in current denial about the existence, causes, and pernicious effects of global warming.(Please I don’t want to get into debate with anyone about global warning -it’s just a simple analogy.)
Comment by Captain America Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:01 pm
Two things are not being addressed here. #1 - The feds are aboout to raise the fed tax on cigarettes by 156% to support the SCHIPS(State Children’s Health Insurance Program - a fed program that provides insurance for children, teens and pregnant women who do not qualify for Medicaid due to income,status) It is set to expire Sept. 30th, 2007 if funding is not found - hence the proposed rise in Fed cigarette tax. #2 - Why is it the state of Illinois has to have its OWN redundant program that the state cannot afford, when this fed option is available and frankly, why hasn’t this program been touted by either side of the IL legislature as a valid option to our re-inventing of the wheel, so to speak?
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:08 pm
I thought the remarks yeaterday proposing chocolate taxes, junk food taxes, obesity taxes, and all-you-can-eat taxes were hilarious.
I’m a big guy - 6″2 and 260-265. I’d have to pay through the nose/belly.
ButI’d be happy to do so, if it was contribute to the resolution of the budget impasse and serve the greater good of my Illinois brethren.
Comment by Captain America Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:10 pm
- Captain America -
“…chocolate taxes, junk food taxes, obesity taxes, and all-you-can-eat taxes …” - While humorous these proposed taxes would eleviate a lot of human suffering and huge medical costs. Next time you go to a fast food joint look around - 75% or more of the customers are obese! Some are even life threateningly morbidly obese. They may not poison me with their condition but I feel they definitely need guidance. What kind of example are they setting for the children? The life shortening results of chronic obesity in this society are well known and the medical costs are staggering.
Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:21 pm
Cigs don’t pay taxes,smokers do.
Guns do not kill people.
I’m from the government.I’m here to help you.
Read my lips no new taxes.
I won’t raise income or sales taxes… but we will tax of fee you to death on everything we can
Comment by keepin up with the jones Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:29 pm
I worked fast food for a long time. 75% of the customers were skinny kids.
That aside, the message is ineffective. Thos who smoke are already opposed to the tax, you do not need to garner their support. Those who do not smoke, as a generality, are opposed to smoking anyway, and the effect of a sin tax does not sway their goals/oppinion of getting rid of smokers. Its nothing more then preaching to the converetd.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:29 pm
Citizen,
I am a junk-food-junkie even though I know better. I really would not mind paying an extra tax on some of these items for the greater good.
My income is moderately low. That’s why I have so much time to blog I guess. These taxes would defintely be regressive in terms Of their impact upon me. Think of me as a “regressive progressive.”
Now I’m off to the health club for a short work-out. And then I’m heading straight to Old Country Buffet. Thursday night is my favorite night to mingle with my fellow plebians.
Comment by Captain America Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:39 pm
- Captain America -
Remember those really good old McDonald’s french fries in the 50s and 60s? They were deep fat fried in beef tallow (rendered suet) and that’s where the unique flavor came from. If they want to introduce the fat taxes then I want those grease and salt soaked french fries back - not the dry cardboard of today that the political correctness crowd has foisted on us. Science in the Public Interest is a fraud. Many of today’s foods are so tasteless that people eat huge quantities to get the same satisfaction. Six or eight bags of those old fries could be a meal!
Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:57 pm
Sweet Polly Purebred, the federal S-CHIP program funds Illinois’ family health programs. It’s not redundant — it’s just called All Kids.
Comment by Bridget Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:22 pm
Thanks for stepping in, Bridget. I should’ve done that awhile ago.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:33 pm
Missouri has a 17 cents per pack tax. Looks like lots of folks will be traveling across the river from Illinois to by gas and cigarettes
Comment by Larry Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:59 pm
Thank you for the clarification.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:02 pm
I thought All Kids was going to help uninsured children. I read that half of the children already had insurance that participted. Why are we paying to replace insured childrens health plans that are funded already? In theory, this was also going to make it easier for parents to afford their own plan. I guess that cell phone and cable tv and some smokes beat it out on the priority list. Maybe we could use a new poll to help us understand what’s really important.
Comment by Southern Right Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:09 pm
Ok–if smoking costs me the non smoker–rebate me or refund my premium.
Comment by Springpatch is nice in the summer Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:18 pm
SR, read Bridget’s post, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:19 pm
I hearthat the feds are reducing Medicaid reimbursement and doctors are starting to drop out.
I am all for people dying younger, In fact it wouldn’t be a bad idea for the state to pay a death benefit to smoker’s families for the amount of pensions and the rest they have foregone. What a way to clean up the pension systems, eh?
Comment by Truthful James Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:24 pm
The Senate President has never been for a cig tax increase because it hits his constituents the hardest. Plus his district is very close to Indiana. I do not think this has legs.
Comment by Tom Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:56 pm
Tobacco company’s settlement went up in smoke?
Comment by orlkon Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 4:24 pm
We already tax the poor too much. This is very disturbing. Another dollar tax per pack on the poor is morally reprehensible. It’s really sad and disturbing that any of you would advocate taxing the poor more.
Comment by C-Cup Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 5:08 pm
Just how did tobacco end up as the product of choice to smoke? It’s my understanding that Native Americans also smoked chocolate, and that sounds about a hundred times better to me.
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:25 pm
James, the feds don’t set medicaid rates, the states do.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:58 pm