New Tobacco Tax Weds.

[SportsFan68]

I don't know who these policy analysts are, but they're not the only ones:

Some policy analysts have questioned the wisdom of boosting tobacco taxes to finance health care for children.

The more cigarettes cost, the less people smoke. The impact is especially high among young people, many not starting at all, so I think the revenue projections will fall short. Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing that tobacco use will decline. I just doubt the wisdom of funding an important program with unreliable revenues.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD977RM3G0

. . .

Tobacco companies and public health advocates, longtime foes in the nicotine battles, are trying to turn the situation to their advantage. The major cigarette makers raised prices a couple of weeks ago, partly to offset any drop in profits once the per-pack tax climbs from 39 cents to $1.01.

Medical groups see a tax increase right in the middle of a recession as a great incentive to help persuade smokers to quit.

Tobacco taxes are soaring to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. President Barack Obama signed that health initiative soon after taking office.

Other tobacco products, from cigars to pipes and smokeless, will see similarly large tax increases, too. For example, the tax on chewing tobacco will go up from 19.5 cents per pound to 50 cents. The total expected to be raised over the 4 1/2 year-long health insurance expansion is nearly $33 billion.

. . .

Some policy analysts have questioned the wisdom of boosting tobacco taxes to finance health care for children. They argue that the fate of such a broad program should not depend on revenues derived from a minority of the adult population, many of whom have low incomes and are hooked on a habit. The tobacco industry is also warning that the steep increase will lead to tax evasion through old-fashioned smuggling or by Internet purchase from abroad.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Usually when a tax is put on an unfavored item to spend on someone's cause, its just to set up the bait and switch. The funded program will always be with us even if the tax is not enough to pay for it. If the program justified the spending of tax money, then the special tax was unnecessary.

[SportsFan68]

Usually when a tax is put on an unfavored item to spend on someone's cause, its just to set up the bait and switch. The funded program will always be with us even if the tax is not enough to pay for it. If the program justified the spending of tax money, then the special tax was unnecessary.

I thought about that, but it seemed too complicated to get across. Thanks, Suitdude.

[Bob Juch]

South Carolina currently has the lowest state tax but is raising theirs Wednesday as well.

[Weyoun]

What is more, I've often wondered if people dying from smoking actually SAVES the government money - perverse, I know. But if you don't live to 70, you don't use as much Medicare or Social Security...

[SportsFan68]

What is more, I've often wondered if people dying from smoking actually SAVES the government money - perverse, I know. But if you don't live to 70, you don't use as much Medicare or Social Security...

One of the articles I read says that lost productivity from work and impact on employer group insurance plans costs billions more than is saved by those two programs. I don't recall all the methodology, but I believe they somehow did take into account that many smokers pass on after they've impacted employers and before drawing significantly on either SS or Medicare. I realize that's apples and oranges, comparing an employer's bottom line to government programs. IIRC, they just wanted to make the point that in a lifetime, smoking does not create a savings.