Things that are overpriced

Only because I've done enough to do this easily, here are the states with lower total cigarette tax than that of the Federal Government:

Potential States:

Alabama: $0.675/pack
Georgia: $0.37/pack
Idaho: $0.57/pack
Indiana: $0.995/pack
Mississippi: $0.68/pack
Missouri: $0.17/pack
Nebraska $0.64/pack
North Carolina: $0.45/pack
North Dakota: $0.44/pack
South Carolina: $0.57/pack
Tennessee: $0.62/pack
Virginia $0.60/pack
Wyoming $0.60/pack

I'm also going to standardize prices at $6.00/pack.

Alabama: 4%----$0.915/pack total.*

*This is lower for state revenues than the Federal Government, however, the average local+state sales tax rate is 9.25%, which means the average local sales tax rate is 5.25%; as a result, total taxation (state + local) is higher than the Federal Government. State proceeds are lower, though.

Georgia: The Federal Government makes more. Even accounting for average local sales tax rates, it's still not even close.

Idaho: Idaho has a 6% sales tax and very few localities have a local sales tax, and when they do, it's very low. For that reason, total proceeds on cigarettes, to the state/local Governments (absent a local tobacco tax) are lower than the Feds get.

Indiana: The state gets more. It's not close.

Mississippi: The state gets more because of the sales tax. Even at $5.00/pack, the state would get slightly more.

Missouri: Barely taxes cigarettes, on direct. It's not close.

Nebraska:Nebraska has a state sales tax of 5.5% and mandates that the highest local tax optional is 2%. Given this total of 7.5%, the tax proceeds can be higher than the Federal Government gets. If no local tax, then slightly lower.

North Carolina: North Carolina mandates counties charge a sales tax of 2.25%, so combined with the 4.75% state sales tax results in total sales taxes of 7% flat, in effect. The state (overall) still makes less, per pack, than the Feds do.

North Dakota: 5%, so local taxes notwithstanding, it's not even close.

South Carolina: 6%, so local taxes notwithstanding, they make a bit less, per pack, than the Feds do.

Tennessee: The sales tax is 7% for the state, so the state makes more, per pack, than do the Feds.

Virginia: 5.3% state sales tax, so it's probably more (total) if there any local taxes at all, but the state gets less than the Feds.

Wyoming: 4% state sales tax. Not even close.

Quote: Mission146

If you don't think the Government cares, then I have some nice property on the moon to sell you. They banned flavored cigarettes; they banned use of the word, 'Light' and most forms of advertising for cigarettes are banned; alcohol is perfectly okay, of course.

I am not so sure this is about the "government caring about me" as it is over simple control. I will admit I prefer most places smokefree. But I think that is what the government cares about. My vote. Not me.

Quote:

Industries that are legal should not be forbidden from advertising or have separate taxes levied upon their products, in my opinion. Show me a state with no lottery or gambling interests whatsoever and I might make an exception; I think only four states apply to that---Alaska, Hawaii, Utah and Alabama. Of course, Alabama also has one of the lowest taxes on smokes.

Depends on the situation. If I had my way all taxes would be consumption based. But that leads to the issue of paying the same tax for bread as whiskey. So I do not have a problem with most excise taxes. I do have a problem with the government making more in tax than the operator is in profit, from cigarettes to casino slots.

Quote: AZDuffman

I am not so sure this is about the "government caring about me" as it is over simple control. I will admit I prefer most places smokefree. But I think that is what the government cares about. My vote. Not me.

I don't know that the Government cares about you, individually speaking. From what I can gather, you can afford your own private health insurance, and do, so the Government really has no present interest in whether or not you smoke.

On the other hand, I would say that those who would favor socialized healthcare, single-payer, Medicare for all...whatever...'Care about you,' in the sense that they, at least in theory, 'care about' everyone having healthcare.

In any event, I wouldn't boil it down to simple control for control's sake. I think there is a goal beyond control; I just happen to think that the goal is stupid and pointless.

Quote:

Depends on the situation. If I had my way all taxes would be consumption based. But that leads to the issue of paying the same tax for bread as whiskey. So I do not have a problem with most excise taxes. I do have a problem with the government making more in tax than the operator is in profit, from cigarettes to casino slots.

I would do a few things. For one, I would just have a Universal Sales Tax (and mandate a maximum sales tax that states are allowed to have) and simply be done with it. Gambling winnings could not be taxed as income as gambling losses, only selectively, can even count as a loss to income such as to offset gambling winnings. How can gambling winnings be positive income if gambling losses are not ALWAYS a loss to income? That's not to mention the fact that the losses are someone's income (the casinos'), or at least someone's taxable revenue, so if we're only talking cash...how can one entity gain income without the other entity having lost income?

Of course, I'd do away with (Personal) Federal Income Tax entirely, so it would be a moot point.

In terms of casinos, you'd still have corporate income tax, of course, and then---whatever the sales tax is---casinos would have to pay that amount of their net revenues as a sales tax...which would be significantly less than they have to pay now.*

*Except Nevada.

If someone says we don't need taxes at all, I'm fine with that. Tell me how.

