The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Change We Will GET

  1. #11
    Senior Member D Beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Frankfort, KY
    Posts
    129

    Default

    plus the state of kentucky signed into law today an additional
    60 cent tax on pack of cigarettes and 7% sales tax on alcohol to address the states nearly $500 million budget shortfall.
    Join Central Ky Hunting Retriever Association www.ckhra.com

  2. #12
    Senior Member Raymond Little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Lake Charles/Grand Chenier La
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Federal taxes have not been a significant cause for changes in cigarette prices over the last 40 years

    I CALL B.S ON THAT ONE JEFF

  3. #13
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,169

    Default

    Interestingly, I think the cigarette taxes are the least effective. Each time the tax goes up, at least some smokers will give up the habit. Thus, the higher tax applies to fewer items. And I do believe that more teens are aware of the dangers of smoking as the long-term education finally begins to kick in, and so fewer new smokers are being added as older ones either give it up or die.

    It seems to make the politicians look good (from a number of standpoints) to raise the tax on cigarettes. When it finally occurs to everyone that this particular tax is not generating the anticipated increased revenues, they'll have to find something else to tax.

    I think the windfall of funds from the cigarette "settlements" have been only marginally used for their intended purpose. There have been some funds directed toward education to deter new smokers. Not much, from what I can see, to help existing smokers quit. Possibly less than that to assist those who suffer from smoking-related diseases. Perhaps another demonstration at how ineffective government is at using funds effectively?

    It occurs to me that maybe we should legalize several recreational drugs; manufacture them ourselves and place high tariffs on imports of these items. Thus, save some money on enforcement of illegal drugs, create new jobs and create new tax revenues.

    Yes, I am saying this tongue in cheek. While there are some who believe this should be the done with marijuana, I don't think that could be any less deleterious than smoking tobacco.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,246

    Default

    they have in the bill to help smokers quit as well...what happens when all those smokers they are hoping quit, quit. how will they fund schip then

  5. #15
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eildydar View Post
    they have in the bill to help smokers quit as well...what happens when all those smokers they are hoping quit, quit. how will they fund schip then
    They arleady can't fund the incresae in SCHIP, but we aren't suposed to have that figured out. After all the "KING" says it pays for itself.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lindon, UT
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by R Little View Post
    Federal taxes have not been a significant cause for changes in cigarette prices over the last 40 years

    I CALL B.S ON THAT ONE JEFF
    I suppose that googling 'federal tobacco tax' might reveal something like this:

    http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/resea...s/pdf/0092.pdf

    Back in 1960, the federal tobacco tax was $.08 and the average retail price was $.26, now the federal tobacco tax is $.39 and the average retail price is $4.00. You have a nearly a five fold increase in the federal tax, but you have a 15 fold increase in the average retail price. Now depending on your state, you are likely to have a significant state tax on cigarettes of around $1.19 per pack. And you are claiming that the federal tobacco tax is a significant part of the increase in the price of your 'smokes' ??

    Careful where you step, you don't want to step in your own BS.

    John Schmidt

  7. #17
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by R Little View Post
    Federal taxes have not been a significant cause for changes in cigarette prices over the last 40 years

    I CALL B.S ON THAT ONE JEFF
    Since 1951, Federal taxes on cigarettes have increased as follows:

    1951 - 1982: $0.08/pack
    1982: $0.16
    1991: $0.20
    1993: $0.24
    2000: $0.34
    2002: $0.39

    In 1969, the Federal tax represented abut 50% of the average wholesale price of apack of cigarettes. In 2009, it represents abut 15% of the average wholesale price of cigarettes. If Federal taxes had been increased simply by the rate of inflation since 1951, the tax rate would be over $2/pack. Even with the increase to over $1/pack recently adopted, the real dollar value of Federal excise taxes on cigarettes has declined 50%. Meanwhile, the actual increase in cigarette prices has been greater than general inflation because of large increases in state and local taxes, costs associated with the liability settlement, and general increases by the tobacco companies themselves.

  8. #18
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Interestingly, I think the cigarette taxes are the least effective. Each time the tax goes up, at least some smokers will give up the habit. Thus, the higher tax applies to fewer items. And I do believe that more teens are aware of the dangers of smoking as the long-term education finally begins to kick in, and so fewer new smokers are being added as older ones either give it up or die.

    It seems to make the politicians look good (from a number of standpoints) to raise the tax on cigarettes. When it finally occurs to everyone that this particular tax is not generating the anticipated increased revenues, they'll have to find something else to tax.

    I think the windfall of funds from the cigarette "settlements" have been only marginally used for their intended purpose. There have been some funds directed toward education to deter new smokers. Not much, from what I can see, to help existing smokers quit. Possibly less than that to assist those who suffer from smoking-related diseases. Perhaps another demonstration at how ineffective government is at using funds effectively?

    It occurs to me that maybe we should legalize several recreational drugs; manufacture them ourselves and place high tariffs on imports of these items. Thus, save some money on enforcement of illegal drugs, create new jobs and create new tax revenues.

    Yes, I am saying this tongue in cheek. While there are some who believe this should be the done with marijuana, I don't think that could be any less deleterious than smoking tobacco.
    As with most sin taxes, the "benefits" are seen whether the total taxes collected goes up or not. The primary objective historically has been to reduce consumption. However, while that has been the theory, governments have become unwitting accomplices in tobacco profiteering as their budgets have become more dependent on tobacco revenues. Many have hypothesized that one factor that has contributed to the ineffectiveness of smoking cessation programs that were to have been established by states has been state fears that reductions in smoking would hurt financially.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Steve Hester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,659

    Default

    "As with most sin taxes, the "benefits" are seen whether the total taxes collected goes up or not. The primary objective historically has been to reduce consumption."

    This is total bullsh!t. The primary objective historically is to tax things that have become socially unacceptable because they are an easy target for the tax.
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Cigarettes are a scourge on society. In addition to the obvious personal health consequences, they do the following:

    Reduce productivity by causing serious health issues. People who smoke tend to miss more days of work because of bronchitis and other respiratory issues. Also, the smoke breaks that are taken each day effect productivity.

    Someone has to pay for a great deal of the medical care caused by smoking-related ailments. Research tells us that most people who smoke tend to come from the lower socioeconomic levels. So, our tax dollars pay for a great deal of smoking-related medical care.

    Raise healthcare costs. Those smokers who are insured are costing the insurance industry more than non-smokers--someone has to make up the difference, so non-smokers often do.

    We all know the effects of cigarette smoking. And it has become socially unacceptable. If the taxes cause people to stop smoking, I'm all for them. Our society will be better off, both fiscally and health-wise.

Similar Threads

  1. Name Change Push!
    By Chris Atkinson in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 328
    Last Post: 04-01-2014, 09:13 PM
  2. So much for change......
    By TXduckdog in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-25-2009, 11:22 AM
  3. More change we can believe in
    By Matt McKenzie in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 12:43 PM
  4. Change? Really??????
    By K G in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 11-27-2008, 09:32 AM
  5. Have you ever had someone change...
    By SMS in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-20-2008, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •