How About A National Sales Tax on Cigarettes, Alcohol, and Sugary Sodas To Help Pay for Health Care

Why not tax those things that do most damage to our health and use that revenue to pay for health care?

Cigarette taxes are a regressive tax on middle class and poor, as are all sin taxes.

As is cap and trade.

And you know what, smoking has declined greatly since I've been living in NYC in 1996.

when they use cigarettes and/or tobacco products. Stop using them, regressive tax issue goes away, plus there is the savings from not making the purchase - freeing up money for vegetables.

it would be a good trade.

They're the ones who would need the most care for their subsequent health issues. It's like holding their money in trust.

I wish somebody with a better brain than I would run the numbers and see how much money could be raised.

internet would work well too.

Assuming you only taxed channels like FAUX Noize and websites like Freak Republic. Call it the "voluntary stupidity tax". If you choose to be deliberately misinformed, you should choose to pay for it.

It's called "lottery tickets".

:thumbsup:

But.... "When you play, we all win."* :rofl:

*Florida Lotto slogan

money on cigarettes, the residue of which will soon be tossed onto the surface of the earth, where the filter ends will take several years to biodegrade. Yup, that's smart, especially in light of the talk of increased tax being a burden.

Even guilty of voluntarily paying it myself once in a while. Even though the most I ever won was $50 and that was in the 80's when the scratch tickets were new here and the lotto machines were still years away.

Of course, by that same token you could say that Nevada's taxes aren't nearly as low as their residents claim. They're just paid by visitors in the casino.

...that's giving too much power to the big, bad federal government! We can't possibly do that (at least not until the Republicans are back in, right?) :eyes:

Which I think just went up. I would assume that means the money for those taxes is all ready appropriated.

Its regressive. Not good and not sustainable.

If you think that cigarettes are expensive, try lung cancer.

You promote a tax while wanting people to stop using the item you want to tax.

Good thing you aren't a policy maker. ;)

All those monies won went to "non smoking" campaigns. Not a dime went to health care.

That's why you usually see the KKK, err the Repukians, pushing crap like this. Whites pay a much smaller percentage of their income for those items so the tax is racist. Of course you know that. Your agenda is showing.

are preparing a budget, and they look at $10 for cigarettes and complain about the tax but buy the cigarettes anyway - that is stupid. Those $ could have been more wisely spent on carrots or something worthwhile.

quality papers they are ok.

I think it should be on guns and ammunition. :-)

well the guns and ammo. I already pay my fair share of 'sin taxes'. I'll pay more, but I want to hear the rest of the users howl.

Target practice might be decreased, but I'll live with it.

that are already taxed in excess of the cost of the product being taxed?

Us sinners will only put up with so much of you do gooders trying to balance the budget on our backs before we turn to other (illegal) sources for our indulgences.

How about we just start making rich people pay their fair share? Now there's a concept for you.

This argument always turns into a health lecture. It wouldn't exist if we went back to the Eisenhower-era tax structure.

big screen tv`s, etc.

A 100% sales tax on the stuff you don't buy is still not enough.

It's amazing how hard people will look for that angle.

why not start with things that the average person does not need? Better yet, how about legalizing pot and taxing the hell out of it?

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

Then tell them they can lower their tax amounts by fixing the problems with their products. If you are poorer, it might be tough but would think some who are already selling healthier products might lower their cost. And alcohol definitely should have a good sized tax. It is about time.

Can we stop taxing products that hurt the poor the most and start taxing the wealthy for a change?

Americans spend about $90 billion on tobacco products.

By my math, your idea would require a 2800% sales tax on cigarettes.

I'm sure smokers would pay $111 per pack. Problem solved. :crazy:

Look, you don't get something for nothing. Taxing unhealthy choices seems reasonable to me.

Something for nothing is the whole point of this thread. How to pay for something I need via a tax on stuff I don't use.

You don't redistribute 17% of the economy without everyone shouldering a share of the burden.

On edit;
Thanks for the post-facto edit.

