Wow...new cigarette tax in NYC

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,076
136
If you smoke in a private area and your smoke doesn't effect me in any way, sure I'm all for it. But I don't really get upset when a substance that DIRECTLY and adversely affects others is taxed. I'm not talking about overall increased healthcare costs due to obesity (which should also be curbed), or other indirect relations - I'm saying that your smoking a cigarette affects the dude sitting next to you.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,050
3
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Juno
good, they better quit smoking.

Yeah! What right to they have to do what they wish to their body?

ever heard of second hand smoke?
ever heard of soaring health care costs?

these are the things that non-smokers are unfairly being punished for.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
81
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Juno
good, they better quit smoking.

Yeah! What right to they have to do what they wish to their body?

ever heard of second hand smoke?
ever heard of soaring health care costs?

these are the things that non-smokers are unfairly being punished for.

Another one buying hook, line, and sinker into sensationalist media and what the government is telling them.

Environmental Tobacco Smoke, while dangerous in large quantities (ex. full time workers in smokey environments), is not nearly as dangerous for otherwise healthy adults as people are made to believe. I'm not going to get into the ETS smoke aspect of things as it's been covered ad nauseum in other threads.

Cigarette taxes exceed the extra health care costs that the state incurs. The new revenues are used to make up for budget shortfalls due to excess spending. For example, the new revenues from the NYS cigarette tax increase are partially being used for children's health care.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Originally posted by: SampSon
NY is ruthlessly taking advantage of people's addiction.
The way the state handles the taxation of cigarettes is inherantly hypocritical.

Agreed. And ironically, there have already been multiple studies and reports about how the states will have to deal with the upcoming shortfalls as smokers do quit, and some of them have been quite cynical. And justifiably so IMO. It doesn't take an economist to see that eventually the states will have to start actually encouraging smoking in order to keep the revenue.
 

akshatp

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
8,350
0
76
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SampSon
Originally posted by: Kirby64
Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I bet people would change their minds about this tax if it were applied to *their* preferred addiction, be it chocolate, beer, fast food, or video games.

The difference between cigarettes and video games is that video games won't kill you even if you do play them obsessively. (starvation/sleep deprivation don't count)

As for the others, although they do cause health issues if taken in excessive, I'd venture to say that they do not cause health issues as quickly or as severely as cigarettes. (barring alcohol...)
Obesity accounts for a larger portion of heath care costs than smoking.

Fine, let's tax lardasses! In fact, I think that some companies do just that by charging them higher insurance premiums.

FAT TAX FTW
 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,713
12
56
Originally posted by: theplaidfad
Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I bet people would change their minds about this tax if it were applied to *their* preferred addiction, be it chocolate, beer, fast food, or video games.

I think it should only be applied to addictions that are a known direct link to cancer.
and cost a buttload in healthcare that the state has to cover a lot of.
 

Vonkhan

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
8,198
0
71
good! f'n smokers clogging both entrances to my office building all day
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: SampSon
NY is ruthlessly taking advantage of people's addiction.
The way the state handles the taxation of cigarettes is inherantly hypocritical.

As long as smokers sit in the same health insurance pools as me, they can pay $100 a pack for all I care.
 

natto fire

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2000
7,117
10
76
Originally posted by: Sawyer
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: RichardE
Good. People should pay more for there portion of the health care related costs of smoking.

The problem is the NYS cigarette tax isn't about covering healthcare. Before the increase, the taxes collected exceeded the extra costs per year that smokers made the state incur.

It's nothing more than exploiting an addiction and regulating a person's own personal choices through taxation.

Wow good point

Not to mention smokers die sooner and that in itself can save loads of money. The problem with health care is that it is an industry not people's habits. Don't tell that to the people that want to impose their will on people under thinly veiled points like health, clean air, etc.

Originally posted by: chowderhead
time to drive to an Indian reservation or start one.

QFT. A pack of Camels here is 2.60 or 2.40 if you buy a carton at a time. Marlboros are 2.85/2.65. There are cheaper no-name brands on some reservations that go as low as 1.20 a pack.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: George P Burdell
I hear the cigarette smuggling market is picking up in NY.

I'll bet. Even at current gas prices it's worth it to drive down to South Carolina and pick up a van load to sell. You can undercut NYC prices by $1.50 a pack and still make $2.50 a pack profit.

Cigarette smuggling for NY State was already on the way up after the last time the cigarette taxes were increased a couple of years ago. This will only drive the smuggling trade harder.

Interestingly, Chicago added a tax to bottled water recently. The city gov't didn't see the expected revenues to come in from the tax because people drove out of the city to get their water instead or got it from some other means. Same thing will happen to NY. They are taxing themselves into oblivion between stuff like this and the tax on good purchased over the internet.
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
I never really understand Democrats' love of taxation. It is human nature to reduce your tax load as much as possible. The idiots eventually raise taxes to the point that they piss everyone off, the overall tax revenue goes down, and they get voted out of office. I wonder why people have such short memories. Democrats always raise taxes, which is one reason very few Democrat presidents ever have more than one term. Clinton only did because the Republicans held congress....if it had still been in Democratic hands he would have been a one termer too.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SampSon
NY is ruthlessly taking advantage of people's addiction.
The way the state handles the taxation of cigarettes is inherantly hypocritical.

Agreed. And ironically, there have already been multiple studies and reports about how the states will have to deal with the upcoming shortfalls as smokers do quit, and some of them have been quite cynical. And justifiably so IMO. It doesn't take an economist to see that eventually the states will have to start actually encouraging smoking in order to keep the revenue.

Or maybe this will dovetail nicely with public sentiment towards legalization of other revenue sources. Pot obviously, but gambling also comes to mind.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SampSon
NY is ruthlessly taking advantage of people's addiction.
The way the state handles the taxation of cigarettes is inherantly hypocritical.

Agreed. And ironically, there have already been multiple studies and reports about how the states will have to deal with the upcoming shortfalls as smokers do quit, and some of them have been quite cynical. And justifiably so IMO. It doesn't take an economist to see that eventually the states will have to start actually encouraging smoking in order to keep the revenue.

Or maybe this will dovetail nicely with public sentiment towards legalization of other revenue sources. Pot obviously, but gambling also comes to mind.

We already have government legalized gambling - state lotteries.
 

LtPage1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2004
6,315
2
0
If they're going to get cancer and expect me to pay for their uninsured lungs in 35 years, they'd damn well better be paying a lot in taxes per pack.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
When I first started working at 7-Eleven when I was a teenager, the price of cigarettes went up from $2.32 to $2.35. One customer, when confronted with the increase, made an off-color comment about Japanese people who like to perform fellatio. I bet that guy is dead now if such a small change set him off. :Q