Captain's Quarters -

Democrats and reason have long ago parted ways.

The linked article says the proposed tax is 53% with a maximum cap of $10.

That's obviously still a lot, but I think the captain's description does not quite capture this accurately. My reading says the cost of a $5 cigar would rise to $7.65 and not to $15.

Here's the quote:

"Cigarettes, which accounted for more than 95 percent of tobacco tax collections last year, are the main focus of the bill. Federal taxes on a pack would jump from 39 cents to $1.

But the legislation has dragged cigars along for the ride. The industry operates under a 4.8 cents-per-cigar tax cap.

Under the proposed bill, taxes on "large cigars," a category that includes all but the tiny cigars sold in 20 packs like cigarettes, would rise to 53 percent.

A U.S. Senate version of the bill under consideration today in the Finance Committee sets the maximum tax per cigar at $10."

Dishonesty, how about the fact that these health nazis are taxing tabacco based on the premsie that tabacco is evil yet all the while people who have never smoked are still dying of lung cancer.

My father, who spent his entire adult life believing that eating all the correct foods, not smoking, exercising regularly, daily meditation, having bi-annual health check-ups would keep him alive almost forever and he was quite arrogant about those who didn't follow the correct way to live often ridiculing fat people or smokers for being, in his words, so ugly. God bless his soul, he died at the age of 69 just two months short of his 70 birthday from stage four terminal lung cancer which had overwhelmed his mind and body within three months of diagnoses. He thought he was going to live forever because he believed in the health nazis.

Beverly Sills just died of lung cancer and she never smoked either.

So did Christopher Reeve's wife, she died from lung cancer without never having smoked.

What is so tragic about this dishonest health nazi campaign is that we do not know how many people who died of lung cancer 'caused by smoking' were not going to die from lung cancer anyway.

Because of this dishonesty lung cancer funding is at the bottom of the barrel motivated by the health nazis want us to believe that only smokers die from lung cancer.

What is striking to me is that my mother smoked, never went to the doctor and yet she lived longer than my father, than Beverly Sill and Mrs. Reeves did.

And they think they started a war with the whole "Fairness Doctrine" bit.

Rush is going to go ballistic!!!

I deem this the Rush Limbaugh tax.

I's smells donkey stink. Ware's my shootin' iron?

If they set their sights on a similarly outrageous beer tax, I will go straight to the hardware store, buy a pitchfork and a torch and walk the three miles to the Capitol.

First they came for the cigarette smokers and hit them with higher taxes, but I didn't complain because I don't smoke cigarettes.

Next they came for the alcohol drinkers and other "sin tax" sinners but I didn't complain because I rarely do those things.

Next they came for the cigar smokers but I didn't complain because I don't smoke cigars.

And when they come after things I do use, such as gasoline, well what then?

It's the principle of the thing. Democrats must be stupid enough to think they can implement a 53% increase in taxes and that people won't change their behavior (anyone remember the luxury car tax and yacht tax?). They're trying to expand an entitlement program funded by taxes on smoking. What happens when people don't smoke as much because the prices increased dramatically? How is that fiscally responsible?

Remember the tax congress passed back in the '80s on luxury items such as large-ish boats and nicer cars? The net result was people deciding they simply won't buy those items because of the tax, and many manufacturing workers in those industries found themselves out of a job as a result. Of course the irony is that tax revenues after the new tax actually decreased from before the tax. I know that congressmen aren't entirely retarded, but can't they understand simple economics?

Sounds like it's time for another Tea Party!

syn, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your parents.

Anecdotes like this are compelling, but they are not scientific. I'm reminded of that old quote: "the plural of anecdote is not data".

Here's an idea. Maybe the Democrats can legalize marijuana and cocaine, tax the heck out of it, and then finance healthcare. Some will give up their cars, their house, their retirement savings, and their family to help the government. Wouldn't that be grand?

Maybe not.

As The Beatles once penned:

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat,
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

> What happens when people don't smoke as much
> because the prices increased dramatically?
> How is that fiscally responsible?

