AP Stretches Credibility On Obama Cigarette Tax Hike
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Media, Taxes
As I’ve said before, all the press ultimately cares about is conflict. They want to stir the pot because it sells papers and that’s fine. But claiming they have an inherent bias is pointless.
Yet another example…this roundabout claim that Obama is taxing those making under $200,000…
WASHINGTON -One of President Barack Obama’s campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama’s promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.
That’s right. Because taxes increased on an addictive consumable that people purchase by choice he broke a campaign promise.
Good times.
By the way, it’s been proven that the more you raise the price of cigarettes, the less people smoke. And the fewer people smoking (especially the poor), the less health care costs insurance companies will have to absorb because people can’t pay for their treatment.
And to that point, people are already tying to quit because of this tax increase.
Moving on…
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 and is filed under Media, Taxes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:42 pm
It’s a voluntary tax increase. If you don’t want to pay it, don’t smoke. Just like the Lottery, if you want a tiny chance to win a million buy a ticket, if not – don’t play.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:00 pm
“it’s been proven that ”
This is typically the kind of statement that deserves a link. But to follow the logic, the more people quit buying smokes, the less tax revenue there will be.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I’m all for tax increases on smoking honestly. Its a voluntary thing and while it can be difficult, I’ve seen even the hardest addicts quit entirely, and become healthier people for it. So no sympathy from me.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Uh oh — some needs to call the American Trial Lawyers Association and make sure the check is in the mail. Because we’ve made some pretty handsome money, much of which went to the Obama campaign, based on the argument that smoking cigarettes was/is NOT a voluntary activity. Smokers (particularly low-income & children) were suckered, duped, and exploited into medical addictions to nicotine by Big Tobacco for profit. And now we are going to turn our collective economic backs on them by taxing an addiction in which the courts have found that they were not legally responsible and ones in which we, the glorious plaintiffs bar, have reaped BILLIONS of dollars. Come on guys, why don’t we just put a big tax on government cheese to top off the insult.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Honestly, I am not especially troubled by tax hikes on tobacco.Ev en though I am an occasional user, smoking a cigar or pipe from time to time. At the same time, it is without question demonstrably true that this tax hike breaks Obama’s promise not to raise taxes of any kind on low income folks. Deny this is…wait for it…special pleading.
That doesn’t mean we need to begin hyperventilating about broken promises. But there it is, nevertheless.
Everyone is going to grade on their own partisan curve. If Obama manages to keep to what I perceive as the spirit of this promise by both keeping tax hikes minimal on lower-income folks and targeted towards folks who can bear it, I’m fine with scoring it as pretty much a kept promise.
But if this tax hike is followed by many other such hikes on consumption, even consumption of “sinful’ goods and services, those are bound to regressively effect low income folks. If Obama makes spending life substantially harder for low-income folks, then I see a broken promise, even if many such tax hikes can be construed as being “for folks own good.”
Obama has never cited a paternalism exception to this promise, so I’m not granting one should this exception become widespread. YMMV
April 1st, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Of course you don’t mind taxes on things that you don’t approve of. But bottom line is this, like the various lotteries out there, is little more than a poor tax. It’s not roundabout or a stretch–check out the statistical consumption of tobacco and tobacco products and then come back and tell me who is going to be paying more with this, the rich or the poor. Apologists to your battle stations!
April 1st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
popurls.com // popular today…
story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
April 1st, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Wouldn’t the government make more in taxes if they taxed alcohol to the extreme as well? It’s only fair right? I think the price of a six-pack should double too. They could save all the drinkers that are destroying their livers. Thank god for the government. They love and care for us sooooo much. Bless you government, I don’t know what the American people would do without you. Oh and could you do something about all these fat people walking around? Maybe tax doughnuts or something. I’m not as smart as the government so I’ll leave it up to them to decide. Thanks again government, I’ll be sure to live a long healthy life so I can pay back all the money I owe you. I promise….Love ya, mean it…PS. can we arrest people who drive Hummers? Just wondering. Gotta go to work now.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I have several friends who smoke. None of them have quit smoking or are even trying to quit. The stupid/lazy ones continue to pay for their smokes and now have less pocket change because of it. The rest have turned to rolling their own cigs because of it.