"How About A National Sales Tax on Cigarettes, Alcohol, and Sugary Sodas To Help Pay for Health Care"

and tax cigs, alcohol, fast food, snacks, sugar, guns, ammo, cars, gas - how much of a tax would that take to provide basic health care. Especially if we put Medicare, Medicaid, IHS, and other state/federal money into the mix.

It's guaranteed income, instead of the diminishing returns from sin taxes.

and stop putting the burdens of society on the shoulders of the least economically blessed.

Fuck this shit of more regressive taxes. Make the corporations and the top tier pay more. We ALL do better when the middle and working classes have more spendable dollars. We are in the mess we are because the burden has shifted to the lower economic brackets while their jobs have been sent away.

Trickle down didn't. The gap between rich and middle/poor has widened. No more burden on the lower tiers. Period.

It is much simpler, in terms of the number of our fellow citizens who would suffer, to raise the taxes on the super-rich. Even raising the top rates from today's 35% to where they were in Clinton's day, 39.6% would be a great start.

Instead, we've been trained like obedient frightened kids to find ways to tax ourselves further, after we've already absorbed so much of the burden of national expenditures that benefit the super rich, like corporate subsidies and war profiteering.

but KEEP THE GOVERNMENT AWAY FROM MY CHOCOLATE!

think about it. If you started to place these taxes, people might actually quit smoking, drinking alcohol and soda and then where would the revenue come from.

Luxury taxes and taxing those that make over $250,000 sounds fine for me. It can be done with FICA and not have an annual ceiling on it.

BTW... I already pay taxes on cigarettes and in NYS, where I live, liquor and soda is already taxed as is most "junk" food.

Then, by definition, they'd be more healthy, and health care costs would decline which would offset the revenue decline.


You don't get something for nothing. You need shared sacrifice to make it work in life.

All I see is you dont like certain things, so you're willing to hurt others in order to get funded for health care, but wheres your sacrifice?

Thus, I won't over burden the health care system with my unhealthy lifestyle. I use less health care services which frees up money to be spent on services for people who need them through no fault of their own.

Its easy enacting draconian taxes if its on things you dont use, isnt it.

And I pay a hefty tax to NY for it.

because they must give these things up, we have a win win situation here. Only the rich are buying them because they can afford the taxes, the rich are paying more taxes which should make everyone here ecstatic, the middle and poor are healthier reducing their health care expense and they are now saving money that can be spent on healthier food choices.

Everyone wins.

When taxes become too high.

Most of the price of cigs is already taxes, and illegal untaxed cigs is already becoming a crime issue.

Good for you! Playing Nanny, aren't you?

about the amount of that tax - and one buys it anyway to the detriment of the remainder of the budget, then that person is totally imprudent, or foolish, or stupid, or (fill in word here.)

If it is said that a tax on cigarettes is 'regressive' because it hurts the poor, then the poor should avoid the tax by not buying the cigarettes. There. Wasn't that easy.

We want people to be healthy which means that we want to incentivize healthy lifestyle choices. Getting people to smoke less, drink less, and eat less sugar helps is a benefit to all.

To a high enough point just drives it into an illegal black market.

As it is already doing with cigarettes.

Pot is taxed with jail and worse, millions still get it.

Taxing something people desire to the point of prohibition is not usually effective.

Cigarettes are already horribly overtaxed. Seven bucks a pack in DC? I can tell you that the tax hasn't led to much new revenue, but it has been behind some new crime.

Obama already jacked up the tax on smokes, too, despite his promise not to raise any taxes at all on those making under $250K. Most smokers do.

The poor should not be smoking at all. If you think that cigarettes are expensive, try heart attacks and lung cancer.

Alcohol, cigarettes, and sugary sodas are not necessities.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/29/single-largest-cigarette-tax-hike-goes-effect-wednesday/
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=159974

Perhaps a rollback on Bush's tax giveaway to the wealthy would be in order since it was a campaign promise

Guess that was a LIE. Oh well. :shrug:

police forces instead?

I quit primarily because the taxes on smokes in NYC made a pack cost about $10. Guess what. I stopped smoking, and my health has improved greatly. I can walk up stairs without breathing heavy.

I think that people earning over $106,800 can afford a 1.45% tax on the remainder of their income, especially if it pays for a healthy public option, if not single-payer.