I agree that makes this proposal pretty silly. If Democrats really want to fund children's health care, they should tie it to a sustainable funding stream.

I am thinking a $10 per cigar tax would make smuggling a very attractive venture. Another opportunity for organized crime?

"Another opportunity for organized crime."

Good point. Since the Democrats are pretty much driven by the unions, who are pretty much driven by organized crime, why not create another smuggling opportunity, exactly?

How much does the mob make on black market cigarettes? Since New York raised the cigarette tax, the mob has made millions.

There is a method to the madness. Democrat politicians in the pocket of the mob.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of this whole thing where the states have gotten in bed with the tobacco companies as co-conspirators to make money.

Every time there is news of a possible new jury award of billions of dollars, the states go into a panic about their revenue loss. If that is not the definition of a co-conspirator, then conspiracy should be stricken from the law books.

It's time for a 10 year plan to end all efforts by the states and federal governments involved with the production of tobacco products. Put tobacco in the same slot with marijuana. Let people grow it in their own back yards with no sale permitted (that includes donations).

What dya expect from the Great Fascistic Nanny State?

I haven't figured out yet which is worse: Dem pandering and pimping, or the underclass who slurp it up?

Anyone want to guess WHY the underclass ARE the underclass?

I haven't figured out yet which is worse: Dem pandering and pimping, or the underclass who slurp it up?

Anyone want to guess WHY the underclass ARE the underclass?

Here's a different perspective: as the token liberal for today, I want higher taxes for government services. I do NOT want higher taxes on specific items that are seen as 'sinful'. Every time I go to the liquor store to pick up some beer, I'm paying some outrageous tax rate because some holier-than-thou bastard has decided I'm up to no good with it. Same with the cigars - that's bogus.

Of course, the other side is - particularly with cigarettes - is that you're paying for the massive costs people who choose to smoke incur on the rest of us. It's never really been all that clear to me where to draw the line on these various sin taxes, how much is rational and how much is emotional.

syn: your specifically chosen anecdotes are statistically insignificant. This is why we do scientific studies involving thousands of people.

I have contacted my Congressman and asked him to oppose this legislation. Here is a link for the bill. Check out page three so you can be specific with your representative.

http://www.house.gov/jct/x-43-07.pdf

Keep your grubby hands off my Padron 3000 Maduros.

Mark T,
Two points:
first, while there is a percentage structure for a "cigar tax", the establishment of the $10/per cap will become the defacto amount, and second, the lists of nonsmokers w/lung cancer are examples, not anecdotes, thus are perfectly good sources of data.
J

Oh, and to the other poster - what exactly (and I mean exactly - no advocacy numbers) are the "massive costs incurred... on the rest of us"??

jeffk....what about my health insurance? If I pay for my own insurance, why do I have to also pay taxes to support the healthcare of people who didn't? You could argue that health insurance is impossible to get after a certain age, but that has more to do with the govt monopolizing the industry after a certain age. At some point, the personal responsibility of the smoker has to be taken into account, so stop trying to pick my pocket because someone else isn't as responsible as me.

And as for the examples pointed out by syn, maybe you didn't notice that they were extremely famous people. How many not-so-famous people have similarly died of lung cancer without ever picking up a cigarette or a cigar? If you want to answer this question somewhat scientifically, the first question you have to ask is what is the ratio of people who are as famous as those 3 examples to those who aren't? Just spit-balling here, but I'd say they were at least one in a million, wouldn't you? If that number holds, we have at least 3 million people who have died of lung cancer who never smoked and weren't as famous as syn's examples. You, on the other hand, just dismissed them as irrelevant. Why?

you're paying for the massive costs people who choose to smoke incur on the rest of us

Actually smokers pay far more in taxes than they consume in government services.

Not only do they pay more money in, since they die younger they end up taking less back out. They are pretty much the ideal citizen from the governments standpoint, which would much prefer it if everybody dropped dead at age 65.

Regarding the plural of anecdote - yes, it is data. An anecdote, assuming it is true, is a datum. The plural of datum is data.

