It's one of those hyper-divisive issues, and it's on the ballot on Nov. 6. Why is Proposition B so divisive?
Well, for starters, it involves two relatively unpopular practices: raising taxes and smoking. But here's the thing: If you don't smoke, do you really care about raising taxes on smokers? And if you smoke, are you ever going to vote for a hike in tobacco taxes?
That's what Prop B is about. In basic English, the measure would boost state taxes from 17 to 90 cents on name-brand cigarettes. For off-brands, the state tax would rise to $1.47 a pack.
In the less-plain language of the actual ballot question, Prop B would:
- create the Health and Education Trust Fund with proceeds of a tax of 3.65 cents per cigarette and 25 percent of the manufacturer's invoice price for roll-your-own tobacco and 15 percent for other tobacco products;
- use Fund proceeds to reduce and prevent tobacco use and for elementary, secondary, college, and university public school funding; and
- increase the amount that certain tobacco product manufacturers must maintain in their escrow accounts, to pay judgments or settlements, before any funds in escrow can be refunded to the tobacco product manufacturer and create bonding requirements for these manufacturers?
In the shorthand of the opponents, the measure amounts to a 760 percent tax increase, and they say that's just not acceptable. In fact, they argue that the increase would actually lower proceeds, by reducing sales.
Is that such a bad thing? Proponents such as the Rockwood Drug-Free Coalition said in a letter to the editor on Patch that the tax would "reduce tobacco use rates, and will generate approximately $283 million in annual revenue at a time when our state desperately needs these funds." The coalition argues the state's lowest-in-the-nation tobacco tax supports addictive behavior and harms the health of its residents.
In an editorial, the Suburban Journals support Proposition B for a number of reasons, including the potential reduction in the number of smokers, the increase in revenue, which can be used for anti-smoking educational programs, and the "level playing field" in which Missouri smokers pay comparable taxes to neighboring states.
That's the set-up for this week's conversation starter. Do you support an increase in tobacco taxes? Why or why not? Are you a smoker? Does that make a difference in your opinion?
Educators are sucking every hard earned dollar of Residents/Businesses by TAXING everything that is produced or sold. It will not stop at Tobacco. It is time to cry "ENOUGH". It is time to ask --Why is our public school system costing $10,000 per student while private K-12 can be had for $5,000 annual tuiitions. Thank God for this Tobacco Tax Prop B attempt! It has truly exposed the "stealing" of all of your Home-Wealth in the name of Education. I propose we split our public schools to Union Teachers and non-union wage classrooms. The time is ripe to start a petition for massive funding changes to our public schools. Our Missouri Constitution needs to be amended. (It is obsolete and never imagined Basic education would turn into the Educators enrichment Act of 1825). The time is NOW!
Would "missourian" like to direct me to America.? Let me suggest you see the History channel's current series. It's appropriately titled "THE MEN THAT BUILT AMERICA" Every tuesday night. (Vanderbilt-Rockefeller-Carnegie-FORD-JP Morgan). Missourian---You have no idea what "America" stands for. It's amazing how Railroads, Oil, Steel, finance were all accomplished WITHOUT ONE Dollar OF GOVERNMENT HELP. That is the America I relate to and "LOVE". It is that America that "You Hate", because it requires "risk" "handshake contracts" "no guarantees". All the principles of competition. See the series and really be educated on "AMERICA". You would know that it is not just a Word. My fight for the rights of all citizens is dwarfed by those who fought for their rights in the America that I Love. It is people like you that try to silence one, but will fail to silence the majority as America (all of America) moves into a new era that will crush the "dictator" styled Education unions. The Tobacco tax robbery has started that revolution.
I do not believe this Tobacco tax accomplishes any of the above. As a matter of fact, this tobacco tax increase is more likely going to be used for future Wage increases to the already very well paid educators. No one product should be singled out to support any public service. VOTE NO on this unfair tobacco tax increase.
