Marlboro Man, Chapter 2

uscitizen

Villified User
Drop in Smoking Means Less Tax Revenue

By MARTIGA LOHN
Associated Press Writer

BLOOMINGTON, Minn. (AP) -- Roland Henkel quit smoking in September and has been doing the math ever since: A week added to his life. More than 2,100 Marlboro Lights he hasn't smoked. And more than $400 he didn't spend on cigarettes.

"It does add up," said Henkel, 53. "You don't think about it when you're smoking so much."

The state of Minnesota has been doing the math, too, and isn't quite as delighted.

Because of quitters like Henkel, Minnesota's tobacco tax revenue is expected to go into a gradual slide later this year - a drop that may grow even steeper with the expected passage of a statewide smoking ban.

Across the country, states are putting their treasuries under pressure by adopting smoking restrictions as well as higher cigarette taxes, which appear to be discouraging people from lighting up, as many health activists had hoped would happen.

State Sen. David Tomassoni, a Democrat who opposes a statewide smoking ban, said he worries about the lost tax dollars.

"The taxes on smoking are being used to fund education, they're being used to fund health care, they're being used to fund real things. Now, if we eliminate smoking, does it mean that those things go away?" Tomassoni said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SMOKERS_MONEY?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
 
I would think that the USA would really feel 40 bill/yr or so in taxes lost as well.
and that article only touched on direct taxes. Indirect taxes from the manufacture of cigarettes and growing of tobacco would probably be about the same.
 
how is that? I'd think it would be just the opposite.
It's their duty to smoke as the taxes for smoking pays for the NHS. It's the foolishness of associating the two...

In some places they pay for education with those taxes. So, if you quit you feel like you are letting the kids down.
 
It's their duty to smoke as the taxes for smoking pays for the NHS. It's the foolishness of associating the two...

In some places they pay for education with those taxes. So, if you quit you feel like you are letting the kids down.

Banning smoking per se would see a huge reduction in revenue for the government, wherever it is spent, the shortfall of which would likely to be made from direct taxation...

Is that what you want? More direct taxation... lol
 
It's their duty to smoke as the taxes for smoking pays for the NHS. It's the foolishness of associating the two...

In some places they pay for education with those taxes. So, if you quit you feel like you are letting the kids down.

Banning smoking per se would see a huge reduction in revenue for the government, wherever it is spent, the shortfall of which would likely to be made from direct taxation...

Is that what you want? More direct taxation... lol
It's not what I want, it was a mocking version of what is happening in some states here...

Smoking has been linked to healthcare for poor kids as well as to education. Those who smoke now pay for a ton of stuff. They aren't going to make it illegal.
 
Back
Top