Ed, you really ought to correct your claim that the proposed cigar tax would result in a $5 cigar costing $15, when in fact it would cost $7.65. For a cigar to be taxed $10, it would have to cost at least $18.84 before tax. For a bit of perspective, the current tax on large cigars is about 21%, which means cigar smokers are already paying $22.75 for that $18.84 cigar. Paying six more bucks would be significant, but it's not nearly as big a rise as you're making it out to be.

If that number holds, we have at least 3 million people who have died of lung cancer who never smoked and weren't as famous as syn's examples.
Wow, that was spectacular. I'll just leave that alone.

but that has more to do with the govt monopolizing the industry after a certain age
Gosh, you're right, what the insurance industry really wants is to insure old, dying people, but that pesky government won't let them.

Actually smokers pay far more in taxes than they consume in government services.
Now that's actually a very good point - and it partially, if it's correct, answers my question about whether they should be taxed as high as they are.

The plural of datum is data.
Right. And datum isn't significant by itself.

Color me cynical, but I think that this is all about spite. Rush smokes cigars. Ahhh-nold smokes cigars. Fred smokes cigars. The cigar is a popular symbol of the uber-rich. If we lived in another age, the dems would be trying to slap a huge tax on tophats and spats.

SD,
if indeed the cap (per the proposed legislation) is $10/cigar, do you really seriously think the taxes will stay at the staggered levels also found in the legislation?
If so, I've the proverbial bridge to sell you...

J

"datum isn't significant by itself."... hope you're kidding, right?

No, I'm absolutely not kidding. One data point is utterly and completely meaningless, other than to say, "not 100% of people who smoke will die of a smoking related illness". That is all it says - how completely earth-shaking.

docjim505, given that cigarette taxes would be raised as well, it's not spite but just making sure there isn't a loophole that cigars could slip through.

Jess the $10 cap on the proposed cigar tax only means that any large cigar with a cost over $18.84 would be taxed no more than $10. It's as simple as that, really.

Sd,
No, a $10 "cap" means that in short order, the entire supply of that good at any price point will be taxed at $10 per item. It's as simple as that. It really is. Why is that hard to comprehend?

And jeffk, you do realize that then negates any assertion of a unified definitive link... and that may be somewhat earthshaking to mindless advocacy. Then again, low level, poorly constructed analysis has long been a hallmark of some advocates.

J

jeffk,

and those scientific studies involving thousands of people have shown that second hand smoke doesn't kill anyone.

As syn noted in his example, lung cancer generally kills pretty quickly.

Other ways of dying take a lot longer and cost a lot more.

There is a cost to cigarette smoking, without a doubt, but it is only a tiny fraction of the numbers put forth by anti-tobacco advocates.

$5 + $7.56 = $12.56.
That's not very far from $15.

As usual sfdud, you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

you do realize that then negates any assertion of a unified definitive link
No, because when you study thousands of datum, data, then it matters.

and those scientific studies involving thousands of people have shown that second hand smoke doesn't kill anyone.
Not talking about second hand smoke.

you do realize that then negates any assertion of a unified definitive link
No, because when you study thousands of datum, data, then it matters.

and those scientific studies involving thousands of people have shown that second hand smoke doesn't kill anyone.
Not talking about second hand smoke.

MarkW, let's do the math:

The proposed tax on large cigars is 53%. The cost of a $5.00 cigar is $5. 53% of $5 is $2.65. So when you add $2.65 to $5, the answer is $7.65 for the cost after the tax is added in. Seems to me that it's Ed and other here who are trying to make a mountain out of molehill by claiming the cost of a $5 cigar after tax is $15 or even $12.65... :-)

Ed,

The purpose of any Congress in raising taxes is rarely revenue. The real purpose is almost always to raise campaign contributions by selling tax breaks. Tax increases provide Congress with something to offer - tax breaks - in exchange for campaign contributions.

And this is bi-partisan.

you do realize that then negates any assertion of a unified definitive link
No, because when you study thousands of datum, data, then it matters.

and those scientific studies involving thousands of people have shown that second hand smoke doesn't kill anyone.
Not talking about second hand smoke.

