Posted by blood roses at 5:44pm Mar 27 '09Is the intent of the tax to get people to quit, or to fund programs? If it's the former... well, if it's the former I go back and forth on whether it's a good thing, but in any case the money shouldn't be going to fund programs (other than smoking cessation ones). Because if the tax achieves its goal (and higher cigarette taxes do decrease smoking rates) then you lose that source of funding.
If it's the latter, then I think it's bullshit. Children's health care programs are a good thing, but the cost should either be distributed evenly throughout society or fall on those who can most afford it. This way, it mostly falls on those who can least afford it. It also falls (deliberately) on those with the least social capital (both because smokers tend to be lower income and because smoking is so incredibly unfashionable)... this way they have no trouble getting support for it.
As for whether they're going to start taxing fast food... once they run out of smokers, I'm sure they will. There's already a proposed tax on pop in New York, based on the same arguments as the ones for cigarette taxes.
If it's the latter, then I think it's bullshit. Children's health care programs are a good thing, but the cost should either be distributed evenly throughout society or fall on those who can most afford it. This way, it mostly falls on those who can least afford it. It also falls (deliberately) on those with the least social capital (both because smokers tend to be lower income and because smoking is so incredibly unfashionable)... this way they have no trouble getting support for it.
As for whether they're going to start taxing fast food... once they run out of smokers, I'm sure they will. There's already a proposed tax on pop in New York, based on the same arguments as the ones for cigarette taxes.
That's the question, isn't it - blood roses