2.25.02 @ 2:08AM
Is there anything easier for a politician than raising cigarette taxes? Perhaps condemning terrorism -- but that doesn't fill up the coffers.
Is there anything easier for a politician than raising cigarette
taxes? Perhaps condemning terrorism -- but that doesn't fill up the
coffers. Facing tough fiscal times, twenty-two states are now
considering taking the easy way out of their massive budget
shortfalls by taking more money out of smokers' pockets with every
pack of cigarettes.
In states like Oregon (considering a 50-cent increase) and New
Hampshire (considering a $1 increase), politicians are performing
the relatively simple political calculus of cigarette taxation and
realizing that there is practically no downside to picking on the
differently-tobaccoed.
Observe: A minority of citizens who smoke + a majority who
believe smoking is a Very Bad Thing + a budget shortfall that could
force cuts in popular programs = tax 'em 'till they bleed. Adjust
any of these variables (e.g. how many smokers there are in your
state, how strapped your state is financially) and you can
determine just how much to raise taxes.
For instance, New York's new mayor Michael Bloomberg (motto:
Please Leave a Message After the Beep) ran this equation for the
Big Apple (huge anti-smoking sentiment, humongous budget shortfall)
and came up with the astonishing solution that he should propose
raising the cigarette tax in the city by $1.42 -- bringing it up to
$1.50. Now, maybe Mayor Bloomberg forgot to carry a one or
something, but that would bring the average price of a pack of
cancer sticks in the City That Never Sleeps to almost $7
(remembering there is also a state cigarette tax).
Is there any end to this upward spiral? The federal government
and the states already make more on a pack of cigarettes than Big
Tobacco (maybe that should be Uncle Sam's new nickname). Do they
want to double their take? Triple it?
Though admittedly there is no political coalition likely to
stand up against cigarette taxes successfully -- and woe-betide the
politician who tries to roll back an existing cigarette tax ("You
want to kill children!") -- the taxes are clearly unfair and
hypocritical, and that should at least be recognized as such.
All of the rationales regularly offered for cigarette taxes are
clearly bunk. First of all, it's often argued that smokers cost the
state (and thus the taxpayers) money because they require more
medical care than non-smokers. Though tobacco companies aren't
likely to make this argument publicly, it is widely acknowledged in
budgetary circles that this claim is untrue since smokers die
earlier, meaning they cost far less in Social Security payments and
end-of-life care. It ain't pretty, but facts are facts, and smokers
ultimately don't cost non-smokers a cent.
It's also often claimed that people will smoke less if it costs
more, which is supposed to be good for the smokers (or
future-former-smokers) in question. Aside from the blatant
paternalism involved in this way of thinking, it also represents
fairly flawed logic. First of all, it's often claimed that kids
will be most affected by the price increases since they haven't
been hooked as long, and since they have less money. However, since
kids usually smoke for social reasons, how likely is it that they
will risk social acceptance over 5-cents per cigarette?
More perversely for adults, those "helped" the most will pay the
least while those who are stubbornly addicted (remember all that
talk of cigarettes being addictive?) will pay through the nose. How
fair is it to jack up prices on poor souls caught in the vice-like
grip of that demon, nicotine addiction?
The contradictions aren't lost on state or national politicians,
but don't expect them to change tactics. The fact that the poor are
hurt disproportionately is unlikely to change the minds of always
tax-hungry Democrats; and Republicans, like Connecticut's Gov. John
Rowland (proposed a 61-cent increase), aren't going to have the
courage to stand up for smokers' rights in a fiscal crunch.
In New York, however, the seeds of discontent perhaps are being
sown. Facing down the out-of-control increase proposed by Mayor
Bloomberg will be a coalition of thousands of bodega and
convenience store owners. Will small businessmen such as these, who
get hurt when cigarette buying customers frequent their stores
less, be able to fight off the onslaught? Probably not. But maybe
they can keep Gotham cigarettes under $10 a pack for a while.
In the meantime, hedging against the day that opposition to
cigarette taxes stiffens, politicians will be hard at work for the
American taxpayer -- looking for some way to tax terrorism.
topics:
Taxes, Business, Social Security, Law