Cigars are a recreational expense. Does anyone honestly believe that raising the price by 54% will have no effect on consumption? If consumption goes down - as it certainly will - then the projected revenues will be less than forecast. Only an economic illiterate would believe that a simple static analysis (tax increase automatically meaning a proportional increase in revenues) applies.

At the same time, how many legal businesses like cigar stores will close due to decreased sales? Closed stores equals lost jobs - just as what happened after the luxury goods tax some years ago. Likewise, how many cigars are made in the US (I have no idea because I don't smoke)? It isn't hard to envision decreased sales by these companies, leading to more lost jobs and decreased business tax payments. Lost jobs and decreased business profits mean decreased tax revenues - just the opposite of what they claim they want - and they propose this "windfall" will be enough for greatly increased entitlement spending? Nuts.

you do realize that then negates any assertion of a unified definitive link
No, because when you study thousands of datum, data, then it matters.

and those scientific studies involving thousands of people have shown that second hand smoke doesn't kill anyone.
Not talking about second hand smoke.

What is truly scandolous here is the nature of the SCHIP - the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Hillary Clinton and other liberals in Congress are seeking to expand.

Medicaid is the US health care plan intended to make sure that “the poor” get access to healthcare. It is jointly funded by the Federal Government and the states. In FY2005, Federal and State governments spent $305.3 billion dollars on this program.

Incidentally, that is $1,017 per year for every man, woman and child in the US. However, since it is restricted to the 52 million Americans with the lowest income, it actually works out to $5,872 for each person in this group -- or $23,487 a year for a family of 4.

This, however, was not enough for our plunder-happy politicians. The Clinton administration and Congress in 1997 enacted SCHIP -- the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. It’s goal is to provide health insurance for children of the “nearly-poor”.

What constitutes the “nearly-poor”? It varies from state to state. But at present, on average you qualify for this program if your income is $40,000 a year or less. Furthermore, there is no limit to the number of children you can put on this program.

In the state of Georgia where I live the income limit is a bit higher: you can qualify with an income up to $46,000 a year. Not surprisingly, families are rushing to sign up for this program and so its costs are rising. Many politicians right now are arguing for still more spending on this program. It’s currently costing about $25 billion a year, but rising rapidly.

To drum up support for increased funding for this program, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently ran an article on what they described as a typical family that benefits under SCHIP. Here is what the article revealed:

- The family moved here from another state because Georgia’s income limit was somewhat higher.
- The family had a combined income of some $60,000 a year before they moved here.
- After they moved here, they took new jobs with a combined annual income of -- you got it, $46,000 a year. The father freelances as a “roving pastor” so he can control his income to keep it where they want it.
- When the family first moved here, they had one child who is autistic and needs expensive medical treatment. Since moving here, they have had two more children and have a third on the way. All four children are enrolled in the SCHIP program.
- They own a home in a nice, north Atlanta subdivision. They have two late-model cars, an SUV and a pick-up truck.
- They say they have tough time “making ends meet”.

Needless to say, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was surprised when this article failed to generate sympathy for the program and instead generated a storm of angry letters from taxpayers like me who are sick of footing the bill for other people’s lives.

But that’s not the truly infuriating part. Right now, Democrats in Congress, led by Hillary Clinton, are pushing for a big increase in funding for this program. They want enough funding to change the eligibility rules so that people earning up to $87,000 a year can put their children on this program.

$87,000 a year. It’s noting but naked plunder, plunder of the upper income taxpayers to buy the votes of those making just a little less.

And then the media has the gall to run this headline: “Bush Trims Medicare, Medicaid Spending”.

You can read the story here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/08/politics/main1299212.shtml

Buried deep in the story are the actual facts:

President Bush's proposal for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 asks Congress to trim Medicare spending by $35.9 billion over five years, allowing the program to grow at a rate of 7.7 percent instead of 8.1 percent currently projected.

