Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
seems to me more people would want sky high taxes on cigarettes, after all it you the taxpayer who ends up paying for these smoking related illnesses through higher health care costs. i didn't realize we had so many willing to part with their hard earned dollars so easily to help those who make bad choices.
i dont think its right to take away someone's freedom to choose whether or not they wish to smoke. i also dont think its right that taxpayers are on the hook for other people bad health decisions.
so should i disregard the freedom issue because of the costs of a bad healthcare system? i dont think so. id like to let them make their choice and then work on fixing the health care system.
with a population of about 8.8 million people, if 20% of them smoke that makes 1.76 million people that care. it also seems like the government cares about its revenue. im sure there are other stakeholders that care as well, one way or another.
but thats an interesting concept. if something impacts less than 20% of people in a given area, should we then not care what happens since it only impacts 20% of the people?
i think most states have counted on the fact that revenue would decline as they have raised taxes. i don't know about NJ though. but that is the entire purpose of raising taxes on cigarettes...to discourage the activity. in many states, the revenue from the tax was used to fund anti-smoking campaigns, smoking cessation programs, etc.
honestly, as a state, i'd be far more concerned with losing sales tax on internet sales such as amazon or b&h photo than on cigarettes that less than 20% of the population smokes, and declining.
i think most states have counted on the fact that revenue would decline as they have raised taxes. i don't know about NJ though. but that is the entire purpose of raising taxes on cigarettes...to discourage the activity. in many states, the revenue from the tax was used to fund anti-smoking campaigns, smoking cessation programs, etc.
honestly, as a state, i'd be far more concerned with losing sales tax on internet sales such as amazon or b&h photo than on cigarettes that less than 20% of the population smokes, and declining.
while i am very much against smoking, the idea of taxing to discourage people from buying a legal product seems wrong to me. but at least if you do it, the revenue should go directly into healthcare programs (not smoking cessation programs).
how many government employees do we have? id like to think we can deal with internet taxes and cigarette taxes (along with many other things) simultaneously. i dont understand this notion of prioritizing certain things as if we cant do more than one thing at a time.
i dont think its right to take away someone's freedom to choose whether or not they wish to smoke. i also dont think its right that taxpayers are on the hook for other people bad health decisions.
so should i disregard the freedom issue because of the costs of a bad healthcare system? i dont think so. id like to let them make their choice and then work on fixing the health care system.
who said anything about taking someone's right to smoke away?
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,702,154 times
Reputation: 10256
McGreevey's tax hikes registered a drop in sales which was touted as smokers quitting, while Delaware registered a rise in cigarette sales. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. People were not quitting, just changing where the purchases were made. Plus people going to Delaware for cigarettes were surely taking advantage of no sales tax in DE. McGreevy probably lost as much income as he made.
McGreevey's tax hikes registered a drop in sales which was touted as smokers quitting, while Delaware registered a rise in cigarette sales. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. People were not quitting, just changing where the purchases were made. Plus people going to Delaware for cigarettes were surely taking advantage of no sales tax in DE. McGreevy probably lost as much income as he made.
so you don't think smoking rates dropped in the more populated area of the state without easy access to DE? There are studies done that a rise in taxes correlates to a drop in smoking, not just in NJ, but in other states too.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,702,154 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by tahiti
so you don't think smoking rates dropped in the more populated area of the state without easy access to DE? There are studies done that a rise in taxes correlates to a drop in smoking, not just in NJ, but in other states too.
It made the news (in Philly) about people in North Jersey getting cigarettes from the Indian reservations in NY state. Cigarette sales dropped, drastically, in South Jersey after McGreevey's 2nd tax hike. People were POed that the taxation was not being split between cigarettes & booze & voted with their feet. The Philly stations announced that Trenton had decided that massive numbers of smokers in South Jersey had quit. Just look at the sales figures in that article. Did some people quit? Sure. Did more people get creative about their cigarette purchases? You bet!
i dont think its right to take away someone's freedom to choose whether or not they wish to smoke. i also dont think its right that taxpayers are on the hook for other people bad health decisions.
so should i disregard the freedom issue because of the costs of a bad healthcare system? i dont think so. id like to let them make their choice and then work on fixing the health care system.
issues that affect public health, such as smoking, will always be a cost to society. whether it be in services being used up by someone who is sick, but could be avoided. productivity. research. etc. it's not costing you because of a bad healthcare system. it's costing you because you don't live in a vacuum where you're the only person in the country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