To those smokers out there who are being hurt by the tax and don’t want to quit smoking, I reccomend rolling your own. A rolling machine is cheap and you’ll save a ton of money by doing it. Not to mention the cigs just smoke better.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
I’m sure all you guys who say this is simply a “voluntary” tax would be fine with a tax on internet usage too? After all, even at $500 a day, you could just choose not to use the internet anymore, right?
April 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Its BS. So far I have quite drinking, pot, crack, lsd, cocaine, and cigarettes. By far the hardest and most painful was cigarettes. Raising the price may make more people want to quit but frankly it will not cause anybody to quit before the are able to quit. Only non-smokers and non-addicts can entertain such foolish and naive logic.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:31 pm
@ Sean Murphy, rolling your own (using tobacco) isn’t going to help costwise. The tax per pound on loose tobacco is going from about $2 to $24! You’re right about one thing though- self-rolled are much better smokes.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I would rather see a tax on self-righteous smoke Nazis who have no clue about insurance underwriting.
It has been proven that they have considerably more money than brains and will only harm themselves if they have disposable income.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Ok well if that’s the case (I Smoke by Choice) Then lets make it fair so more people not just the small amount of smokers that are taxed lets start taxing caffeine too in Coffee, Tea, Soda, and Energy Drinks its a drug that has been found to cause harm too. And that way we can raise even more tax money to bail out the rest of the world. Once all us smokers are gone you know whats next alcohol what do you say 20 bucks for a 6 pack. it sucks that the common mans vices has to pay for it all.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Did anyone actually believe his promises??
Every one of those candidates besides Ron Paul would have raised taxes on the poor and bailed out the rich.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 am
Wow; so much stupidity, so little time.
That’s right. Because taxes increased on an addictive consumable that people purchase by choice he broke a campaign promise.
Um, it doesn’t matter whether it’s something you don’t approve of, it’s a tax increase on items people making less than $250,000 use. And what did President Obama promise?
“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
I’m pretty sure he was specific about not raising any taxes in any form. Moving onward:
By the way, it’s been proven that the more you raise the price of cigarettes, the less people smoke.
And the President’s expansion of S-CHIP was paid for by….
(Cue Jeopardy Music)
That’s right, taxes on cigarettes. You remove people purchasing cigarettes and you remove the source of funds for children’s health care. You need people to keep smoking to keep the program funded.
So your argument against the Associated Press’ conclusion is this: Yeah his policies raised taxes on items that disproportionately affect the poor and middle class, but it’s an addictive habit anyway and people no longer smoking, while it will remove funding for children’s health care, is good for their health!
I haven’t seen spin that pathetic since the Bush White House tried to spin the “Mission Accomplished” banner episode.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 am
Greg – 1, Justin – 0. Justin’s statement about increasing the price of cigarettes will mean more people will quit just is not true. I am 64 years old & a smoker – one who quit for over 7 years because I thought I could get away with just one. I have never known anyone who ever quit smoking, & stayed stopped, because they were too expensive. Not even one. There is a reason it is called addiction.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 am
I say tax blogging, if it cost money to spew garbage on the internet fewer people would do it.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:55 am
“To those smokers out there who are being hurt by the tax and don’t want to quit smoking, I reccomend rolling your own. A rolling machine is cheap and you’ll save a ton of money by doing it.”
In fact, no you won’t. Taxes have increased on rolling tobacco as well, and not by the same factor. My fiancee smokes, has a rolling machine, asked a clerk today what the smallest amount of the cheapest brand of rolling tobacco costs, and she would have saved money buying a regular pack of marlboro reds. The tax on Rolling Tobacco has quadrupled the price.
I don’t smoke, but she and many of my friends do. She has quit before, cold turkey every time and it has worked, but recent stresses with school for her and work for me are causing her to basically self-medicate to handle the stress. The tax increase at this point is basically making it so we can’t really afford it. Can she quit? I have every confidence that she can, as she has done before. Should she? Well the longterm health benefits are undeniable. Will she quit? Well, yes, because we don’t really have a choice in the matter right now. This “Voluntary Tax,” as you smirking nitwits pat yourselves on the back for calling it, is anything but for the people who are having the decision made for them.
She and I and just about everyone I know proudly supported Obama in the election (and I did as a Republican, for the record) and still do largely today, but this, being as it is part of our countries obsession with demonizing tobacco smokers, is utter bull$#it. I would have less of a problem with a blanket tax increase than I do with this crap, and all the people saying its a “voluntary tax” can go fornicate a shrapnel filled rock tumbler.