People who don’t read beyond the headlines, go away with the impression that we are “gutting” these programs when in fact we are growing them beyond all possible reason and with no justification other than the power-lust of politicians seeking re-election.

"Remember the tax congress passed back in the '80s on luxury items such as large-ish boats and nicer cars? The net result was people deciding they simply won't buy those items because of the tax, and many manufacturing workers in those industries found themselves out of a job as a result. Of course the irony is that tax revenues after the new tax actually decreased from before the tax. I know that congressmen aren't entirely retarded, but can't they understand simple economics? "

I remember it well. This type of tax is called a regressive tax and is used to modify behavior by increasing the cost of the behavior.

In the '80s, the luxury tax (Tax the Rich Campaign) had no effect except to destroy the domestic pleasure craft industry. The tax did not apply to craft built offshore. It was a boon for foreign manufacturers.

Secondly, it did not produce the projected revenue, but that did not stop Rostenkowski (D-IL, former Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee) from spending the ANTICIPATED monies before they were received. In effect, the tax garnered some votes from the toothless-wonders of the country, but ended up as a cost item to the Treasury, meaning my wallet, in the form of welfare, unemployment, and other "just got laid off" costs for the US pleasure craft workers.

Same thing is going to happen from this tax. They will spend the $35-50 billion first, then act shocked when the revenue doesn't materialize.

Politicians love to tax and spend the hard earned income of ordinary Americans and using the image of little children suffering is very effective in persuading the people to accept that tax burden. The problem is, tax increases never achieve the benefits the politicians promise when purposing and implementing those increases. I guarantee you that, even if this tax is implemented, it will only be a short time until the health care nannies cry out for more funding "for the children" and call for yet another tax increase somewhere.

Case in point: All the massive increases in cigarette taxes over the last twenty years, in combination with the tens of billions of dollars the states have coerced out of the tobacco industry via class action lawsuits, were suppose to provide funds to cover the "rising cost of tobacco related health care issues" and lower the number of actual smokers which, in turn, would reduce the cost to society for treating their tobacco related illness. Less smokers equals less illness, isn't that what they said?

Fast forward twenty years: None of that happened, apparently. Even tho less people smoke now than 20 years ago we're told that the costs to society keep rising and more and more people are in need of government supplemented heath care coverage as they are supposedly becoming ill and dying in ever increasing numbers, due, in part, to tobacco. All the promised benefits these taxes and lawsuits were supposed to deliver never materialized. Lives were not saved and the costs to society did not fall. It is apparent that ether the theory that an increase in tobacco taxes will reduce consumption and lower the cost to society is false or someone lied about the connection between tobacco use and health care costs. I personally believe it is the latter and we were told a bunch of lies.

If the past twenty years is any indication, we're doing everything backwards. Perhaps we need to remove all taxes on tobacco and other health-related products as this could actually lower the health care costs tremendously and save millions of lives each year.

Mark T is correct in that the CAP is 10 bucks. That should be clearer. But the tax will go from roughly 2% to 53%. So, unless you smoke a 20 dollar cigar, you won't necessarily pay ten bucks. That being said, that is STILL unacceptable. I love my cigars.

My wife and I decided not to have kids simply because we didn't want to have to make the financial sacrifices necessary. When you read further in the article you'll see this money is intended for kids who AREN'T POOR ENOUGH FOR MEDICAID? So, if they aren't poor enough for Medicaid, they have working parents right? So why am I making the sacrifice for their kids? Looks like my I'm going to have to make the financial sacrifices for kids after all.

As a retailor of cigars in a state with a 30% tax on cigars. This means a 250 dollar federal tax plus the wholesale price of the item 100 a box. This means for me to bring in a 100 dollar box I now pay 130 with state taxes and I can barely make it now. With this 10 dollar a tax I would be into the same box for 455 before I get to mark the item up.

The purposed tax on cigars to fund child health care is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rule in Butler v. U.S.(1936) THAT YOU CANNOT TAX ONE GROUP FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER. If this tax goes into effect it will have to be to improve health care for all of us not just kids.