If we want universal healthcare, we all have to pay for it, just like we all pay for public education.

There are several ways to pay for it: direct taxation, premiums, etc.

Putting a tax on unhealthy habits is just another source of revenue, but this source has the additional benefit of lowering health care costs as well.

i already pay taxes, the cost of health care is turning out to be so low (trivial compared to the cost of the war in iraq) then i don't understand why any sane person is proposing a new tax to pay for it

all we need do is to cut back on some of the fraud and waste that's taking place w. halliburton/blackwater etc.

we do not steal the last bottle of beer from some poor drunk sitting in the gutter to pay for health care, that wouldn't work anyway

are deemed to be unhealthy and roll back the Bush tax cuts for the rich instead. President Obama thinks this would be enough to help pay for health care. What would really help pay for health care is to outlaw insurance for health care and since that money that was funneled to Wall Street through the health care industry would actually be plenty to cover everyone in the country not only with basic quality health care, but dental, mental health and vision too. When you take that 30% skimmed off the top of health care premiums and put it back into health care, it covers everyone and every health need.

is the surest way to defeat the concept of universal healthcare.

If you want universal healthcare, we all have to pay for it, through taxation and premiums, and it cannot be just the wealthy.

Taxing unhealthy habits is another form for paying or universal healthcare with the added benefit of lowering the cost of healthcare.

disproportionate to what they have put into earning it. We all have the same 24 hours a day to make money, so those who use the labor of others to make themselves rich need to have some of it taken back for the benefit of society as a whole. Those nations who do so have prosperity for all. It worked quite well in the fifties and sixties here in the USA when the top tax rate was 90%. We were a great nation then, one to be proud of, not this one of today, the one of homelessness, death by lack of health coverage, torture and wars for global dominance. The Roman Empire fell for the same reasons that we are falling now. We can change, but keeping the poor struggling with regressive taxes is not the way to do it. However, in case of health care tax, I would be willing to settle for a flat 10% from all income earned. I think that is as fair as I want to get.

mmmm'kay thanks.

I wouldn't want that even as part of a universal package.

A much better idea would be to stop subsidizing the tobacco industry and agricorporations like MonSatan (makers of high fructose corn poison) with taxpayer dollars.

and the funds dry up and people will still be sick and needing care.

eating a fiber rich, low fat diet full of organic veggies & beans & whole grains. I ride my bicycle, work out, and live a healthy lifestyle. Including beer.

I understand your point but the things you listed as doing "the most damage to our health" are not really the problem. Obesity is not only caused by sugary soda or alcohol. What about junk foods? High fat "fast food"?

The whole idea of a puritanical "sin tax" is a bit repulsive, and where would it lead? Perhaps a "sin tax" on obese folks for gluttony?

So - no.

if a person hasn't figured out by 2009 that regressive taxes hurt poor and middle class people, then what can i tell you?

how about a national tax on stupidity?

i realize if you're poor or middle class, you should not ever be allowed a moment's happiness or pleasure, but please, if you hate poor/middle class people so much then why don't you just stick with your rich buddies at the country club and talk over your plans to tax us even more THERE? keep your contempt for us out of our face, kthnx

With about $4999 of tax on each one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEMrAum7C0Q

My smokes already pay for enough in my state.

...Leaving you worse off.

Alcohol and cigs are already heavily taxed, and sales of soft drinks have been dropping and will drop very sharply if you try to tax them significantly. I LIKE diet pepsi, but I have cut my purchases heavily just because of inflation and bad times.

It's terribly bad policy to pyramid taxes for programs you really need, and there is no possible way to raise the taxes needed to sustain Medicare plus extend health care to those who can't access it now by slapping taxes on alcohol, smokes and sodas.

Healthcare costs around 2 trillion annually. Everyone needs to pay some very heavy taxes just to continue the programs we now have, much less extend coverage. With an aging population it is not possible to do it with cost cutting.

If you don't understand how too much taxation costs money, try this example:
Average tax cost on a pack of cigarettes: $2.00 state, $1.00 fed,
Cost of pack: $5.50.

