Rekindled hopes to tax snuff and chew
Friday, October 2nd, 2009
The opportunity for some Democratic lawmakers is too good to pass up; the Pennsylvania budget negotiations have provided the chance to tax more tobacco products in the name of balancing the budget.
Listen:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Some Democratic lawmakers want to extend Pennsylvania's tobacco tax to include cigars and smokeless products. Allegheny County Democrat Dan Frankel says those products are a gateway to cigarettes. He wants the new tax to discourage youth from taking up the tobacco habit.
Frankel: Forty-nine other states have determined that taxing cigars and smokeless tobacco is reasonable. It is absolutely bizarre that the state of Pennsylvania is the only state in the country that doesn't tax these items, and in the midst of a budget crisis that is the logical place to look for additional revenue.
Democrats say the new tax could raise at least $50 million. In past attempts, lawmakers from Northeast and Southwest Pennsylvania worked hard to defeat the tax in order to protect the state's cigar makers, tobacco growers as well as miners and steelworkers who are big consumers of chewing tobacco and snuff.
Pennsylvania is still operating without a budget. Part of the problem is a partisan fight over whose constituents should shoulder higher taxes. Thursday, House Democrats killed the arts tax in committee. The state's biggest and most influential arts organizations are located in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The Democrats instead proposed new taxes on smokeless tobacco and cigars. A product important to many rural Republican districts.
Representative Frankel: The idea of trying to tax families that take their kids to the museum and the zoo and at the same time subsidize tobacco companies for providing these products to our children is just insane, so I think that certainly that many of my colleagues are coming to their senses on this issue.
Frankel lead several failed attempts to extend the state's cigarette tax to include these other products.
The new tax proposal has rekindled the hopes of anti-tobacco activists like Deborah Brown.
Brown: If we really wanted to look at this tax and make it equal to the cigarette tax it would probably need to be equal to 60 percent of wholesale, but at this point we are pleased that they are considering even half of that.
Brown leads the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic. She says the proposal is a good health policy that has the added benefit of helping to close the state budget gap. Brown says taxing flavored tobacco powders and snuff will discourage use among youth, who are more sensitive to price.
I find it fascinating that this article focuses solely on one side of the issue…a Democrat's perspective and an anti-tobacco activist. To say that this article is fair is laughabale at best and for the record Mr. Frankel, PA is not the only state that does not tax cigars and smokeless tobacco (see Florida and New Hamshire). It's nice to know that our legislators, that is, those affecting changes to legislation that impacts the residents of our state, are well-informed on the topic and thus adequately prepared to make these decisions. Instead, an erroneous and somewhat childlike "everyone else does it so why shouldn't we?" comment is cited as the primary reason for taxing these items. Cigars and smokeless tobacco being "a gateway to cigarettes"? I'd like to see proof and I challenge any one of you who are unfortunate enough to read this article to reflect on that comment by Mr. Frankel for a moment and recall an instance in your life where this comment rings true.
Folks, it's time to wise up an do your own homework. The fact is that over 98% of tobacco sold in America are cigarettes. A product that over 50% of which is consumed by households with family incomes of $40,000 per year and less. Our illustrious president repeatedly claimed that he would not increase taxes on the middle class while campaigning for office yet did so immediately in the way of the renewal of the federal SCHIP legislation within one month of his being in office. I would like for someone to explain to me exactly how SCHIP will effectively accomplish its goal when the percentage of people in this country who smoke cigarettes continues to dwindle. In 1980 it was nearly 25% of the US population and today it is less than 11%. As less and less people smoke cigarettes I can't help but wonder where the revenue will come from to support these programs in the future…can anyone answer that for me?