Tax Update…
Cigarette Tax Fails to Gain Traction
March 12th, 2012
By Samantha Wright
BOISE, Id – An attempt to raise Idaho’s cigarette tax was snuffed out today in the Idaho Legislature.? Despite pleas to save lives and money, lawmakers objected to higher taxes and the effects on local businesses.
Heidi Low of the American Cancer Society led the charge.? Speaking before the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, she proposed raising the cigarette tax by $1.25 per pack.? Supported by a coalition of 24 other groups, Low said the goal would be to keep kids from smoking.
Heidi Low “You will prevent 12,400 youth from ever becoming addicted tobacco users and 9400 current smokers will quit.? This is gonna save Idaho lives and money.? 6600 will no longer die a premature death because of long-term tobacco use and in the long-term health care savings in Idaho, is over 400-million dollars.”
Lawmakers debated raising taxes and the health effects of smoking. Here’s a sample of how that debate went:
Lenore Barrett “If you don’t want folks to smoke, ban the product, make it illegal, send smokers to jail and pay for their rehab like we do with other addictive drugs.”
Vito Barbieri “I’m pretty convinced this legislation will hurt businesses in my district.”
Cliff Bayer “This does hit a certain sector, blue collar workers, veterans, fixed income folks, with an over 200 percent tax increase that I can’t support.”
Dick Harwood “My mother smoked for 80, 82, 83 years, something like that, she was in pretty well health her whole life.? Just because you smoke doesn’t mean you’re gonna be ill.? I know the statistics show that different, but not everybody’s that way.”
Those were Republicans Lenore Barrett, Vito Barbieri, Cliff Bayer, and Dick Harwood.? They voted to leave Idaho’s cigarette tax alone… keeping it at 57 cents a pack.
Heidi Low of the American Cancer Society led the charge.? Speaking before the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, she proposed raising the cigarette tax by $1.25 per pack.? Supported by a coalition of 24 other groups, Low said the goal would be to keep kids from smoking.
Heidi Low “You will prevent 12,400 youth from ever becoming addicted tobacco users and 9400 current smokers will quit.? This is gonna save Idaho lives and money.? 6600 will no longer die a premature death because of long-term tobacco use and in the long-term health care savings in Idaho, is over 400-million dollars.”
Lawmakers debated raising taxes and the health effects of smoking. Here’s a sample of how that debate went:
Lenore Barrett “If you don’t want folks to smoke, ban the product, make it illegal, send smokers to jail and pay for their rehab like we do with other addictive drugs.”
Vito Barbieri “I’m pretty convinced this legislation will hurt businesses in my district.”
Cliff Bayer “This does hit a certain sector, blue collar workers, veterans, fixed income folks, with an over 200 percent tax increase that I can’t support.”
Dick Harwood “My mother smoked for 80, 82, 83 years, something like that, she was in pretty well health her whole life.? Just because you smoke doesn’t mean you’re gonna be ill.? I know the statistics show that different, but not everybody’s that way.”
Those were Republicans Lenore Barrett, Vito Barbieri, Cliff Bayer, and Dick Harwood.? They voted to leave Idaho’s cigarette tax alone… keeping it at 57 cents a pack.
====
Comment from NL Reader:
Heidi Low of the American Cancer Society said, “You will prevent 12,400 youth from ever becoming addicted tobacco users”?
Really?? How come on Nov. 30th the President of the American Medical Association, Dr. Peter Carmel, said, “Despite tremendous progress in enacting smoke-free laws and higher tobacco taxes to discourage tobacco use, the United States has seen smoking rates, especially among teens, remain flat with slight increases in cigar and smokeless tobacco use among teens and young adults.”
So who’s telling the truth here?? The activist pushing the current tax increase or the president of the AMA actually trying to analyze the problem of reducing smoking among youth?
There’s been new news out recently about the massive increase in binge drinking among teens as young as 13 years old.? Using cigarette tax logic, and imposing similar tax rates over product price, we should be moving toward taxing beer at about an extra $20/six-pack, and about the same extra for a quart of the cheapest vodka or wine.? Alcohol is *TRULY* “one of the most addictive drugs” out there: it’s one of the few that has withdrawals so severe that cold turkey can literally KILL people.? If anything, alcohol should be taxed at a HIGHER rate than tobacco if we’re really using price to control youth usage.
Give the “anti-drinkers” the same hundreds of millions of dollars that have been given to the “anti-smokers” to push their agenda and we’d soon see alcoholic drinks banned from restaurants “where people are trying to eat healthy food” because of wacko worries about “invisible carcinogenic secondhand alcohol fumes.”
We need to rescue our lives from the Crazies.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Comment from NL Reader:
Heidi Low of the American Cancer Society said, “You will prevent 12,400 youth from ever becoming addicted tobacco users”?