Per 300 packs (less than a pack a day):
Cost: $1,650
State revenue: $600
Federal revenue $300
Income tax from workers/companies at least $50

If I raise the federal tax $2.00, in theory:
Per 300 packs
Cost: $2,250
State revenue: $600
Federal revenue: $900.
Income tax from workers/companies at least $50

But what actually happens is that sales of cigarettes drop at least 15%, so
300 packs becomes 255 packs
Cost: $1,912.50
State revenue: $510
Federal revenue: $765
Income tax from workers/companies $30-40

Plus, the people who are still buying have less excess income, and they will cut purchases of other items, which are usually sales taxable. Therefore there are additional revenue losses not shown above.

And if you still don't believe me, here's an example in Michigan from this year's federal tax increase on cigarettes, which I think was $1.00? Anyway, they saw a 5.9% drop in their cigarette tax revenues.
http://www.grpundit.com/2009/06/22/michigan-tax-revenue-continues-to-deteriorate/

However their total sales tax revenue dropped 22% over the year, and the loss accelerated month on month.

Anyway, the idea that raising cigarette taxes cuts state and federal medical costs is not true. Overall, smokers receive less retirement and medical benefits because they die earlier, so if you really wanted to balance the federal budget you'd cut cigarette taxes and let smokers kill themselves cheaply.

For alcohol, the same may not be true. Moderate drinkers live longer (especially women), which kind of defeats the purpose.

The rationale is flawed, the revenue isn't going to come in, and it isn't going to solve our problems.

First, the sales taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and soda will HELP pay for healthcare, not be the sole source of revenue for universal healthcare. Other sources such as taxation and premiums will pay for healthcare as well.

Second, I WANT THESE TAXES TO BE REGRESSIVE because the poor would be a lot better off by not smoking, drinking, and consuming sugary drinks. If the taxes diminish this behavior,then the cost of health care will diminish as well.

Less people smoking, drinking, and consuming sugar equals healthier people overall.

even though they may be having trouble making ends meet - can you not agree that there is some seriously flawed thinking there? Or dumb?

And if they continue to buy those same products even if the taxes are raised - even dumber.

Lottery tickets have always been a stupid tax, and based on my data, that's the one thing that's rising. And why did all the states pretty much put in lotteries? To tax dumb people so they did have to tax the general population.

But the smoker might be addicted, not dumb. Obviously the person must have been dumb to start, but apparently a lot of people start as teens, and everyone's stupid then.

However, the alcohol is actually healthy. Seriously, moderate drinking is highly correlated with lower rates of death. For alcoholics of course it is not, but alcohol is already heavily taxed and relatively expensive. Thus slapping more taxes on it would be likely to make the moderate drinkers consume less (raising health costs), but probably wouldn't change alcoholic behavior unless you used it to fund alcoholism treatment programs.

No, my major critique is that you are beating people up for little result, except perhaps for the fun of it. Smokers already pay very high proportional taxes, and the percentage of people who smoke is dropping. And I think most smokers do know that it is not healthy. And if not, when their lungs start to fill up with guck they'll figure it out. Therefore, whatever their reasons for smoking, unless you dump the tax money into smoking cessation programs you probably aren't going to accomplish much for people's health.
http://www.library.nhs.uk/PUBLICHEALTH/ViewResource.aspx?resID=261910
Now if we wanted to do that I'd support it because it would help people, but the idea that it is going to reduce our costs is not true. It will not, because smoking is already highly taxed and a major source of revenue. Perhaps this one fact explains why almost all the states never put the smoking payments they got from the big companies in the lawsuit into smoking cessation programs. A 16% drop in cigarette taxes was not something they could afford. Recently there are more drugs for quitting, so my bet is that if we threw that money into updated programs, we'd get at least a 20% quit rate. Apparently that ?Chantix? works for a lot of people who have failed multiple times before?

It's the same thing with gas taxes. Highly regressive, but states and the federal government have responded to the drop in gas sales by proposing tax increases and taxation by mileage and so forth. See, MONEY IS ADDICTIVE. If there were some way for states to make money off HIV-infected persons, half of them would be subsidizing bathhouses and strip bars. Your approach is toxic to public welfare. Making a behavior that is harmful to people into too much of a profit center creates truly bad results.

