Finally, an editorial in this newspaper that no one rational individual can disagree with!
Usually the only tax increases this newspaper endorses are those where voters get to make the ultimate decision -- not legislators. But a move in the South Carolina Senate to boost the cigarette tax is long overdue.
That state's 7-cent-a-pack tax, the lowest in the nation, hasn't been raised since 1977. This is inexplicable at a time when we know the damage to health that tobacco can cause, not only to people who smoke, but to nonsmokers vulnerable to secondhand smoke.
The inexpensiveness of the product also makes it more affordable for young people to start smoking -- certainly the last thing a sane society should want. Studies show that as the cost of cigarettes go up, the numbers of young people who take up smoking go down.
So where cigarettes are concerned, higher taxes can be a lifesaver. Anti-smoking activists are pushing for a 95-cent hike, but they're not likely to get that much. A Senate panel, headed by Thomas Alexander, R-Walhalla, is looking at a 45-cent tax boost. The extra revenue would be put to good use, spent on the state's health care programs, even though there is still some dispute about which of the programs it will be. In time that should be worked out.
Further complicating the issue is the House measure approved last year that would balance any increase in tobacco taxes against a decrease in grocery taxes -- thus making it revenue-neutral, as Gov. Mark Sanford has urged.
The Senate may be reluctant to go along with the balancing act, but that too should be worked out in time -- so long as it's done by the June adjournment date. Higher cigarette taxes not only produce more revenue for health care, but they also save millions on taxpayer-funded medical costs because when fewer people smoke, there are fewer health care problems for the state to deal with.
It would be shameful for South Carolina to go yet another year without making smoking more expensive.
Comments
Finally, an editorial in this newspaper that no one rational individual can disagree with!
Since we're taxing sin, why not put an extra tax on junk food. But let'snot stop there, heap some more tax on beer, legalize prostitution then tax it out of existence and tax anyone who has to go to court for any reason. I figure when we reach the $.50 on the dollar mark, we'll end sinful behavior altogether and live in a completely sinless world. What a crock!
It's not a "sin" tax it's a STUPIDITY tax. You're stupid for smoking in the first place.
It's none of your business.
I don't want to pop the balloon, and I'm a non-smoker, so I don't care, personally, what the tax is. I would just note that not a SINGLE cigarette tax--nor the states' Attorneys-General settlement funds--that were supposed to fund anti-smoking initiatives, or pay for health care for smokers treated at state expense, has gone to the program for which they were designated. Every bill of this sort has had "weasel language" to let the gov't do whatever it wants with the money, and that is what has happened. So, go ahead and raise the cigarette tax, but don't believe the part where they say, "The extra revenue would be put to good use, spent on the state's health care programs, even though there is still some dispute about which of the programs it will be. In time that should be worked out." It ALWAYS gets worked out...to be more porky gov't waste.
Signal, it IS my and everyone else's business who have to support smoker's emphezema/cancer health care when those who have no health insurance, live off the dole but can afford $3.00 a pack for cigarettes show up at the Emergenchy room or have tax payers pay for that oxygen bottle they drag around (and they ain't cheap). It is also my business when you blow tht stinking crap into the air I breathe, especailly when trying to enjoy a good meal or a drink and making me sick from your second hand cancer causing smoke.
JS, I am also a non-smoker, so don't really care what the tax on a pack is. You are right about the various states who got the settlements and like the feds with Social Security, just added to general revenue funds for more pork.
You don't pay my insurance, Jack. I don't smoke around you, so it's none of your concern. Shall I come into your home and ensure you're eating the proper foods? Seems Republicans aren't that far from Democrats when it comes to restricting rights. They just vary on what they view as a right.
jack, the problems you cite don't tend to be problems with SMOKING; they tend to be problems with GOVERNMENT. If we didn't have social programs that force us to pay for "indigent care," then you would not be paying for cancer/emphysema treatment for anyone but yourself. As far as second-hand smoke is concerned, your local government makes it ILLEGAL for, say, a restaurant to construct a structurally separate smoking room, or for an employer to likewise isolate smokers from non, INSIDE a building. For that reason, smokers end up going outside, creating the wall o' smoke you're walking through. I have a severe allergy to floral-based women's perfumes; every time and old granny walks in the restaurant, I'm guaranteed an evening of itchy skin and nausea. Do I get to insist on a non-perfume table? No... I was perfectly ok with the mandated smoking sections, and I thought that the logical next step was to isolate them, rather than eliminate them. Stupidity builds on stupidity...besides, the way they keep ratcheting up the taxes, I feel like I should buy Signal a pack just to help fund...what is it these days? Battered women's shelters? "Bring a child to WIC Day"? Whatever...
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