But if you only think we need just one tax, like to pay for military, then immediately you don't have any more right than I do to decide what taxes we need or don't need.

Of course I don't think anyone would think "pay if you want to military" would work. Would we have enough troops when we finally need them and enough equipment? And they may not even work for what the willing want to pay them.

If you even want one tax, then we all have a right to decide which others we may want.

Taxing amount and kind will be an ongoing debate until someone figures out how to do away with them.

Quote: rxwine

If someone says we don't need taxes at all, I'm fine with that. Tell me how.

But if you only think we need just one tax, like to pay for military, then immediately you don't have any more right than I do to decide what taxes we need or don't need.

Of course I don't think anyone would think "pay if you want to military" would work. Would we have enough troops when we finally need them and enough equipment? And they may not even work for what the willing want to pay them.

If you even want one tax, then we all have a right to decide which others we may want.

Taxing amount and kind will be an ongoing debate until someone figures out how to do away with them.

So...if I say a personal income tax rate of 100% would be a really bad idea, according to you, I have no right to say that if I think there should be a non-zero amount of sales taxes?

That said, I don't think I have more of a right than you to decide what we need, don't need, what the money should go to...etc. If I offered a, "Everything Mission Would Do," list, then I would highly doubt that a single citizen of this country, or any, would agree with every item on it.

Quote: kenarman

"Results Smoking was associated with a greater mean annual healthcare cost of €1600 per living individual during follow-up. However, due to a shorter lifespan of 8.6 years, smokers’ mean total healthcare costs during the entire study period were actually €4700 lower than for non-smokers. For the same reason, each smoker missed 7.3 years (€126 850) of pension. Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers. "

The quote is from the BMJ and is a Finnish study that followed 1976 male smokers for 27 years. There is a net GAIN to society when you factor in the savings from health care and pensions when they die early.

This is true and fun fact (or scary fact I guess depending on your view), the major tobacco companies used this and similiar studies to push for expanded accsess in South America (showing how much they would save on pensions, etc....) Kind of a weird way to lobby for your product (we will lower your country's life expectancy, so don't worry about the pension obligation), but I guess the number crunches like it.

Finland went the opposite direction, you cannot legally buy tobacco products if born after a certain year (I forget the cutoff).

Quote: Gandler

This is true and fun fact (or scary fact I guess depending on your view), the major tobacco companies used this and similiar studies to push for expanded accsess in South America (showing how much they would save on pensions, etc....) Kind of a weird way to lobby for your product (we will lower your country's life expectancy, so don't worry about the pension obligation), but I guess the number crunches like it.

Finland went the opposite direction, you cannot legally buy tobacco products if born after a certain year (I forget the cutoff).

There's generally good evidence people do fine without some products until they're introduced. Columbus introduced tobacco to Europe. No one knew they needed it until then.

I suppose one could argue everything we discover should never be banned from society, because that's essentially what people are arguing even if it is harmful. I find that a odd twist of the argument for freedom.

Apparently, Europe had cannabis before tobacco, but Google says it wasn't smoked until tobacco use.

Quote: rxwine

There's generally good evidence people do fine without some products until they're introduced. Columbus introduced tobacco to Europe. No one knew they needed it until then.

I suppose one could argue everything we discover should never be banned from society, because that's essentially what people are arguing even if it is harmful. I find that a odd twist of the argument for freedom.

Apparently, Europe had cannabis before tobacco, but Google says it wasn't smoked until tobacco use.

Oh of course, if we had a magic wand that could erase tobacco from the planet (IE nobody knew it ever existed and would not miss it), the world would be a better place. Yes, nicotine has some minor productive uses for medicine and agriculture (ironically a lot of "organic" farms use tobacco as a pesticide), but there are better alternatives. I would say the same about alcohol, but alcohol has too many medical and practical uses (disinfectant, cleaning, etc...). I would even say the same thing about caffeine, but there are too many natural sources that would cut out too many plants from the planet.

Quote: Gandler

Oh of course, if we had a magic wand that could erase tobacco from the planet (IE nobody knew it ever existed and would not miss it), the world would be a better place. Yes, nicotine has some minor productive uses for medicine and agriculture (ironically a lot of "organic" farms use tobacco as a pesticide), but there are better alternatives. I would say the same about alcohol, but alcohol has too many medical and practical uses (disinfectant, cleaning, etc...). I would even say the same thing about caffeine, but there are too many natural sources that would cut out too many plants from the planet.

If nobody ever knew it existed the USA would not have survived as colonies.

Quote: AZDuffman

If nobody ever knew it existed the USA would not have survived as colonies.

We only know that because it was the only crop they could profitably grow at the time. If this was not an option other crops may have been discovered. But, yeah Spain would have a much larger grip on the Americas if tobacco did not exist (my suspicion, obviously historical speculation).

Would North America and the Carribean be better off with more Spain and France and less England? That is debatable. At the end of the day they all colonized for profit (as did everyone else including the Native tribes, I am not saying that as a negative ot positive, just a historic fact). Spain and England were just probably the best at it (and maybe the Ottomans).