This reminds me of an argument I once had with someone who thought we shouldn't waste money on education programs for prisoners.

I'd like people to be healthier, but honestly, the way things are going the best way to do that is to expand food stamps.

What's the point of the tax if you aren't going to get much revenue and you aren't going to cut federal spending? I just disapprove of this sort of puritanism. Too often it is used to create programs we can't support with a spuriously attractive rationale. In the worst cases, it becomes a block to adopting programs that would stop the harmful behavior.

The soda will not work. It will not raise much revenue unless it is a very low tax, and if it is a very low tax it will not pay for much in the way of expanded health care at all. Soda sales are already dropping, and they've been dropping for years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/business/09soda.html
People are really pushed for money. When prices really started to pick up in 2005, we started to see all sorts of marginal sales drops.

Of late
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/12/dr-pepper-snapple-markets-equities-beverages.html
What has occurred is that carbonated beverage sales have risen in comparison, but really what is happening is that the more expensive drinks are being replaced by less expensive drinks. Unfortunately, a lot of people are trading in fruit juices for something cheaper. Recently I have seen soda being sold much cheaper than bottle water!! and unfortunately a lot of people live in areas in which tap water really shouldn't be drunk.

Both interesting and informative. Thanks for that.

Regards.

Funny how the US sponsors the research, but doesn't publicize the results unless it involves smoking or obesity.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/red-meat-raises-death-risk-white-meat-lowers-it-20090324-97zr.html

Read up on the study - even non-smokers who eat red & processed meats (hot dogs, lunch meat, sausages) have a much higher lung cancer rate than vegan smokers. Are you willing to give up meat to cut health care costs????

Why not stop trying to tax the poor & the fat & the addicts to pay health care EVERYONE uses? Why should I pay for some young families fertility treatments? Or sports injuries? BECAUSE if there's enough money to blow up foreign children, there's enough to give US citizens decent health care!!! Jesus this attitude pisses me off.

How about a few luxury taxes on cars & boats & vacation homes & country club memberships & private planes?

then everyone should contribute.

How about massive taxes on organically grown food, and churches that are open on Sundays?

Hope that quiets down the Nicotine Nazis.

Let us few sinners enjoy our bad habits.

He got a big round of applause. That was back in the 70s.

I don't think the "sugar tax" would get much support, but here in Canada, federal excise taxes on booze and cigarettes have been around FOREVER.

That will pay for health care.
Also end the Iraq occupation and let the Bush tax cuts expire.
That's another $2 trillion.

Cigarette taxes have a limit.
In NYC cigs are $11 a pack, but smokers circumvent the whole thing by buying from bootleggers and Indian shops.

Part of Canada's health care funds come from a VAT.

and doughnuts, and ice cream, and Xboxes, and comic books, and laptops, and birthday cakes, and pastries, and hot dogs, and pizza, and Twinkies, and DVDs, and TVs, and DVD players, and TiVos, and automobiles, and absolutely everything else UNDER THE SUN that either involves empty calories, keeps us inside planted on our asses, or allows us to get from Point A to Point B without walking or riding a bike (like a TRULY healthy person should. Right?)

Fuck it! Let's just tax everything that didn't exist 100 years ago and be done with it. What a fantastic idea! I'm sure everyone will go for it! Think of how easy it would be to pay for healthcare! Of course, no Democrat would ever win an election EVER AGAIN because we'd turn every non-perfect human being in the entire country against us, but hey, who cares about that?

Conversely, we could just remove the profit motive from the healthcare industry, nationalize it completely, and save money THAT way while keeping freedoms intact--including the freedom to not be perfect all the time. I'm sure America wouldn't go for that, though. We're well-known for loving new taxes on consumer goods, after all!

:crazy:
:banghead:

I demand a sex tax!

if people quit using them! Per the following article, it would result in 10 more years of health care per individual that quit. Bad habits actually save on medical costs. Perhaps we should tax the health nuts more since they are the ones planning to live an extra decade which increases health care costs.

