"Sin" Taxes
Smokers are costing society a fortune in health care costs, so let's put a 50¢ per pack tax on cigarettes to offset that. Then let's charge smokers more for insurance. Then let's sue tobacco companies to try to recoup some of these costs. And then let's add another 40¢ tax per pack because we can. Where the hell is all this money going?
Just how much does a smoker costs society?
Actually, the question should be: How much MORE does it cost for a smoker to die compared to non-smokers? And who pays for all the non-smoking illnesses like heart disease, colon cancer, or old age?
In the largest study of it's kind, it was determined that people who do not smoke still get sick and die. What a surprise! And for all I know, smokers might die faster and cheaper than the average (...the costs of old age can be pretty high, plus smokers don't burden social security as much as joggers). Or how does it compare to other self inflicted ailments like heart disease from not exercising or eating right? Why isn't there a 50¢ per pack tax on potato chips or Biggie Macs?
By the way, I don't smoke. I'm just fair. And I don't think smokers should be the only ones paying for their health costs to society.
Thou shalt not drink alcohol.
Alcohol is another popular "Sin Tax". I'm not a drinker either, but I've heard enough evidence that two drinks per day actually has health benefits. Personally, I'm trying to increase my alcohol intake specifically for the health benefits. Yet the government still play the sin tax card just so they can raise taxes. Paul Mulshine wrote a good column about it:
Confronting a major health threat involving alcohol (Column by Paul Mulshine, Star Ledger, 12/28/97) - One study projected that if drinking were abolished in America, an additional 85,000 heart attacks could be expected annually. Alcohol is implicated in only about 36,000 deaths per year, so alcohol may well save more lives than it costs.
Who do these people think they are, God?
I believe in Democracy - if a politician is bad, we can vote him or her out. Unfortunately, there's a major flaw. The government can still treat people unjustly, but it has to do it in small enough groups so there's never a majority to vote them out. And to get away with it, all they need is a catchy banner, like "Sin Tax". Sorry smokers.
Letter to the Editor
Star Ledger, 1/6/98
The cigarette tax
The only problem I have with the new cigarette tax is that we call it a "sin" tax. Since there's separation of church and state, maybe we should call it something else. How about a "personal freedom" tax? Or, since it targets a small group, maybe a "because we can" tax?
If we're serious about discouraging smoking, let's use the revenues for nicotine patches and call it a "stop smoking" tax.
If you think this tax is a good way to offset the cost of smoking to the health care system, then surely you'd favor a similar tax on junk food. Poor diet costs us more than cigarettes cost. But if you think it should apply only to cigarettes, then let's call it a "tax somebody else" tax.
Or maybe call it "just another" tax. Hey, smokers - if health or high prices aren't enough, how about quitting to cut the government off from our money? Politicians are more addicted to it than you are to cigarettes. Put them through withdrawal. Quit!
Jim Padykula