Hmmm ... what do you think of this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/health/antismoking-outlays-drop-despite-tobacco-revenue.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/health/antismoking-outlays-drop-despite-tobacco-revenue.html
States Cut Antismoking Outlays Despite Record Tobacco Revenue
- Thread starter admin
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
And how do you actually prove this? There would be so many factors for something like this that even making a link like this is flimsy at best. More slanted statistics. Seems to me the author of the article obviously has an agenda.
Obviously now, the tax money gathered on tobacco is much more important then preventing anything. Now if they just realized that lowering the tax rate would increase spending thus increase income from taxes everyone would be happy.
I would say that is pretty typical. It's always going to be a love/hate relationship with the government. They hate spending the money on health care and what not but love the tax revenue.
I heard a report last night that Washington state expects to reap a billion dollars in tax revenue over five years from the legalization of ganja. Once that is confirmed, how long do you think it will be before other states jump on that band wagon?
I heard a report last night that Washington state expects to reap a billion dollars in tax revenue over five years from the legalization of ganja. Once that is confirmed, how long do you think it will be before other states jump on that band wagon?
I like how people blindly quote dumb statistics. No one really reads those studies... "smokers die 14 years earlier..." I didn't see where any variables were held constant in that study, it might as well say "poor people with low education die 14 years earlier." because that's what gets measured if you do not hold "all else" constant.
Eagle, your idea makes sense if you believe that people will spend LESS on tobacco if the price INCREASES. That is, if people are "responsive" to the price change (taxes factored into price).
The gov't apparently believes that people will buy tobacco products no matter what. In other words, smokers are "unresponsive" to price changes. So, the gov can INCREASE taxes (the price goes up), but people still buy the SAME amount of tobacco.
Eagle, your idea makes sense if you believe that people will spend LESS on tobacco if the price INCREASES. That is, if people are "responsive" to the price change (taxes factored into price).
The gov't apparently believes that people will buy tobacco products no matter what. In other words, smokers are "unresponsive" to price changes. So, the gov can INCREASE taxes (the price goes up), but people still buy the SAME amount of tobacco.
gray is right on this issue. It would be nice to have a consumer watchdog organization to assist us pipe smokers of the various government bills and laws that will affect the cost of the tobacco as soon possible. I am with a very successful organization for bicycling. It is called Rails to Trails that will send me an email with a fully repaired petition attachment for me to sign then send to my representative with a click of a button. It’s a good way with a group of small numbers to get noticed.
Are you familiar with the Cigar Rights of America (CRA) and the International Premium Cigar and Pipe Retailers Association (IPCPR)?
They both sort of do that, but I agree. There needs to be more awareness of the legislative crap being pushed around.
Do the Cigar Rights of America(CRA) do anything for Canada? I'm thinking of joining in the new year.
Reminds me of a family getting a huge settlement for an injured child... I'll bet very little goes toward the child.
Yes! You're exactly right.
Maybe if more "you have to spend this [tobacco tax] money on anti-smoking campaigns" rules were in place, then there'd be less of an incentive for states to hike taxes... but for that to work, it'd have to bee 100%
IMO, the only reason any State would cut funding for "Antismoking Outlays" is because most, if not all, of the States are in serious financial trouble at best, and bankrupt at worst. But not to worry...chances are the Feds will come to the rescue with special funds (created out of thin air) just for keeping the propaganda alive.
The idiots finally figured out that there's no monmey in prevention. Tax dollars are hard currency while prevention statistics/savings are merely guesswork, always overstated and never realized.
Yeeeah, but then there's no point in taxation at all. The whole purpose is redistribution to OTHER people or areas. If tax money were pumped directly back in to where it came from, then it would be better to just not tax at all.
Also, talking about "improving an area" is hard. Improved for...people in poverty I guess? (since they were cited as the biggest users of cigarettes). What does that mean?? Subsidized housing, schools and other institutions for low-income families? Food programs? Free Job-training/education? You'll need a lot more than tobacco taxes.
Then, "to have a reason not to smoke" ??? It's awfully hard to change a person's mindset like that. Those with lower income only live for the day. There's usually little saving; when they get money, they use it, and on things that they want e.g. cigarettes, a TV, cell phone. It's just a day-by-day planning/living.
Not equally. That's why it's a redistribution. And if these tobacco taxes were passed on the premise of funding anti-smoking campaigns, but they are now used almost entirely as a plug for overspending, then the original intent has been lost. Also, my pipe tobacco costs more, and I'm not happy about that.
You forgot, stimulus and qe1.2..3...4 and so on, makes money poof out of nowhere. Mandrake the magician style.
You forgot, stimulus and qe1.2..3...4 and so on, makes money poof out of nowhere. Mandrake the magician style.
- Status