I am not a tobacco user but have empathy for those who are addicted to tobacco products. I wonder what our taxing representatives would do if tobacco users decided they had enough of being singled out to pay more than their fair share of so called sin taxes and rebelled by reducing their consumption by say, 50 percent.
My prediction is that the nonsmoking public would be asked to contribute more of their income into the general fund to compensate for the lost revenues.
If those who complain about smoking had to replace the taxes that were lost due to the smokers saying that they had had enough, maybe they would feel some of the pain of the tobacco users being asked to pay ever-increasing taxes.
вторник, 20 апреля 2010 г.
четверг, 15 апреля 2010 г.
Amend cigarette tax bill to one that can survive
THIS AFTERNOON, the Senate could give final approval to a plan to raise our state's cigarette tax from the lowest in the nation, at a cancer-inducing 7 cents per pack, to the ninth lowest, at 57 cents.
If senators don't change the way the revenue is spent, the entire effort will be a colossal waste of time.
Again.
The problem isn't that the House might not agree to use the revenue primarily to plug a gaping hole in the Medicaid program, with a few million dollars diverted to infrastructure projects in the Pee Dee. The House is perfectly capable of amending the bill and sending it to a conference committee.
No, the problem is that the Senate doesn't support its own bill enough for it to become law - and it's not at all clear that any compromise between the current Senate plan and the plan passed last year by the House would fare any better. Gov. Mark Sanford has promised to veto a cigarette tax increase that is not offset by equal tax cuts elsewhere, and it takes 31 votes in the Senate to override a gubernatorial veto - two more than supporters ever were able to muster for the bill.
So before the Senate completes its exercise in futility, let's step back for a moment and remember why it's important to raise the cigarette tax.
You wouldn't know it if you watched all the horse-trading and money grubbing on the Senate floor, but generating money is not the main reason to raise the tax. Saving lives is. That's why three-quarters of S.C. voters support it, and that's why lawmakers should raise it even if it weren't so wildly popular.
It has been clearly documented that raising the tax on cigarettes prices kids out of the market. And if they can't afford to start when they're still adolescents, chances are excellent that by the time they can afford to, they'll have sense enough not to. Raise the cost of cigarettes 10 percent, and you reduce teen smoking by 7 percent; overall smoking drops by 4 percent. So if we raised our cigarette tax by 50 cents, more than 23,000 kids alive today who would have become smokers would not. More than 400 kids saved every year.
The life-saving effect is so dramatic and so certain that our state would be better off with a higher cigarette tax even if we burned the money.
Of course, that doesn't mean we ought to burn the money. Or squander it. Or pass a plan that uses the money in a way that can't become law.
The smartest way to use the money is to plow it into Medicaid. We've always gotten at least $3 back from the federal government for every $1 we put into Medicaid, and that number was increased by the economic stimulus package and will go up even more under the new health law. That money pays doctors and hospitals and nursing homes in our state, which means it not only provides medical care to people who need it but also puts South Carolinians to work.
Though the bill the House passed last year used the money to provide tax credits to small businesses that provide health insurance to their employees, representatives might be willing to go along with a Medicaid-only bill this year: The budget they passed last month included a smaller cigarette tax increase that directs nearly all the money to Medicaid.
But whether the Senate goes along with the House's initial plan or puts all the money into Medicaid or does something else, it must pass a spending plan that will be able to avoid or overcome a gubernatorial veto. The plan senators passed before their spring recess does not do either, and so it must be changed.
If senators don't change the way the revenue is spent, the entire effort will be a colossal waste of time.
Again.
The problem isn't that the House might not agree to use the revenue primarily to plug a gaping hole in the Medicaid program, with a few million dollars diverted to infrastructure projects in the Pee Dee. The House is perfectly capable of amending the bill and sending it to a conference committee.
No, the problem is that the Senate doesn't support its own bill enough for it to become law - and it's not at all clear that any compromise between the current Senate plan and the plan passed last year by the House would fare any better. Gov. Mark Sanford has promised to veto a cigarette tax increase that is not offset by equal tax cuts elsewhere, and it takes 31 votes in the Senate to override a gubernatorial veto - two more than supporters ever were able to muster for the bill.
So before the Senate completes its exercise in futility, let's step back for a moment and remember why it's important to raise the cigarette tax.
You wouldn't know it if you watched all the horse-trading and money grubbing on the Senate floor, but generating money is not the main reason to raise the tax. Saving lives is. That's why three-quarters of S.C. voters support it, and that's why lawmakers should raise it even if it weren't so wildly popular.
It has been clearly documented that raising the tax on cigarettes prices kids out of the market. And if they can't afford to start when they're still adolescents, chances are excellent that by the time they can afford to, they'll have sense enough not to. Raise the cost of cigarettes 10 percent, and you reduce teen smoking by 7 percent; overall smoking drops by 4 percent. So if we raised our cigarette tax by 50 cents, more than 23,000 kids alive today who would have become smokers would not. More than 400 kids saved every year.
The life-saving effect is so dramatic and so certain that our state would be better off with a higher cigarette tax even if we burned the money.
Of course, that doesn't mean we ought to burn the money. Or squander it. Or pass a plan that uses the money in a way that can't become law.
The smartest way to use the money is to plow it into Medicaid. We've always gotten at least $3 back from the federal government for every $1 we put into Medicaid, and that number was increased by the economic stimulus package and will go up even more under the new health law. That money pays doctors and hospitals and nursing homes in our state, which means it not only provides medical care to people who need it but also puts South Carolinians to work.
Though the bill the House passed last year used the money to provide tax credits to small businesses that provide health insurance to their employees, representatives might be willing to go along with a Medicaid-only bill this year: The budget they passed last month included a smaller cigarette tax increase that directs nearly all the money to Medicaid.
But whether the Senate goes along with the House's initial plan or puts all the money into Medicaid or does something else, it must pass a spending plan that will be able to avoid or overcome a gubernatorial veto. The plan senators passed before their spring recess does not do either, and so it must be changed.
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)