Where there’s smoke, tax it

Re “The Proposition 86 poor tax,” Opinion, Oct. 28

Of all the bad reasons I’ve seen to vote against Proposition 86, the idea that it would impose a regressive tax on the poor -- the position of Andrew Chamberlain and Patrick Fleenor -- has to be the strangest yet. A disproportionate number of smokers are poor, are in poorer health, are less likely to be insured and have more difficult access to medical care. For me, an emergency physician who sees the ravages of smoking on a poor population, any proposal that discourages the habit while paying for the healthcare of the poorest among us is a no-brainer.

JONATHAN D. LAWRENCE

San Juan Capistrano

*

Chamberlain and Fleenor deride Proposition 86 as unfairly targeting the poor, who smoke in disproportionately high numbers. I submit that all taxes are unfair to someone, and it’s impossible to develop a tax structure that everyone considers equitable.

The purpose of any tax is to generate revenue for the government, not necessarily to attach a punitive monetary burden on those who place a similar burden on society -- in this case, the cost of smoking. Cigarettes are a luxury, period. No one, rich or poor, needs to smoke in order to live. Alcohol is also a luxury, as are jewelry and oversized SUVs. All of these things should carry a luxury tax. If you want it bad enough and can afford it, then pay the tax man on your way out the door. The only problem: The industries that sell these items will claim that the taxes are unfair.

ARNOLD W. RICHARDS

Downey

*

I agree that Proposition 86 is a “poor tax.” It is extremely regressive, and regressive taxes are not beneficial for all. However, I support Proposition 86 because it might, just might, encourage our college student daughter to quit smoking. As Tip O’Neill said, “All politics is local.”

JOEL H. GOODMAN

Santa Ana