Vilsack going after cigarette tax again

[Debi]

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2005/12/07/news/local/doc439682f023f05854822709.prt

DES MOINES — One of this year’s fiercest legislative debates will get a 2006 encore after Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack announced plans Tuesday to propose again an 80-cents-per-pack boost in the state cigarette tax.

But House Speaker Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the plan is as good as dead when the Legislature convenes next month. Senate leaders said they will not revisit the issue unless it seems to have a chance of passing the House.

Vilsack, a Democrat about to enter his last year in office, said he would use the proceeds from the tax hike to start a new program intended to help small businesses afford employee health insurance.

The governor said he is willing to fight for the proposal because he thinks Iowans overwhelmingly support the idea and that the higher cost of cigarettes would help deter people from smoking.

“It saves lives,” he added.

The current tax is 36 cents per pack, which is one of the 10 lowest in the country.

<snip>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is all fine and dandy, except didn't Vilsack just propose to use $50,000,000 from tobacco suit money to pay for clean waterways?

It doesn't make sense that Vilsack continues to use money we have for business giveaways and then proposes to tax Iowans more to pay for new programs.

I'm not a smoker, so It doesn't affect me except that I can only assume we'll see an increas in black market cigarette sales and shoplifting if this tax goes through.

[Bluzmann57]

1. Not a smoker

But I believe he should rethink this. It sounds good, but as the article states, it likely has zero chance of passing. Smoking is a right, after all. One that needs to be regulated somewhat, but still a right.

[Debi]

2. I guess he doesn't want the Democrats in the legislature to have much

success this next session.

Plus, he's still just looking for tax revenues to pay for another one of his business helping plans. I wonder if he wouldn't have given away all those millions to Principal and Wells Fargo if he would have had the money to help small businesses?

[9119495]

7. Yeah but I pay for that right and I don't want to

The health care costs that get passed on to the state come out of the general fund. Vilsack is fond of pointing out that for every (and I'm remembering this off the top of my head so don't kill me if I'm a bit off) $.53 we get from smokers, tax payers pay $1.00 of their health care to make up for shortfalls in coverage and unpaid bills. Wanna smoke? Smoke away, but I htink the health care costs should be taken care of in that group. Fair point?

I'd much rather see this type of tax than a regressive increase in state sales tax across the board. This state needs more revenue after a decad and a half of cuts under Bransted and the republican legislature that sent bill after bill requesting cuts to Vilsack.

Early in Vilsack's term the economy was great so the state gave away money it did not need. Now in tough times, slowed growth of revenue or decreases have prevented the state from meeting its obligations.

[IA_Seth]

8. But where does it stop? And what are the repercussions?

I agree in part with your point. If it can be proved that smokers burden the health care system it would seem fair to tax them to equal out that burden.

But then what? Do we tax those that don't exercise? Do we increase alcohol tax? What about fast food, candy, and other high fat or high sugar products? These are all choices as well and I am sure they burden our health care system to some degree.

Where does it end?

And then, even if it does pass, what are the repercussions? Have any of the numerous price increases on cigarettes within the last 5 years led to fewer smokers? Will THIS increase in taxes affect the number of smokers we have? I would guess not. So then, we have corrected a disparity on the health care system but to what cost?

The majority of those affected by an increase in cigarette tax will be people from the bottom section of the socio-economic class. Is this what we want? We balance the health care costs and then burden smokers with the decision of paying for cigarettes or paying for medicines, food, and other necessities.

I think this issue is larger than a knee jerk "tax em all!" response.

[9119495]

12. Poor people should not smoke

I'm serious. If you look at all the data, they just can't afford to. If they wish to do it, they must pay their share.

And you're right to wonder where it ends. But I would say tax those that drink (I do). Food is tougher because the health benefits of some foods are sometimes ambiguous. Even fast food on occasion is not that bad for you. The smoking tax has a clear target...thus it can work.

Smoking may be a right...but so is driving and we pay for vehicle licensing fees, mandatory insurance, taxes etc. Drivers choose to drive so drivers pay. It should be the same for smoking.

It would be nice if we could provide an incentive to not smoke.

By the way smoking affects others too. I have some many sick kids in my classes because there parents (most are poor) won't kick the habit. It's sad. I pay for their kids too (though I do so more willingly than I pay for their parent's care).

[pstans]

3. I agree with this

People should not smoke and everything should be done to discourage people to not smoke. Higher taxes is one way to do that. The costs for health care and insurance to all or us are probably affected by the care smokers need and get.

And here is another reason why this should pass. When this was getting debated last year in the state legislator, my Republican state Senator, Larry McKibben, said smokers don't live as long as other people, so they shouldn't have to pay as much taxes. This is the worst reasoning that I have ever heard and the tax should increase just for that.

[Debi]

4. Just because McKibben is a Moran doesn't make this bill a good idea

Why not use the extra tax to create programs to help smokers quit? or to make a pool for smokers to purchase insurance and get them out of our insurance pools? Instead we're going to regressively tax a certain part of the population in order to benefit businesses. (Maybe we should tax fat people more for the food they buy and use the money to build an indoor exercises area for all of us? :eyes:)

Raising the price of cigarettes is not going to stop smokers - it will make them choose not to buy other items or pay other bills in order to continue to get their cigarettes.

[haroldgiowa]

5. Tax the fat

Actually being gravity challenged myself, the state actually encourages overweight by giving us a break on our groceries.

Smoking tax would lean more to the poor. I read somewhere that a higher percentage of the poor are smokers then any other group.

If state needs to collect more in taxes, look to the corporate loop holes. Iowa Policy Project has some excellent information on this. About two years ago they were traveling the state with a seminarwith this information. Went to one in Burlington that was poorly attended.

[rurallib]

6. I view cigarette and alcohol revenue as user fees.

IIRC revenue from neither even comes close to helping cover their total costs.
Last year I recall the CDC estimating the cost of tobacco to health in this county at $92 billion. Figure Iowa at 1% of the population so Iowa needs 1% of $92B to cover the health care costs caused by tobacco. 1% of $92B = $920M. At a legislative forum my worthless Regressive Rep said Iowa brings in @$87M from tobacco. Waaay short.
I know the argument that this will be a tax on the poor. But it is a choice. When most people start smoking (@13 - 16) if the price were prohibitive, they would have a better chance of not smoking. I recall also that a high tax imposed in New York a couple years ago had significantly cut smoking, aspecially in teens.
Agreed that the money generated should go to smoking related stuff. I consider health care one of those items. Also cessation programs, which should be fully funded by the state.
I tend to look at smoking sort of like road use taxes. Want to drive that car? Pay your fair share.

[Debi]

10. How much money did Iowa get from the tobacco law suit?

I actually don't know, but it was in the several million dollar range - and how much of it has been used for insurance pool buy-ins or incentives to stop smoking? how much of the tobacco sting monies are used for anti-tobacco programs? I wouldn't mind smoking being eradicated (in fact I wouldn't mind drinking being eradicated either, but I might not have any friends if I suggested that!) I just don't think raising the tax is the way especially when the additional revenue won't be used to do anything to stop smoking.

[Debi]

9. I bet there won't be an expensive cigar tax. n/t

[pstans]

11. I agree with the tax, but agree that it should be used for a good use

and corporate welfare is not a good use.