KELO: Poll shows 65% of South Dakotans in favor of raising cigarette taxes
From KELOland.com:
Raising taxes isn't usually popular. However, a recent poll showed nearly 65 percent of South Dakota voters are in favor of increasing taxes on tobacco products.Read it here.
If approved in November, initiated measure two would add one dollar of tax to each pack of cigarettes in the state. It would also raise the tax on other tobacco products from ten percent, to 35 percent. The projected revenue from the additional tax would be about 30 million dollars a year for South Dakota.
and..
However, opponents of the proposal say higher tobacco taxes are unneeded.
Craig Dewey of the “Americans for Prosperity” groups says, “Currently, South Dakota has parity among neighboring states with current levels of tobacco tax. If approved, South Dakota would have higher tobacco taxes than every neighboring state except Montana."
The group, Americans for Prosperity, says it would hurt small businesses near bordering states with lower tobacco taxes.
Comments
Smoking is a dirty habit that pollutes the air and kills people.
Anything that can be done to discourage people from beginning or continuing smoking should be pursued.
They probably will if the cig tax goes through.
There's some social engineering that would really save lives.
Of course the same thing can be said for the children who used to be orphaned when their mothers died from botched abortions. But the mother obviously wasn't innocent so she had it coming. You can tell that to her kids too.
If this is about stopping smoking why are they only supporting a 1 dollar increase?
It's an end run around the system
So in essence it is just another tax on the people that for the most part can least afford to pay it. Sounds like casino gambling under a different name to me.
If the proponents were so interested in getting people to quit smoking, why not use the majority of the taxes generated to offset smoking related heathcare costs and to get people to quit instead of padding the general fund?
The additional tax raised by the measure is distributed in the manner the proponents say. First $5m to anti smoking measures, and the rest split between the property tax, education enhancement and healthcare trust funds.
The ever decreasing number of smokers is cutting into that piece of the pie and the increase is designed to make sure that the state doesn't lose out.
If this tax increase was actually for funding prevention programs as many of the proponents are touting why are they only putting money into the fund if the $30 million dollar threshold is met? Why not guarantee the $5 million and then place the remaining into the general fund?
Call it what it is, a bill to ensure that state maintains it's tax revenue, not some noble attempt to help those with an addiction to cigarettes quit.
I'm all for taxing tobacco, but let's make sure the money goes to programs and products that help people quit their toxic habits.
I want an answer from supporters.
Initiative #2 is amending a current law -- the law that imposes a 53 cent tax on cigarettes and taxes other tobacco products. The current law generates $30 million annually and that money goes to the general fund. Measure #2 simply sends that money to where it has been going so.
The new tax will generate an additional $40 - 45 million and the first slice of that pie goes to prevention and cessation programs in the amount of $5 million. This is a reasonable amount when you look at how much the program has had in the past, the CDC recommendation and compare the amount to other areas of the overall budget.
The remaining money is split on a percentage basis each year because it is expected to reduce over time. The money is split between healthcare, education and property tax reduction because these are three key areas that have not been funded at their full need while SD was busy thowing away over $200 million in healthcare costs for tobacco diseases.
I've seen no dispute between the folsk on this issue that the increase will decrease tobacco use -- since that is the case, we will actually end up saving millions of $$ when we get people to quit. That will be real fiscal responsibility and tax payer relief.