Not to derail the conversation, but how does this possibly raise more Govt funding than, say, stopping the war on Drugs? Lessing the burden on law enforcement who have to arrest harmless stoners, regulating and, yes, taxing marijuana, how does that not save and make more money than this, considering how many people are “voluntarily” forced into not smoking, which as I see it, renders the whole thing a bit of a wash?
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:54 am
>Government and private research has found that smoking rates
>are higher among people of low income. A Gallup survey of
>75,000 people last year fleshed out that conclusion. It found
>that 34 percent of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were
>smokers, and the smoking rate consistently declined among
>people of higher income. Only 13 percent of people earning
>$90,000 or more were smokers.
And someone mentioned “roll your own” (aka RYO) — well federal taxes on those increased EVEN MORE — some 2,000% (from a tax of approx $1 per 16 oz of to a tax of OVER $24 per 16 oz — and the same was done with the cigarette papers/tubes — essentially bringing the final cost of a “pack” of RYO tobacco UP to the equivalent of the major commercial brands).
Why does THAT matter? Because by far the GREATEST percentage of people who already were using RYO tobacco were the LOWEST income people.
So in effect not only did Obama just raise taxes significantly on the lower income spectrum, but the HIGHEST increase (more than DOUBLING the cost of the cigarettes).
End result of this is simple — poor people will cut back on other things.
The other result is equally simple — people will begin seeking ways AROUND paying the tax (meaning gray & black market).
Apparently you idiots have forgotten the lessons of the failures of both prohibition AND the failed “war” [sic] on drugs.
I agree with the person who stated sarcastically that the government should also begin taxing all of OTHER people’s “addictions” — perhaps a $10 per cup federal tax on Starbucks coffee would be a good start? Or how about a $3 per doughnut tax on everything sold by Krispi-Kreme? Maybe their should be a $25 per drink federal tax on all “top shelf” liquor at hotels and fancy restaurants? — I mean seriously if this is about making people HEALTHIER — then we DO have both an obesity AND a diabetes epidemic going on, as well as substantial problems caused (both directly and indirectly) by alcohol — all of which are dramatically (and needlessly) raising health care and insurance costs.
And the “rich” can certainly afford to pay taxes for their “sins” much more readily than the stupid (and yes POOR) smokers.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:18 am
Reformed smokers are the worst anti-smokers. It is hard to quit – I’m like Bob from FLA….Thought I could have just one after a 4 year hiatus and was back to a pack a day within 24 hours. It’s a horrible addiction – but I will quit again. The tax isn’t aimed at scalping the current smoker inasmuch as it is aimed at preventing the young from ever starting to smoke. If you don’t like the tax, don’t smoke in protest.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 am
Bitch all you want, but they’re right. Poor people smoke more, and tobacco taxes will hit them harder.
Incidentally, this is far from the only example of Obama exhibiting hypocrisy, and certainly not the worst.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 am
Let me also raise the question of why the hell we tolerate government trying to control our behavior by manipulating the tax code?
The people are not the government’s to command.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:20 am
If the AP paid attention they’d remember Obama pledging to do this if he became president. A major part of his healthcare plan was to take measures to make people healthier including taxing cigarettes. This isn’t a broken promise. This is quite the opposite.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:49 am
Tyler, good point: one promise kept (“making people healthier” heheh yeah….) is another promise broken (tax relief for lower incomes) based on how Obama is making his presidential decisions.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 am
TylerPaul-
How is this policy going to make people healthier?
That would only happen if Obama took all the revenue from the increased taxes and used it solely to offset the health costs associated with smoking and for smoking cessation programs. Then as people started quitting, there would be reduced costs to society, so less need for the revenue.
But he is not doing this. He is using the revenue to fund unrelated programs. So, where is the incentive for the government to really want people to quit? If they quit smoking, that revenue stream will disappear! Then where would they get that revenue? So, why would the government really want people to quit?
If he wants to fund social programs he should be spreading the burden on everyone, not singling out one group. That is not fair and really a conflict of interest.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
given obesity is a bigger problem than smoking these days, as more people are dying from weight related issues than from smoking issues, why not tax fatties and the foods they eat since those foods aren’t good for you? Why not provide tax deducation for people who actually use gyms and exercise equipment. For a smoker, I coud run circles around your average fattie while smoking a cigarette.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 am
“Because taxes increased on an addictive consumable that people purchase by choice he broke a campaign promise.”
wow, you’re a moron. “addictive consumable” “purchased by choice”? seriously?
