HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » California smokers may ge...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:05 PM

California smokers may get hit with new tax

There's an effort afoot to raise the cigarette tax by $1 per pack to help pay for the University of California and California State University systems.

A petition filed with the attorney general on Friday seeks a title and summary for a ballot initiative that would ask voters to add a tax on tobacco products. The secretary of state would have to certify the title and summary before signature gathering could begin, and the initiative appears aimed at the 2014 ballot.

It's not entirely clear who is supporting this, but one interesting name did pop up: Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. But it doesn't look like they're quite ready to roll out many other details to the press.

Here's a statement from Jason Kinney, spokesman for the effort: "We're working with several stakeholders and higher education advocates - including Lt. Gov. Newsom - who care deeply about restoring California's crown-jewel higher ed system and will be reaching out to many, many more in the coming months. We'll have more to report then."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/capitolnotebook/article/California-smokers-may-get-hit-with-new-tax-4139921.php

20 replies, 1301 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply California smokers may get hit with new tax (Original post)
alp227 Dec 2012 OP
CurtEastPoint Dec 2012 #1
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #17
LiberalFighter Dec 2012 #2
slackmaster Dec 2012 #3
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #4
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #7
BigDemVoter Dec 2012 #5
magellan Dec 2012 #6
BigDemVoter Dec 2012 #8
LeftofObama Dec 2012 #9
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #18
Live and Learn Dec 2012 #11
DJ13 Dec 2012 #10
Live and Learn Dec 2012 #12
slackmaster Dec 2012 #13
Live and Learn Dec 2012 #14
Bad_Ronald Dec 2012 #15
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #16
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #19
petronius Dec 2012 #20

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:09 PM

1. Why stop there? Tax alcoholic drinks. Fair's fair if you're talking about 'sin' taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CurtEastPoint (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:32 PM

17. California is beer and wine country...can't hurt the home teams

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:11 PM

2. Are they really going to have enough revenue for that?

They probably need to increase tax on smokeless tobacco.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:12 PM

3. That kind of tax creates a disincentive for the state to discourage smoking

 

Once something harmful becomes a source of revenue, there is a conflict of interest between public health and state revenue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:16 PM

4. Great. Tax mostly very poor people for programs that serve the entitled rich.

It's not like students in schools in the poorest neighborhoods are ever going to have test scores to get them into college.

Yet, these neighborhoods are where you'll find the highest rates of tobacco addiction.

Peachy fucking keen.

I'm flat against this tax.

Tax the rich.

Tax Wealth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:29 PM

7. And tax the oil companies already!

CA has never taxed oil companies for extracting CA oil out of CA lands and off the CA shores. I.O.W., they get to take our oil FOR FREE, taking over $8 billion dollars a year away from CA residents.

Even Alaska and Texas demand tax revenue from oil companies, so why is Newsom putting the burden of covering CA colleges costs on the backs of the already overburdened CA taxpayer??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:20 PM

5. As a healthcare worker. . .

I have no problem with this. Cigarettes cost the public purse BILLIONS. It's not just a sin tax but one that smokers should contribute to subsidize their care in later years when they get cardiomyopathy, CHF, myocardial infarctions, and yes, lung cancer. I'm all for single payer healthcare, but we are going to have to REDUCE the amount of money we are currently spending, as we spend 3 times what other countries spend, and our outcomes are not as good.

If one doesn't like spending the $$, they can quit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigDemVoter (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:28 PM

6. Considering heart disease is the number one killer in the US

...shall we tax the hell out of the other bad things Americans put in their mouths that contribute to those health costs as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:33 PM

8. Bad food and alcohol don't do the damage that smoking does.

Smoking is by far, by far, by far, the WORST COMMON and AVOIDABLE health hazard out there. It exceeds the damage of bad food, KFC, McDonald's, alcohol, anything else. It not only causes things we know about like heart attacks, strokes, and lung cancer, but it also contributes to other types of cancers as well as less well known heart problems. It's totally avoidable, and trying to call it a nanny tax, or whatever else, neglects the fact that people don't have to do it.

Raising the price of cigarettes is the best way of discouraging smoking. Drinkers already pay a tax on alcohol, but still, alcoholism doesn't hold a candle to the damage that cigarettes do.

Considering adding bad food to the list is like saying we should ban bee bee guns along with assault rifles, because you can put your eye out with one. False equivalence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigDemVoter (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:35 PM

9. They should also tax soda at $1 a can,

candy at $1 bar/bag. Those soda drinkers/candy eaters should contribute to subsidize their care in later years when they get diabetes, heart disease, obesity related diseases, etc.

We should also tax alcohol at $1/drink. They should contribute to subsidize liver related diseases later in life.

If one doesn't like spending the $$ they can quit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftofObama (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:34 PM

18. Why not do what Bloome, the repuke 1%er mayor do and just ban things we don't like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigDemVoter (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:50 PM

11. Oh please, living longer costs more so smokers don't really cost more.

And why should only smokers pay more for education?

They have already pretty much gotten rid of second hand smoke (which I grew up on without any protections) so the only ones smokers are now hurting are themselves. This is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:40 PM

10. So the $1 tax lost at the ballot box

But screw that, lets raise it anyway?

Not very democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:50 PM

12. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:51 PM

13. +2

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:52 PM

14. Why not an ammo tax instead? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:19 PM

16. If Californians want higher education, let all Californians pay for it.

Not some despised minority.

Just like with raising the federal tax on smokers to fund health insurance for poor children. Where were all the good progressives who presumably believe in such programs. Did they put up a penny? No, put it on the smokers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:40 PM

19. The problem is what happens when the sin taxes are successful and program they funded

are still needed?

As taxes rise, reservation smoke shops take the business and the taxes dry up. Then what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:52 PM

20. As a non-smoking CSU employee, I'm against this effort

Our higher education systems are clearly in need of funding, but there's no nexus between smoking and universities. If you're going to create a new tax targeted for a specific purpose (i.e. to provide a service or to fix a problem), it should be paid primarily by those who will benefit, by those who are responsible for the problem, or both. The state as a whole benefits from the UC and CSU, so taxes should be general as well - not just piled onto smokers because we don't much like them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread