How our state is ripping us off! (Florida: mortgage, how much)

[tamiznluv]

I just returned from a two week vacation in Florida and the Bahamas. My g/f and I spent the first week in Orlando doing the usual stuff, Universal, etc. The little convienience store down the street from our time share had cigarettes for $2.15 a pack!!! I asked about buying cartons, "so a carton of cigs would be $21.50?" NOPE. A carton was $14.95!!!!

Needless to say I stocked up and when g/f and I came home and found out cigs had gone up $2.00 a pack in the two weeks we were gone, I was very happy with my purchase! So when my Fla. cigs are gone I am going to have to buy the patch and quit. Who the hell can afford over $80 a week for smokes??

This state is really sticking it to us, people!!! I hadn't a clue as to how much until 3 weeks ago.

[mommytotwo]

I don't smoke and I don't even know how much a pack of cigarettes is at this point.

I do know there is a hell of a lot of tax added on, and I thought the excuse was something like "smokers are generally unhealthier and cost the taxpayers a lot of money in health care, so we'll pass those costs on to them"

But really, as if all that money is going to health care!

I don't know how anyone can afford to smoke for God's sake!

$80 per week? How much does a pack of cigarettes cost, anyway?! You could fly somewhere where the cigarettes were cheaper once a month and save money at that rate.

How much does a crack habit cost, btw?

[Valerie C]

Well, SOMEBODY's got to help pay for all the free health care in Massachusetts... (looks like in this case, it's the smokers) Oh and a certain percentage of that cigarette tax probably goes back to the federal government, who pays the tobacco growers a subsidy (corporate welfare) to continue to run public service ads telling you how bad cigarettes are for you, and also keep the tobacco farms in operation so that the government can tax you on them...

Hmmmm, seems the only one being punished is the smoker who is paying the tax and with increased health risks... Part of the Patrick administration plan for a healthier (not wealthier) Commonwealth of Massachusetts

[theh]

OH NOOOO! The state is saving lives by making it too expensive to smoke!

WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO? MASSACHUSETTS IS THE WORST EVER.

[tamiznluv]

Originally Posted by mommytotwo

I don't smoke and I don't even know how much a pack of cigarettes is at this point.

I do know there is a hell of a lot of tax added on, and I thought the excuse was something like "smokers are generally unhealthier and cost the taxpayers a lot of money in health care, so we'll pass those costs on to them"

But really, as if all that money is going to health care!

I don't know how anyone can afford to smoke for God's sake!

$80 per week? How much does a pack of cigarettes cost, anyway?! You could fly somewhere where the cigarettes were cheaper once a month and save money at that rate.

How much does a crack habit cost, btw?

M22, I don't know how much they are now personally but I was talking to neighbor I ran into at the dump yesterday and he told me that the store where he buys his cigs charged him $9.35 for a pack of Camels!!!! So that would be $93.50 for 10 packs of smokes or a carton because I haven't found anyplace around here that gives you a discount for buying cartons anymore like they used to. The neighbor said he is going to HAVE to quit. I don't smoke a major brand anymore so mine have always been a little cheaper but at $2.00 a pack more, it would be over $70 a carton!

LMAO, I have NO clue what drugs cost. I've been out of that scene for 30 years now.

[tamiznluv]

Originally Posted by theh

OH NOOOO! The state is saving lives by making it too expensive to smoke!

WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO? MASSACHUSETTS IS THE WORST EVER.

I used to get upset with people who ranked out our state but now that I've seen with my own eyes such a BIG gap with other states, I'm beginging to agree! Hmmmm, isn't this what our forefather's rebelled against and threw the tea into the harbor for??? Deep down in my heart I wish we could pull another one off again because government has gotten too big for it's britches but that's just me and my frustrations wishing.

[Valerie C]

Elections have consequences... As a life-long Massachusetts resident, I've experienced first hand how it is to live in a one-party state. I have to admit that it's now worse than ever--thank God I left over a decade ago and never looked back.....