Bad habits take a decade off life: study

Middle-aged male smokers with high cholesterol and blood pressure die, on average, a decade sooner than peers without any of these heart disease risk factors, according to a study published on Friday.

<snip>

The study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found that the men who faced a triple risk threat at the outset were two-to-three times more likely to have died of a heart-related problem than men free of all three risk factors.

On average, their lives were shortened by a decade, the study found.

The percentage of people who have fatal strokes or heart attacks has declined by about a quarter in many rich countries over the last decade.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/healthdiseaseheartlifespan

and enact a $3,000/year head tax on every poor person? God knows we can't tax the well-off more, proportional to their income--that would be unAmerican.

Hey, here's news: this is supposed to be a progressive site; this right-wing "soak the poor" regressive tax policy BS does not belong.

buy the cigarettes - and the tax doesn't affect you.

But what do you do if consumption of legally taxed cigarettes, soda, and booze falls, so that revenue derived from taxing them decreases? I mean, you'll need another regressive tax. A tax on ramen noodles? Microwave frozen burritos? Hot Pockets? French fries?

practices. Good eating practices leads to better health which leads to decreased need for visits to health care provider which lowers our health costs.

The only people who will be using/buying those items with prohibitively high taxes will be the rich people, so they will be paying all those high taxes which will make so many pee themselves with joy.

It's all good. Win-win.

.

with some benefits derived therefrom.

Tax cigarettes, alcohol, sugary sodas and pot.

Just go across the board and be done with it. That should generate some revenue, doesn't Canada have a national sales tax?

The largest federal tax increase on tobacco took effect a few months ago, with the revenue to go to SCHIP.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/137936.php

You should know that the government does not give a damn about our health. I am now electronic cigarette activist because government is trying to ban e-cigarettes. So are Big Pharma, FDA, anti-smoking organizations that are being paid by the Big Pharma. Government is losing billions of tax dollars on real cigarette tax when people switch over to e-cigarettes.

As we speak California is trying to ban electronic cigarettes because they're so broke they need to collect on cigarette tax. Big Pharma is unhappy because they're losing money on smoking cessation that doesn't work anyway at 95% so they're paying ASH (anti-smoking organization).

Electric cigarettes have taken people off smoking and are better for it. I smoked for 35 years, stopped 6 months ago when I switched over to e-cigarettes ... the best thing ever happened to me. No more coughs, I breathe better, no more sinus infection, no stinky smell, no more nasal drips, no more acid tummy, no more snoring.

If you want to see for yourself... go to Right To Vape.com and e-cigarette-forum.com

When you BEG government to raise tax on "sin" stuff you are asking for trouble. They are trying to push US BACK TO STINKY CIGARETTES THAT KILL BECAUSE THEY WANT TO COLLECT TAX MONEY ON IT. Those who are non-smokers need to support those who have switched over to e-cigarettes.

Likewise it goes for sweets. If you find something great that's good for you, they will ban it if they're collecting tax on candies made with HFS.

In fact, I'm guessing that alcohol actually may be one
of the reasons the Japanese are more healthy than we are.
A certain amount (hopefully not binge drinking)
raises the good cholesterol, HDL, by a few percentage points.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/344/8/549


Of course the NEJM, in reporting this phenomenon,
did not recommend that people with low HDL start drinking.
(Disclaimers: DU doesn't recommend it. Neither do I.)
But it's conceivable that it we all gave up alcohol
there might be a slight rise in the rate of heart disease.

Why do the poor always get the shaft??

vacation cottages, and all homes owned by out of staters like John McCain or of the many Saudi princes in Beverly Hills, we would solve our budget problems and then some considering how expensive real estate is in tony neighborhoods.

Let's go back to taxing uber wealthy at the rate we had during the republic Eisenhower adimin.

And while were at it, abolish the cap on social security taxes.

Sales taxes are always regressive.

In any case, many people would find the extra tax enough incentive to quit, then revenues fall. THEN what do you do about funding health care.

No, fund it through payroll taxes like Medicare and Social Security are now. Only raise the cap and make rich people pay the majority of it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.