Smoking: Paying the price
Re “Tax ‘em if you got ‘em?,” Opinion, June 14, and “Taxing tobacco,” Editorial, June 17
I’m quite certain that almost every smoker will be proud to help rescue California from financial rack and ruin with every puff they take -- and another $2.10 tax per pack on top of the current tax.
And how about a little recognition, a token of appreciation for the effort -- say a Red Badge of Courage? Or, better yet, let us drive in the carpool lanes while smoking?
Now that’s a win-win.
Frederick Dickinson
Downey
Although I agreed with many of the points made in the Op-Ed article, I think the author failed to recognize that although there may be a price level at which smokers will decide to quit, their quitting doesn’t necessarily result in a loss of revenue to the state.
Even though those newly freed smokers won’t pay tobacco taxes, they will have more money in their pockets to spend on other taxable products or services.
The tax rates on those products and services might be lower than the taxes on tobacco products, but the healthcare savings from them not smoking will more than make up for any lost revenue.
Tobacco taxes are a very effective and fair way to increase state revenue and benefit society.
Don Weisman
Kailua, Hawaii
::
What you haven’t considered is the lost revenue -- in sales tax, property tax, licensing and income taxes -- that the state will experience by killing hundreds of small businesses.
In California, other tobacco excise taxes (OTP) are tied to the excise tax on cigarettes. Adding $2.10 per pack will almost triple California’s already high OTP taxes.
Because of our high tax rate, 65% of cigars are being purchased on the Internet. Although the importing consumer is liable for those taxes, California doesn’t enforce payment.
We are still reeling from a tax increase earlier this year and from the current economic situation. The additional burden you want to place on us will be devastating.
Ron Michelson
Sacramento
The writer is the owner of a smoke shop.
::
Your article about taxing tobacco products yet again is so wrong.
Smokers are a finite group of taxpayers who are shrinking daily either to death or dictums from their thinner wallets. Sacramento should not pin the burdens of child health and education on one downtrodden class of disliked citizens.
By the way, I am not a smoker, nor do I enjoy being around one. However, this group has been so vilified. Enough is enough.
Shirley Gooding
Los Angeles
::
I applaud your editorial. Ever since I quit smoking back in 1986, I have been in favor of increased taxes on tobacco.
Barry J. Stone
Culver City
::
Yes, I know “secondhand smoke kills.” Because I can no longer smoke “anywhere,” I’m not overly concerned.
Especially not when there are billions of industrial and mechanical things all about -- cars, trucks, tractors, lawn mowers -- creating far more “secondhand smoke” than I ever could.
I’ve got a better idea -- a tax of say, $2.10 per six-pack of beer or per bottle of hard liquor or wine. You said the suggested cigarette tax of exactly the same amount would generate about $2 billion? Wouldn’t this solve our economic problems overnight?
Mark F. Hocking
Oxnard
::
The dangers of smoking have been made explicitly clear, and the cost of a pack of cigarettes is already punishingly high. Addicted users have been shunned and isolated, so the point has been made. Good job.
We are in serious financial need now and might profit by another campaign -- this time against obesity.
How about a tax on those high-calorie carbonated soft drinks? That could be a gold mine, as well as another significant stab at improving the health of our citizens.
Roz Leader
Los Angeles