Raising Cigarette and Liquor Taxes to pay for Teachers' Salary Increases and Mental Health Care - Your Thoughts (buy, income)

[TheEmissary]

Originally Posted by SunnyKayak

It would be cheaper in SC regardless due to less of a sales tax.

Why does Governor Easy Taxer just stop at Cigarettes though , Why not chewing tobacco and can of dip.
The next trip you make to a Shop & Rob store look at the price difference between the two. Same "sin" ingredient just packed different.

Sunny - Apparently sins that produce "smoke" are worse than the "chewing" the "devil weed"!!! I also noticed that with the pricing of cigars and cigarette-like cigars! Shop & Rob - that's a keeper Sunny!

Doorway - I'm determined to do it this time! Thanks for the encouragement!!

[anifani821]

Originally Posted by SunnyKayak

It would be cheaper in SC regardless due to less of a sales tax.

Why does Governor Easy Taxer just stop at Cigarettes though , Why not chewing tobacco and can of dip.
The next trip you make to a Shop & Rob store look at the price difference between the two. Same "sin" ingredient just packed different.

No taxes on food!!! I agree - tax the chew and the dip as well as the smoke products. But take taxes off food.

Tax yachts, boats over xx $, cars over xx $, private jets, jewelry over xx $. I don't think one should tax RVs b/c some people use them as homes when they retire. Maybe if they cost over a certain amount . . .

A "fat" tax . . . well, that gets too complicated. What about a "sugar" tax? See, food gets crazy. No taxes on food, period. Restaurants - too complicated to monitor the "fat" tax. How would one police THAT?

I just worry about who is making the decisions about what is a luxury. What if they wanted to start adding taxes to electronics? I don't consider my Macs a luxury! But let's say - someone decides - a 60" plasma TV is a luxury. Hmmm. That doesn't seem right, either!

Too many taxes!!!

[himain]

Bibit-Did I read your post right that you stated people who drink and smoke are in the lower income range??

You are kidding me right???
I can direct you to a friend of mine in Miami who is worth $500 million dollars who drinks and smokes. You are totally stereotyping. I drink but don't smoke so am I in the higher end of the lower income range??

[anifani821]

Originally Posted by himain

Bibit-Did I read your post right that you stated people who drink and smoke are in the lower income range??

You are kidding me right???
I can direct you to a friend of mine in Miami who is worth $500 million dollars who drinks and smokes. You are totally stereotyping. I drink but don't smoke so am I in the higher end of the lower income range??

I didn't read Bibit's post but in the healthcare industry, those are the demographics we use - studies show that those who smoke and drink have less education and lower incomes overall. Now, the people I know who smoke have advanced degrees and high income, but the industry demos say otherwise.

[bibit612]

Originally Posted by himain

Bibit-Did I read your post right that you stated people who drink and smoke are in the lower income range??

You are kidding me right???
I can direct you to a friend of mine in Miami who is worth $500 million dollars who drinks and smokes. You are totally stereotyping. I drink but don't smoke so am I in the higher end of the lower income range??

You have one friend, and like Ani says, I quote stats, and no I am not kidding. Maybe you should spend more time down here in SC and see who's smoking and drinking. They don't live in the McMansions. Don't accuse me of stereotyping!

[lovesMountains]

Originally Posted by himain

Bibit-Did I read your post right that you stated people who drink and smoke are in the lower income range??

You are kidding me right???
I can direct you to a friend of mine in Miami who is worth $500 million dollars who drinks and smokes. You are totally stereotyping. I drink but don't smoke so am I in the higher end of the lower income range??

I think what Bibit was referring to was the KNOWN fact that a higher percentage of people of lower socioeconomic status smoke, drink and have much more serious health consequences because of it, than other groups in general. Of course people in all salary ranges smoke and/or drink, but it happens in much fewer numbers in middle class and upper income brackets - what is considered the more educated of the population who are better informed and educated about the associated risks.

[anifani821]

Originally Posted by lovesMountains

I think what Bibit was referring to was the KNOWN fact that a higher percentage of people of lower socioeconomic status smoke, drink and have much more serious health consequences because of it, than other groups in general. Of course people in all salary ranges smoke and/or drink, but it happens in much fewer numbers in middle class and upper income brackets - what is considered the more educated of the population who are better informed and educated about the associated risks.

Yep. That is it. Bibit uses healthcare demographics in her work.

[BRKLYN2CLT]

I'm all for the new tax proposals. Here is my reasoning..... Drinking and smoking already place a huge tax burden on all citizens. A lot of taxpayers money is currently used to enforce, prosecute, and support with Social Services people with alcohol problems. Smoking cost every taxpayer money for treatment of uninsured people on medicare with smoking related disease. If people choose to cause damage or harm to themselves..they should pay part of the burden.

That extra money is needed for improvements in our schools which will in turn, add to the overall quality of life in the city of Charlotte. BTW: I do not have children so it doesn't directly affect me.

On a side note: I used to smoke...when cigarettes in NYC went up to $6.50 a pack; I finally decided to quit. The nicotine patch was cheaper than smoking. It was the best decision.....Thank you Mr. Taxman!!!

[NCyank]

I would much prefer that the schools reevaluate their budgets, streamline, overhaul and become more efficient, cut the waste and use the savings to give the teachers a raise. Any private business that runs the way schools do would have been out of business a long time ago...more revenue won't make a long term difference in outcome when the model stays the same.

If they are going to charge a sin tax, it should go to cover the medical and program costs those indulgent folks will eventually need. That way the burden is placed on those who caused their own problems in the first place. An alternative is to scale back the benefits available to those who have made bad choices, but most people would consider that cruel.

[TheEmissary]

Originally Posted by NCyank

I would much prefer that the schools reevaluate their budgets, streamline, overhaul and become more efficient, cut the waste and use the savings to give the teachers a raise. Any private business that runs the way schools do would have been out of business a long time ago...more revenue won't make a long term difference in outcome when the model stays the same.

If they are going to charge a sin tax, it should go to cover the medical and program costs those indulgent folks will eventually need. That way the burden is placed on those who caused their own problems in the first place. An alternative is to scale back the benefits available to those who have made bad choices, but most people would consider that cruel.

NCyank - As the op, I agree with much of what you have said. There is some waste in schools, but compared to what went on with schools in NJ, the NC schools would be models of efficiency. If given this raise through the proposed taxes, NC teachers would move up to 40th in the nation by salary. I used to rant (and still do on the NJ forum) about teacher pay and benefits and the huge property taxes generated by them, but it seems to me that NC teachers and state workers in general, get the short end of the stick in salary and benefits. Teachers pay entirely too much for health benefits if they have a family. This state treats teachers like the 1940's when the "old maid school teacher" was the stereotype in vogue. I wouldn't be terribly motivated to be a teacher if out of a starting salary of about $30,000, I had to pony up 10 months of $650 to pay for my family's health benefits. That's the root cause of the exiting of many first-year teachers coupled with an assignment to a "dumpy" school. The alternative to working at Lowe's or Costco with health benefits seems to be appealing under those circumstances.

Using the sin tax to raise teacher salaries just strikes me as a cheap political ploy that pits the "good teachers" against those "bad smokers and drinkers". It already seems that many politicians have dismissed this as a bad idea in a bad economy. I guess for the time being, the teachers will just have to soldier on, using "sunny optimism" to overcome their "financial shortcomings".