Comments on: SCHIP and “the” tobacco tax

By: Jacob Grier

Jacob Grier — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:32:28 +0000

Legalizing pot, taxing children… there’s some great ideas in this post.

By: D White

D White — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:04:04 +0000

Wouldn’t it be more sensible to tax parents on their children, rather than smokers on their cigarettes, to pay for children’s health care? Maybe that’s just mean, but such a move could be a boon for condom makers.

By: Raise A Stogy In Celebration!! « Commentary From The Beltway

Raise A Stogy In Celebration!! « Commentary From The Beltway — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:15:35 +0000

[…] Raise A Stogy In Celebration!! Jacob and I have been trading emails back-and-forth all day discussing the pending SCHIP veto-override vote which the House of Representatives undertook today. As Jacob noted on his blog post, The problem, aside from the dubious premise that we ought to be manipulating people’s consumption choices through taxation, is that there is no “the tobacco tax.” In addition to the cigarette tax increase, the bill also includes a massive increase in cigar taxes. Cigars are currently taxed at five cents a piece; the proposal before Congress will hike this up to a new rate capped at $3 per cigar. That’s an increase of 6,000 percent! (Believe it or not, the original Senate bill capped at an absolutely insane $10 a stick.) […]

By: Jacob Grier

Jacob Grier — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:14:45 +0000

Yes, but what you are advocating would END THE WORLD!

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:10:40 +0000

(WARNING: Mike is about to bring out one of his “pet issues” for absolutely no reason. He apologizes ahead of time.)

Of course, if we just legalized marijuana and taxed it the same way we tax cigarettes, simultaneously freeing all prisoners incarcerated for pot-related offenses, the overall increase in revenue/decrease in spending would probably be enough to bear a large amount of the funding burden. But we must protect the children.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:10:16 +0000

Yeah, my main worry about this funding proposal is that it’ll actively discourage cigarette smoking, thus causing less of an increase in revenue from the tax than what planners might expect. (Jack, do you have that stat handy?) So is the bill simply being used as a handy excuse to raise the cigarette tax? Depends on how much of a conspiracy theorist you are, and I’ve been enjoying those more than I should lately…

By: Cigar Jack

Cigar Jack — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:53:39 +0000

I read a statistic somewhere that said 35 million people will need to take up smoking to pay for this program. Not to mention the number of adults covered by this program makes me wonder exactly what defines a child in the eyes of these lawmakers. Entitlements and Pork, that is all government is about anymore and if something doesn’t change soon I fear we are all going to be in a world of hurt.

By: Zhubin

Zhubin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:49:15 +0000

I agree, general revenues would be preferable. But when our stupid government finally stumbles out of the Gilded Age and we institute universal health care, this nibbling at the tax fringes will stop.