Since taxis on tobacco don't even begin to cover all the medical expenses of people who get sick from smoking,

Question

isn't the government losing money? Of course, if it cancelled all tobacco taxes, the smokers would be getting a free ride.
Persons with bodies weakened by smoking, get all kinds of diseases and ailments. Should tobacco taxes be raised 10 times to pay more of their medical bills that now fall upon the non-smoking public?

Answer 1

Yes, totally agree, they should pay higher taxes in their cigarretes to cover the expenses of their diseases. It also leads many people to think how much they are wasting on cigarretes if the prices rise. So hopefully people would stop smoking.

Answer 2

Actually, the government SAVES money from smokers themselves dying prematurely and therefore not hanging around to collect social security and medicare. Yes, there actually was such a study done. It does have some logic to it, but I'm not so sure myself.

The tobacco companies were sued for monies to compensate for increased health costs and everybody got a cut to offset states' medical costs. Follow up studies show a little less then half (in some cases, none at all) actually went to offsetting those costs. So what would be the point/

The same can be said for alcohol. Why not jack up the taxes on booze? I would list all the other stuff linked to shortened life spans, increased health problems, etc, but a lot of self-righteous, sanctimonious people would think the connection absurd no matter how realistic.

Point is, if taxing cigarettes would actual help defray medical costs, I'd say go ahead and do it. But it won't.

Answer 3

You'll never get anywhere in public policy debates making sense like that, ho ho.

Two points probably need to be raised. One, smoking kills thousands every year. Some would argue that smoking should be banned completely in this country. But not only does that get into freedom of choice issues, but it also would cut off a revenue stream from government funding.

Two, taxes on cigarette probably are set, in an ideal setting, to maximize income for the government. It's got nothing to do with anti-smoking. They know people are physically addicted to the product, so the taxes can go pretty high. The question for lawmakers -- how high can they put the tax rate before people start to rebel?

Answer 4

If the tobacco taxes were actually used to treat smoking related ailments, there would be more than enough money. Instead the monies are spent on non-stop anti-smoking advertising campaigns.

Answer 5

I think they should be responsible for their own medical expenses if it is smoking-related. The facts are in, and they know the damage they are doing, yet they choose to keep smoking. There is no excuse to not quit these days, given all the help available.

Edit: Hey, smokers! Are the "thumbs down" because you think others should pay the medical expenses for what you did to yourself?

Answer 6

i have smoked for the last 50yrs bur there again i have worked for the same amount of time i and my generation have helped put the nhs up and running i am still working now at the age of 65, i suspect that at least half the young generation today are living on hand outs from us oldie smokers taxes so i rest my case

Answer 7

I think we should tax all sugar products that make people fat, fat people take up more room. Tall people should be taxed because well there just tall. , what makes you so much better than ever one else. I don't think its right that people have to pay school tax's when they don't have kids. or why should we pay tax's for kids health insurance to have baby's or tax on drug addicts

Answer 8

Maybe one day smoking will DIE out.

Answer 9

Wow I dont even know where to begin dissecting your backwards logic.

Answer 10

yes