U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-08-2011, 10:31 AM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 38,381,040 times
Reputation: 24549

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tahiti View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2011, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,421 posts, read 10,270,708 times
Reputation: 7787
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantRutgersfan View Post
40 percent of all N.J. cigarettes smuggled into state illegally | NJ.com

Tax is too high so people will just stock up elsewhere, purchase over the internet, or on the "black market"

Even a lot of retailers sell them from out of state.
Or as in the case of "alkihol"....moonshine it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2011, 10:33 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 20,648,594 times
Reputation: 3728
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2011, 10:38 AM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 38,381,040 times
Reputation: 24549
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2011, 10:41 AM
 
Location: NJ
12,285 posts, read 34,496,561 times
Reputation: 5298
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2011, 10:54 AM
 
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,806 posts, read 32,630,080 times
Reputation: 10247
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.

Seeing through smokescreens High cigarette taxes raise problems, not revenue. - Philly.com
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2011, 10:59 AM
 
Location: NJ
12,285 posts, read 34,496,561 times
Reputation: 5298
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295 View Post
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.

Seeing through smokescreens High cigarette taxes raise problems, not revenue. - Philly.com
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2011, 11:11 AM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 38,381,040 times
Reputation: 24549
Quote:
Originally Posted by tahiti View Post
who said anything about taking someone's right to smoke away?
thats what happens when you put "sky high" taxes on a product.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2011, 11:18 AM
 
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,806 posts, read 32,630,080 times
Reputation: 10247
Quote:
Originally Posted by tahiti View Post
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!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2011, 01:05 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 20,648,594 times
Reputation: 3728
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top