Tax void left by non-smokers ... hmm, wonder how they can fill it

[TreyWilly]

Linky

[Lottery Larry]

[censored] politician- he'd better have been misquoted:


"State Sen. David Tomassoni, a Democrat who opposes a statewide smoking ban, said he worries about the lost tax dollars.

“The taxes on smoking are being used to fund education, they’re being used to fund health care, they’re being used to fund real things. Now, if we eliminate smoking, does it mean that those things go away?” Tomassoni said"

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] politician- he'd better have been misquoted:

[/ QUOTE ]

I've written for a newspaper for seven years. In my experience, when a politician (sports figure, whoever) says he/she has been misquoted, 9 times out of 10 it's because he/she didn't think before he/she spoke. These people know they'll get at least some leeway by blaming the press, because everyone hates the press.

FWIW.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

How much is the tax generated from cigarettes compared to the amount the government spends on smoking-related health problems, clean-up, whatever else?

[rutang]

it's a very profitable ratio, if considered correctly. "deadbeat" smokers who provide a burden on the rest of the country with thier health care cost a larger amount of money while they are alive, but they cost less per capita than deadbeat non smokers, who are a burden on the public health system for a much longer time, because they live longer, and it doesn't get cheaper as you get older.

[mattnxtc]

See now this is a perfect situation in which poker can thrive...they need another "sin" to make up for the fact that people smoke less....Regulation of poker would provide ample money to help cover the difference or at least close the gap. But hey who believes teh government actualy cares about its citizens

[jay1313]

It all depends on who you want to believe. Smoking 'cost' estimates have ranged all over the board. Smoking is linked to increased absent days from work, a cost to society although not necessarily a tangible one. Higher health care costs, smokers go to the doctor more and get lung cancer.

On the other side, smokers die earlier, reducing the cost of long term health care. Smokers get cancer, die, and are buried, they do not linger for years in multiple hundreds of dollars a day nursing facilities.

For more non-tangible costs. Smoking wrecks clothes, thus forcing smokers to buy more clothes, helping the economy. Smokers pay huge amount of taxes in cigarette taxes. Although the amount states raise in taxes supposedly do not cover the actual annual cost of smoking. Minnesota and other states have been hard pressed to show that the amount of the tax collected (not to mention to huge settlement received from the tobacco industries) does not cover what the state actually expends in tobacco health related expenses. Since most smokers have health care coverage, private insurance companies are the ones paying the cost, not the state. The states are showing a net profit in the tax collected versus the acutal amount the 'state' actually pays.

What we do know, is that a state smoking ban will cause some small bars to close, whether that is a good thing or not can also be debated. But the argument that a smoking ban will protect workers from 2nd hand smoke is specious at best since the protected workers will be now be unemployed and the state will have to pick up the burden of unemployed people who will also have the psychological issue of being depressed.

So the state loses business tax revenue, cigarette tax revenue, charitable gambling tax revenue, payroll tax revenue, property tax revenue and gains an empty building, healthier unemployed people increasing longer term health care cost and decreased revenue to cover it.

Not to mention the fundamental taking of yet another right of private citizens.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fundamental taking of yet another right of private citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I view this from a different angle: It establishes the right of private citizens to enjoy bars and other public buildings unmolested by the foul air that results from smoking.

[Unabridged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fundamental taking of yet another right of private citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I view this from a different angle: It establishes the right of private citizens to enjoy bars and other public buildings unmolested by the foul air that results from smoking.

[/ QUOTE ]

private owners can ban smoking anytime they want, they should be able to allow smoking if they want to. public (government) building already don't allow smoking.

[flafishy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fundamental taking of yet another right of private citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I view this from a different angle: It establishes the right of private citizens to enjoy bars and other public buildings unmolested by the foul air that results from smoking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know many bars that are public buildings. Should be up to the business owner whether they allow smoking or not, and it's your choice whether to enter or not.