All tobacco subsidies should be re-considered. cutting subsidies would increase Prices of cigarettes. That is exactly what should be done. The price of the product increasing is different than the Tax on the product. The increase in price will be borne by the smokers. (as it should be). Unfortunately, that is a Federal decision (not Missouri decision). Now we all should know that the federal government subsidies keeps the tobacco products low in price. Guess why? The states have more room to State tax the subsidy to their own coffers. So, Missouri could increase the cigarette tax to $2 , but the money should benefit ALL MISSOURIANS. Good job Rockwood! Love your point. But don't try to equate this subsidy with oil company subsidies. It's not the same.
Because I am.
What is a "nuevo intellectual?"
"Missourian---You have no idea what "America" stands for. It's amazing how Railroads, Oil, Steel, finance were all accomplished WITHOUT ONE Dollar OF GOVERNMENT HELP." You can reach ANY false conclusion you want if you willfully IGNORE FACTS. http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us13.htm http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html http://www.cato.org/publications/trade-briefing-paper/steel-trap-how-subsidies-protectionism-weaken-us-steel-industry "Tobacco use is a lifestyle cost for society. " You didn't answer my question about that. Could Society be tired of paying for your tobacco lifestyle?
Not only is smoking dirty and smelly, it affects everyone. Just because smoking is banned most places, doesn't mean people smoke any where they please. When I enter and exit a business I always have to walk through what an inconsiderate smoker left. When I'm driving on a cool day, I can't open my windows, because the smoke from a nearby car fills the cabin of my car, makes me stink, and agravates my allergies. And the cigarette butts that are constantly tossed out the windows of those smokers' cars? Litter and pollution! The health care resources spent on smokers affects everyone as well. I don't want to breathe the smoke and I don't want to spend my day smelling like an ashtray. The taxes on tobacco in this state will still be one of the lowest in the nation. People will still buy their smokes here. In the same vein, funding for schools doesn't just benefit the student; it benefits EVERYONE. Just because you don't have a school-aged child, doesn't mean you don't benefit from having a good (in some cases, excellent) school district in your area. If it doesn't currently benefit your child, it will benefit your grandkids, nieces, nephews, neighbors' kids. It adds to the value of your home. It benefits the community at large. We have some of the best schools in the country. There are supposed to be safeguards in Prop B. I'm trusting they will work.
Ban smoking in government buildings. Ban smoking in public places -- except the casinos, because, you know, money -- against the wishes of the public places' owners. Raise taxes on tobacco to fund stuff "for the children". "For the children." Bullcrap. It has been said in these comments that people don't like other people that smoke because they smoke. It has nothing to do with funding education. It has everything to do with eliminating smoking. Anyone that tells you different is a liar. If the forces aligned against tobacco would focus on ALL sin and luxury, they wouldn't seem to be such pricks. Go after alcohol, condoms, cheeseburgers, the casinos, or "herbal supplements". Add five cents to each bottle or can of beer and see how much money you get. Tack on 25 cents to every shot, straight, or mixed drink. Add a dime to every fast food purchase, call it "The Fat Tax". Fornicators should be punished as well. A buck a rubber. Juice heads are hurting themselves and so therefore must be taxed. Twelve bucks a year on gym memberships and $2.50 for each mega super ultra humongous sized jar of protein powder. Take your pick. Eventually the anti-smoking cadre will get their bill passed. All they have to do is cry "It's for 'The Children®'" and people will sign anything. Then they will do it again and again and again. Damned zealots.
Why single out working people to pay federal taxes for people's retirement income, disability, or health insurance? We should tax those who don't work as well! Oh, that's right -- that tax is okay because I'm not really paying taxes for other people. I'm paying taxes for MYSELF! Taxes aren't a sore subject as long as I benefit from it, because isn't that what taxes are all about? I guess you could use your argument against all taxes - we shouldn't be taxed at all for anything, because we're all such generous folk that we'll pay for other's needs of our own volition. Sure.
