(prop86) What evidence/proof is there that higer tax will reduce smoking?

Answer 1

The "sin tax", as it is sometimes called - in this case against cigarettes - is not a unilateral attack on smokers. While it may discourage smokers from supporting Big Tobacco, it is only a supplemental benefit as well as a more tangible penalty to taxpayers who choose to indulge in the habit.

The primary target of the tax is the tobacco industry itself and the retailers. The plan is to discourage retailers from stocking cigarettes on their shelves, because they will yield lower and lower profits. Obscure brands will disappear because retailers won't gamble on trying to get rid of the less popular cigarettes for a fraction of the profit. The industry will likely lose money as they try to keep prices down, where 40 - 80% of the retail value is tax. Overall, the tax increase can have a potentially damaging impact on the industry as a whole - and on retailers who choose to continue carrying the products.

As far as the "line-their-pockets" theories and the ideas that government has these alterior motives... that, I think, is for the birds. While the money will go to fund our government, as most taxes do, their tax isn't an intentional draining attack on an industry they know they can siphon money from with no resistance. The Republican party (which is governing our current administration) has benefited from Big Tobacco's contributions for years - just on from their donations. Here's a brief rundown, not including unlisted contributions:

Tobacco industry lobbying budget, 1999 to June 2004: $113 million

Tobacco contributions to the Republican Party candidates 1990 to 2004: $41 million (75% of total)

Tobacco PAC contributions to Republican candidates 1997 to April 2005: $7 million (75% of total)

Tobacco soft dollars for the RNC 1997-2002: $6.3 million

Tobacco donations to GOP conventions and Bush-Cheney inauguration celebrations 2000 - 2005: $1.5 million

Would you stab a cash cow in the back just to drain the last of its blood and kill it? I don't think so. The proof is there. But as for complaining of high cig prices and still smoking, I can't join that bandwagon. I smoke too, and I usually buy the pricey brands. But I always know where to grab a pack of smokes for less than $1.50 if I'm short on cash. And you know you can too.

-Clay A

Answer 2

As for as the Indians are concerned, the higher tax will not reduce smoking because the Indians are getting too rich these days.. :) :)) However, if the tax is like 400% or 1000%, its surely going to reduce the smoking but the other side of the story is that it will affect not only the sales/turnover of the Tobbaco companies but also the Govt's revenue. So, if Govt is ready to suffer, the higher tax is surely going to reduce smoking.
Thanks
SKJ

Answer 3

It is true, It is allready cheaper for kids to smoke dope than ciggs. Compare health care cost and all taxes for everyone if no no smoked. Those tax payers would whole hardedly let people smoke with a simple sales tax.

Answer 4

Prop 86 is a secret agreement between 'Big Tobacco 'and U.S. Gov. They will share in the Billions of $$ generated by 86 disguised as anti smoking.

Answer 5

Politicians are hoping that they will tax you so much that you can't afford it anymore. However, they know it won't work so it's just lining their pockets. They just use the scare tactics of "health risks" or "disease" to get people to vote for higher taxes on things like cigarettes.

Answer 6

As a reluctant smoker, nothing will stop me from smoking until I get up enough gumption to quit. That is just their way of putting more money into their pockets.

Answer 7

No proof.. Just anger for that. i compare prices for cigarettes
Russia (Moscow) 1 pack of Marlboro cost 0.40$ (£0.30) and it's good.
UK (London) 1 pack of Marlboro cost £5.10
What is that???

Answer 8

None, when i started smoking i think i paid about 1.50 per pack, its now over 3.50 per pack and im still smoking.

Answer 9

I always said, I'd never pay over $2 for cigarettes. Guess what? I do. :)

Answer 10

None whatsoever.