[McBain II]

Originally Posted by KETV Omaha

OMAHA, Neb. -

Political tensions over a new University of Nebraska cancer center led to a public apology on Tuesday.
Several concerned citizens turned out for the first reading of a new ordinance during Omaha's City Council meeting.

Tax watchdogs, lobbyists and businesspeople also came to the meeting to decry a new tax that would add 35 cents to a pack of cigarettes, which would help fund a new cancer center at UNMC.

"It would cause border bleeding -- people would go outside of city limits to Ralston, Papillion and other places to buy tobacco products," said Doug Kagan with Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom.

The lobbyists and business groups said they plan to hold a news conference next week to take on the issue.

Councilmembers said they understand their concerns but have differing opinions on whether they'd vote for or against the tax.

"We're simply imposing a nominal fee on that product to help save lives and create jobs," Councilmember Chris Jerram said.

My take? The tax cranky types are making a big deal out of nothing here. There are not to many people who are going to be driving outside the city limits to save 35 cents on a pack of cigarettes. Sure, you might get a handful that would do it simply out of protest, but they are a small fringe group and do we really feel the need to cater to them, especially considering what is ultimately at stake here?

Thoughts?

[smithy77]

I think the tax is too low. I'm surprised cigarettes are still legal.

[iamjacobm]

I am completely in favor of it. The cancer center would be HUGE for Omaha. 1200 newly created jobs from the project and UNMC stays in the upper echelon of medical centers in the country.

[MountainMen]

As we've seen with the gas tax, CB tends to follow Omaha's lead. They would likely follow suit and raise their cig tax after they saw it successful in Omaha.

Smokers don't realize the externality costs they create every time they puff up. Those costs far exceed an extra 35 cents a pack.

[IsThisOneTaken?]

I like the concept, but why should a CITY tax go to a STATE entity like that? The state has its own taxing authority, if they want it, jack up the price statewide.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by IsThisOneTaken?

I like the concept, but why should a CITY tax go to a STATE entity like that? The state has its own taxing authority, if they want it, jack up the price statewide.

Just guessing here, but I believe that the UNMC, despite being part of the University of Nebraska, still retains some autonomy within the city and thus the taxing can be localized.

[RhettB]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

My take? The tax cranky types are making a big deal out of nothing here. There are not to many people who are going to be driving outside the city limits to save 35 cents on a pack of cigarettes. Sure, you might get a handful that would do it simply out of protest, but they are a small fringe group and do we really feel the need to cater to them, especially considering what is ultimately at stake here?

Thoughts?

The smoking ban did not stop too many people from not dining out.
The restaurant tax had little effect as well.

If the smokers want to buy smokes, they will.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by RhettB

The smoking ban did not stop too many people from not dining out.
The restaurant tax had little effect as well.

If the smokers want to buy smokes, they will.

Excellent point. On both these issues, the tax cranky crowd would have made you think the world was coming to an end, but in reality very little changed.

[TheBeagleLady]

I doubt it will matter. People are inherently lazy. If they are too lazy to quit smoking, I doubt too many will go out of their way to save 35 cents.

[iamjacobm]

Well the tax passed. 3%.