Originally Posted by tamiznluv

I used to get upset with people who ranked out our state but now that I've seen with my own eyes such a BIG gap with other states, I'm beginging to agree! Hmmmm, isn't this what our forefather's rebelled against and threw the tea into the harbor for??? Deep down in my heart I wish we could pull another one off again because government has gotten too big for it's britches but that's just me and my frustrations wishing.

[threenineteen]

Originally Posted by theh

OH NOOOO! The state is saving lives by making it too expensive to smoke!

WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO? MASSACHUSETTS IS THE WORST EVER.

The government is not taxing cigarettes to save lives, they are taxing them for greed and corruption. What the government is doing is pushing business out of the state and opening up an opportunity for another black market. I have never smoked a day in my life, but the government has no right forcing people to quit smoking. If people wish to smoke, let them. It doesn't bother me in the least. People know the risks about smoking, they don't need the government telling them what to do with their lives.

[ogre]

Agree a hundred percent, Threenineteen. When the government, at any level, tries to manipulate people's choices through financial pressure, either by taking via taxes, or providing funding and then threatening to withhold funding from those who have become dependent on it, this is one of the most insidious forms of Big-Brotherism. I don't smoke, and don't especially care to be present when people do smoke, but if someone, knowing the risks, as anyone who does not live in a cave does know, chooses to smoke, and does not smoke around me, that's his choice. It's no business of the government's to try to manipulate that person's choices "for his own good." If there is some legitimate basic service funded through a tax, fine. As soon as the government begins to stray into the territory of using taxes to influence individuals' behavior by making certain behaviors expensive, that is a situation worth watching closely at the very least.

[holden125]

Originally Posted by ogre

Agree a hundred percent, Threenineteen. When the government, at any level, tries to manipulate people's choices through financial pressure, either by taking via taxes, or providing funding and then threatening to withhold funding from those who have become dependent on it, this is one of the most insidious forms of Big-Brotherism.

I don't agree. It seems to me that one of the most obvious uses of the taxing power is to encourage behavior deemed socially desirable (through direct subsidies, tax deductability, or a lower rate of taxation) and discourage behavior deemed socially undesirable through higher taxation. This has been done for virtually as long as there's been taxation.

For example, this recent paper by the American Enterprise Institute (not a pro-tax, pro-big-government outfit by any stretch) argues against ethanol subsidies by suggesting that "[a] better approach...would be to levy a tax on the power sources that one wishes to discourage. If, for example, the concern is carbon emissions, then a carbon tax is an appropriate response."

AEI - Short Publications - An Energy Tax Policy for the Twenty-First Century

Likewise, the 2005 textbook Public health administration: principles for population-based management by Lloyd F. Novick and Glen P. Mays explicitly states (p. 144 (available on google books)) that "[t]he taxing policy is a primary means of achieiving public health objectives by influencing, directly and indirectly, health-related behavior through tax relief and tax burdens" and cites examples, such as excise taxes on alcohol.

I don't think the practice is new, or particularly controversial or nefarious. And it works the same way in reverse; there are massive subsidies given to homeowners who get to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes, to charitable donors, and to countless other types of activity. This is because the government is seeking to encourage those behaviors. Anyone who's taken an deduction for giving to charity or owning a home can't really complain if the same theory is applied to charge more for cigarettes. I don't think, given healthcare costs related to smoking, cigarette taxes are a net revenue source for the state.

I knew someone who downed a bottle of vodka a day. His habit cost him $80 a week and wasn't much less healthy than smoking $80 a week of cigarettes. If people want to smoke, and don't want to pick up the true social costs of their habit, they should waive the right to claim any public dollars for their care if they become sick, and should be forced to cover the costs of the health care for others their smoking affects as well. Since there's no guarantee they'll be able to cover that when the day comes, the state should cover its potential losses and the smokers should pay the tax.