I was being facetious and hyperbolic. I enjoy the occasional cheeseburger. I had one this afternoon, actually. Just like the one you described. A Jack in the Box Bacon Ultimate Cheeseburger. It was blissful. Don't tell my doctor. My point was simple: If "they" want to tax things, don't tax one thing a lot, tax a lot of things a little bit. "They" would if it really was "for the children©". It's not about that. It's that "they" don't like tobacco products and "they" want to make smoking impossible without trying Prohibition II. "We're not going to stop everyone, but most Missourians do want to quit," said Misty Snodgrass, government relations director for the American Cancer Society. "This is truly about saving lives and keeping kids from ever starting to smoke." It had nothing to do with education. That was just a hook. The tax money had to go SOMEWHERE, so why not link it to children? It wouldn't have mattered; the money would have ended up in the general coffers after balancing cuts were made to education, just like the casino and lottery money. MO Legislature: "The Dept. of Education gets $200 million* from the boats and the lotto? Okay, we'll lower their general revenue funding by $200 million* and we get more money! Let's buy a puppy mill!" * $200 million is not an actual budgetary amount. It is used as a random amount for this example.
"All of the moneys from the taxes imposed by this section shall be kept separate from the general revenue fund as well as any other funds or accounts in the state treasury and shall be credited to and placed only in the Health and Education Trust Fund and the accounts created within the Health and Education Trust Fund. Any moneys credited to and placed in the Health and Education Trust Fund and any account created by this section shall be appropriated and used only for purposes which are authorized by this section and shall not be subject to the provisions of section 33.080, RSMo. The unexpended balances of such moneys shall remain in the Health and Education Trust Fund and in the particular account in which the moneys are placed, and such balances shall not revert to the general revenue fund. All interest which accrues upon the moneys in any account within the Health and Education Trust Fund shall be added to such account and shall not be credited to the general revenue fund." http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012ballot/PropB.asp As I said before, if people would actually learn about what they are voting for/against and vote with their heads more and their hearts less.... It really would have been "about the children".
The monies would have been set in a "lock box"? Great. Say the tax generated 400 bajillion dollars. The legislature would DECREASE general revenue funding to schools by ... wait for it ... 400 bajillion dollars! That would be an increase in general revenue by (again) 400 bajillion dollars. They did the same thing to get the casinos. They do the same thing with lottery funds. Schools get the same money they would have always received. It's the state that gets the revenue increase. Until you can close both ends of the budgetary loophole, all targeted revenue will -- eventually -- end up in the general revenue fund. Target a tax for schools, increase their funding. Great! Then the state can say, "Why, you don't NEED all of this other tax money because you just GOT 400 bajillion dollars from this new tax that was made just for you! So we shall now decrease OUR contribution to your budget. YAY! More money for us!" It's a scam. It was ALWAYS a scam. The proponents didn't care where the money went as long as the tax was imposed. They tied it to education and children because those are soft targets, politically. You can't come out against children; you can't come out against increased education funding (even though it ISN'T an increase); without looking like a monster. Even the press releases don't say it's for the children. It was ALWAYS about forcing people to quit smoking. PERIOD.
The tax was just that a tax on a specific item. If the state taxed Sugar for education would you vote for it? If the state taxed doctors for education would you vote for it? I grant you that the law stated "Monies collected from this tax would go towards education." What they did not state was that there would be a separate education fund to contain these monies. Nor did the law state what would happen if there was no payment of the tax by people leaving the state to buy their tobacco products. All the money collected would end in a general revenue fund which is the only fund for the collection of taxes. Jefferson City did not and will not create a separate fund just for education. That would be the only way anyone would vote a tax increase for education. However even if you have a separate fund for education you still have the problem of our Legislators and their sticky hands. Yes the money would go to education. Yours!! Our Legislators would educate the public on how to steal funds that they should have no access to. The money would never end up supporting the schools due to Jefferson City using it for all kinds of educational projects that only line their pockets. The whole thing was never "about the children" it was and will always be "a tax grab"