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Wow, you guys must not know _any_ poor people…
I know lots of smokers who make smallish incomes. Many of them have kids. It’s really swell that all this cigarette money is going to help get medical treatment for poor kids… that’s a good thing. Problem is, sadly (and disgustingly) that these same poor kids, who have smoking parents, will be sufferring as the direct result of this. If you smoke, you get cigarettes. Situations vary, of course, but poor or unemployed people who still smoke don’t usually strike me as the most responsible. And where will all the extra money come from to pay this new tax? Their grocery bills. They will feed their kids less, spend less money on them, directly because of this tax.
Aren’t people supposed to be seeking more individual accountability? Why are we relying on the govt to help us quit smoking? (incidentally, I smoke myself, and I’m not exactly rich. No kids, though, and I eat pretty well).
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
I smoke, have kids and insurance. Never smoked around the kids. Am trying to quit (5 days now) – doesn’t seem too bad at this point, maybe since a new aspect of the motivation is to not give the state or feds another cent! My corrupt state’s tobacco tax revenue has declined in recent years, and they will be losing much more – they just don’t get it.
What’s next? Up the taxes on “unhealthy” food?
April 5th, 2009 at 11:42 am
The only way for me is to quit smoking. This is the best for our pocket.
April 12th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I think they should tax junk food. There is so much obesity out there, I am sure they would get more money.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:20 am
The one aspect of this issue which bothers me is the tremendous hike on tax on loose tobacco. I had planned on trying the “stuff your own filtered tubes” method but that is not going to be any better now than buying manufactured smokes. If they really want us to quit then just outlaw manufactured cigarettes! But that would bring another black market illegal product into business. I think it should be illegal to smoke in the presense of children. If kids didn’t see adults smoking they would be much less prone to trying it.I’m getting seeds as soon as I can afford it.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I guess it’s all right when it doesn’t affect you. Maybe someday there will be a tax on something that you like to do and then you might start to care about something.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
one way for smokers to show their disgust with Obama’s deceptive poor man’s tax (RYO 2300% tax increase) would be to switch to ELECTRONIC cigarettes and cigars.I did and I now smoke for less than 50 cents per day AND breath better,can taste my food again,and am actually HEALTHIER than when I smoked tobacco.The E-cigar I bought cost me 90$ but now my only recurring expense is bottles of refill smoke liquid.the liquid is available for about 10$ for 15ml which is the equivalent of 1 and a half to 2 cartons of tobacco cigs.10 bucks for 2 cartons of smokes,can you beat that price by ANY type of tobacco smoking?I seriously DOUBT it.
Oh and just to let you know, I have been a pack a day smoker for over 25 years and cut back to less than 3 real cigs a day almost instantaneously when I switched to the e-cigar with ZERO withdrawal symptoms typical for cig smokers who try to quit.
The e-smoke contains less than 20 chemicals as opposed to over 4 thousand dangerous compounds found in tobacco smoke and there is ZERO partially combusted hydrocarbons (the most damaging part of regular smoke)Main ingredient in e-smoke is PG or VG polyethylene glycol or vegetable glycerin (both of which are WIDELY used in FOODSTUFFS such as vanilla flavoring and even Dr Pepper soda.You eat the stuff by the buttload daily so it must not be very dangerous.Certainly nowhere NEAR as dangerous as cyanide gas,methanol,ammonia and benzene (all found in tobacco smoke)
October 13th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Legalizing and taxing marijuana would bring in more tax dollars and SAVE millions on law enforcement budgets as well, not to mention NOT ruining millions of peoples lives with jail time and criminal records for the “crime” (my ass) of smoking a simple plant for pleasure or medical reasons.Pot prohibition is and was nothing more than big business trying to protect their massives profits in certain industries which hemp and pot would encroach upon.such as paper , hemp is more sustainable and cheaper than wood pulp for paper.And medicines pot is a better pain reliever than almost ALL prescription pain relievers which cause untold OD deaths every single day.Pot has NEVER EVER caused the death of ANYONE directly.To OD on pot, you would need to smoke nearly a TON of it in less than an hour.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Legislating morality is wrong, not to mention unconstitutional. Special taxes on tobacco. alcohol, and (in our near future) sugary drinks are nothing more than overriding personal choice and responsibility. Taxes are and have always been necessary, but they should be fair and never attempt to cause change in behavior.