On April 1, 2009 the federal cigarette tax increased from 39 cents a pack to $1.01. Ouch! I don't smoke but that is so much it feels like it's going to even hurt my wallet. Obviously the new tax sets several records. Supporters claim the gigantic increase will save an estimated 900,000 lives by getting 1 million adults to quit and 2 million kids from even starting.
The unofficial name of such a tax is a "sin tax" and is hardly a new idea. TIME Magazine pointed out several interesting facts:
1787: Alexander Hamilton advocates taxing [hard liquor] in Federalist No. 12. Seven years later, the US liquor tax sparks the Whiskey Rebellion.
1864: To help raise money for the Civil War, US authorities levy the first federal cigarette tax, of up to 2.4 cents per pack.
1963: Annual per capita cigarette consumption among US adults peaks at 4,345.
2005: Nine Democratic Senators introduce an unsuccessful bill that would have imposed a 25% tax on purveyors of online pornography.
2009: Amid a public outcry, NY Governor David Paterson backtracks on plans to raise taxes on goods ranging from downloads of pornography to sugary soft drinks.
A couple things caught my attention from those statistics. First, I did not even know cigarettes came in packs in 1864. Second, 4,345 cigarettes a year per person! I guess all that smoking they do in AMC's show Mad Men is a realistic representation of the era.
Finally, I find it interesting that nine Godless, hedonistic Democrats unsuccessfully proposed a tax on porn. You think all of those righteous, God-fearing Republicans would have proposed such a measure when they were in control of the Congress.
What do you think, is it justifiable to charge a "sin tax" on harmful and addictive substances and behaviors? As an ardent Consecrationalist and proud social worker I say tax away as long as it goes to funding programs for the poor and needy such as Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, TANF, Social Security, etc. and not war or instruments of war.
However, I would like to see individual states impose taxes on vices that are popular in that particular state. For example:
- Texas should charge an extra tax on beer because only a couple cents more would add up really fast in this state.
- Nevada should charge a lot more taxes on gambling. In some countries the gambling tax is over 50% so why not there? Trust me, the billionaires and millionaires will get by.
- Utah should charge a few extra cents for every energy drink they sell. During my recent trip Heidi and I marveled at the rows upon rows of energy drinks. Sure these drinks are popular everywhere but they seem really popular in Utah.
2 comments:
It depends on ones perspective as to what qualifies for the "sin tax." I do agree that substances that lead to a harmful life should be more heavily taxed and that the tax revenues should go towards welfare programs. My argument with this is that the majority of those purchasing these "sin tax" items are those that would need the benefit of the increased tax revenue.
I do find it strange that all those evil liberals are proposing such taxes while the angelic conservatives didn't even try.
-Brian
Boy do you do your research!
Ha ha.. I got a kick out of the "energy drink tax". I TOTALLY agree though, they SHOULD increase the taxes on things that are addictive and bad for you. If it deters other from starting and encourages those who suffer to quit, I'm all for it!
Nicely put!
Jessica
Post a Comment