Really?? How come on Nov. 30th the President of the American Medical Association, Dr. Peter Carmel, said, “Despite tremendous progress in enacting smoke-free laws and higher tobacco taxes to discourage tobacco use, the United States has seen smoking rates, especially among teens, remain flat with slight increases in cigar and smokeless tobacco use among teens and young adults.”
So who’s telling the truth here?? The activist pushing the current tax increase or the president of the AMA actually trying to analyze the problem of reducing smoking among youth?
There’s been new news out recently about the massive increase in binge drinking among teens as young as 13 years old.? Using cigarette tax logic, and imposing similar tax rates over product price, we should be moving toward taxing beer at about an extra $20/six-pack, and about the same extra for a quart of the cheapest vodka or wine.? Alcohol is *TRULY* “one of the most addictive drugs” out there: it’s one of the few that has withdrawals so severe that cold turkey can literally KILL people.? If anything, alcohol should be taxed at a HIGHER rate than tobacco if we’re really using price to control youth usage.
Give the “anti-drinkers” the same hundreds of millions of dollars that have been given to the “anti-smokers” to push their agenda and we’d soon see alcoholic drinks banned from restaurants “where people are trying to eat healthy food” because of wacko worries about “invisible carcinogenic secondhand alcohol fumes.”
We need to rescue our lives from the Crazies.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Cigarette tax deserves hearing
April 2, 2011
In a year dominated by the budget, it’s hard to see why the Legislature would deny Democrats the chance to at least tout their reasons to support an increase in the cigarette tax.
Several minority party members in the Statehouse want to increase the cigarette tax by $1.25 to provide more funding for Medicaid and public schools.
Minority Leader John Rusche said the tobacco tax hike would raise about $50 million to soften the blow of cuts to important programs. As it stands, health groups report Idaho ranks in 42nd for its tax on tobacco products, so it’s reasonable to give backers of an increase an opportunity to make their case.
It’s a known fact that smoking has a direct impact on health care costs. Low-income Idahoans who have smoked and suffer related illnesses contribute to the drain on funding for Medicaid and indigent medical care programs. So therefore, even Idaho’s conservative Republican majority in the Statehouse can see the rationale in allowing debate over a cigarette tax increase.
Still, instead, they refuse to give the matter a hearing. The result: Democrats have shown their discontent by forcing legislative staff to read virtually every bill in full, rather than just the short title. The effect: The session could drag out longer than it would otherwise.
“We’ll do whatever we can at the appropriate time,” Rusche said. “It seems appropriate that we could ask for a hearing on something that has been of key concern throughout this entire session.”
He’s right. It is appropriate to air out the issue — even if the majority of Republicans are ready to vote it down. Lawmakers should let the matter be heard, even if this is not the right year to raise taxes or if passing it would open the door to a slippery slope of higher “sin” taxes.
On the other hand, Democrats also have to be reasonable in their protest. Is prolonging the session at upwards of $30,000 a day the right way to make a point in such a devastating budget year?
A lesson from this year’s session is that the Republican majority shouldn’t use its power to stifle the thoughtful debate of matters of importance, even if it’s only the opposing party that thinks it’s important.
An example is a bill that would have offered employment protection in many cases to people so they couldn’t be fired just because of their sexual orientation. Republican Sen. Curt McKenzie of Nampa wouldn’t give the bill a hearing because he believed it wouldn’t have enough support to pass.
That’s not the point. In 2011, it’s a matter that needs to be discussed so Idahoans can weigh in and determine what direction they think the state needs to take.
As a constitutional republic, the United States depends on a system of governments where the representatives of the people take their constituents’ ideas into the decision-making process and then debate their merits. That only works if there is debate.
There are times that committee chairmen are justified in withholding bills that are outside the realm of reason in a given year. But that power can be abused, and that’s happened in the 2011 session.
• Our view is based on the majority opinions of the Idaho Press-Tribune editorial board. Members of the board are Publisher Matt Davison, Managing Editor Vickie Holbrook, Assistant Managing Editor David Woolsey and community members Tim Vandeventer, Sandi Levi, and Brandon Scholl, all of Nampa; Opinion Editor Phil Bridges and community member John Blaisdell of Caldwell, and Alex Zamora of Wilder.
Tax Panel Narrowly Send Cigarette Surcharge To Full House
March 28, 2005
By Associated Press
By Associated Press
House tax committee members today narrowly voted to approve an extension of Idaho’s two-year-old cigarette surcharge. The move would potentially give the state a 21 (M) million dollar margin for error as budget writers finish up this year’s spending plan.
House Bill 386 passed the Revenue and Taxation Committee by a ten-to-eight vote this morning. The outcome did not appear to be in doubt.
Committee chairwoman Dolores Crow said it was poor tax policy to target a small portion of the population when they’re consuming a legal product.
But no fewer than 18 health, insurance, medical and education groups supported the tax plan. They said it will discourage smoking by both adults and underage smokers.
The bill now goes to the House. If it passes, it will go on to the Senate, where it may be amended further to make the extension permanent.
