Are you sure they didn't say he proposed increasing the tax by 60 cents a pack? I thought they were already taxed more than that. Personally I think any 'targeted tax' is wrong.
My response to everyone who says that smoking (or any other behavior) increases health care costs: DON'T PAY for MY health care. Problem solved. I don't smoke.
2007-02-06 14:31:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the tax should appy to only cigarettes in general , but not a tax of $2.60 a pack. Not spit or dip tabacco becausee those habits only effect the user those altneratives should be encourage to people cant give up nicotine all together. The tax on 2.60 per pack on tobacco will drive a blackmarket probadly. Canada tried to tax the hell out of the tabacco in the 1990s and sicne 90% of the population lives within 100 miles of the border it was worth the time to go across and pay like 2.00 a pack instead of 6.00 dollars they had to reduce the tax after that because the mafia got involved in them game and the blackmarket. A tabacco tax should raised with discreation as to not create a black market for cigarettes.
2016-03-29 08:44:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I quit smoking on July 9TH 2000 I was sick and tired of paying all that money and for what?I coughed all the time. I am healthier now. I smoked for 32 years. So I know that it is an addiction.I really do know how hard it is to quirt but it can be done. Think of all that extra money you'll have if you can try to quit. Save your life and have some extra money. I know it is hard but it would be the best thing you could ever do for yourself.People here in IL. send off to Tenn. for their cigarettes. How would you like to pay $5.00 a pack? It's not worth any price to me. I saw 2 good friends die from Lung cancer and it's not pretty.
2007-02-06 15:19:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pamela V 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
In Texas, we have a buck a pack tax.
The idea is that the states have a heavy health cost to shoulder, particularly for smokers. Smokers are costing the health system and government a multiple of what non-smokers cost. Therefore, it's a tax with a double benefit. One, to may the cost prohibitive to many to get them to quit by having a financial disincentive to keep smoking. Second, to help raise money for those that will have a bigger burden to the healthcare resources.
2007-02-06 14:23:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by WealthBuilder 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
The idea is to tax the people who use the services. The state pays a lot of money in healthcare benefits to help smoker's diseases.
Actually it is much easier to pass one of these so called "sin" taxes than other taxes.
The gasoline tax in tennessee is 21.4 cents per gallon so it is quite heavy already. It does hit those who have gas guzzling cars the most.
2007-02-06 13:27:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Nusha 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't get your question.....what does smoking have to do with expensive cars???
Anyway...States are forced to spend millions in healthcare for sick smokers, so that is why they need more money.
Makes sense to me,..tax the smoker to pay for the sick smoker..
Smoking is bad for you anyway...why not just quit??
2007-02-06 15:35:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Riannaa 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe the government wants to discourage smokers from smoking, try looking at in a positive aspect. Have you ever thought taking that money and investing in it? Just a thought.
2007-02-06 13:27:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Kathleen J 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Move to MO. We just rejected a massive cig tax increase last November.
2007-02-06 14:12:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Bostonian In MO 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
why does the smoker put leaves in his mouth and set em on fire for no reason but to give himself cancer and stuff?
2007-02-06 13:25:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Cole 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
It's to prevent people from smoking and is good.
2007-02-06 13:29:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by Silvia 2
·
1⤊
2⤋