Tony G, Tulsa (2/7/2009 6:37:24 AM)

I haven't stopped, but slowed down considerably.
But--who is getting rich off this? You can guarantee our politicians care nothing about your health, and its just more revenue for them.

Few Clothes, Austin, TX (2/7/2009 6:49:12 AM)

I hope it does cause some to quit. The obvious scientific evidence for lung cancer and other upper respitory illnesses hasn't reached any smokers. I imagine they will switch to a cheaper brand. Addictions are obviously hard to break.

Echos, Tulsa (2/7/2009 6:49:56 AM)

Who is going to pay for all this insurance the government has promised if people quit smoking. Shut down those hot lines fast.

chase, rogers county (2/7/2009 6:58:11 AM)

If you think these tax dollar will really go to insure children,raise you hand.

my view, Sand Springs (2/7/2009 7:07:12 AM)

The government is like any other drug pusher, get'em hooked and then raise the price. That's addional $6.20 per carton, it may get some to quit, not many. If the Feds and the state was to lose the revnue from cigarettes, they would have to raise our taxes to cover that lost.

The programs would still have to be paided for as most of the money goes to childrens health.

Bootlegging from across the Mexican border will increase. Just as bootlegging from the US to Canada many years back. Canada later reduced the taxes paided on cigarettes to stop a greater lost.

Most of the smokers are low wage earners and vote Democratic for the entitlements, they believe they will receive. If the Democrat Party was to lose those (smoker) voters which represents about 25 percent of the adult population they could be in trouble.

justiceawaits, Claremore (2/7/2009 7:20:22 AM)

Obiesity is a major problem in the United States,if we follow the logic here, we should triple the sales tax on food. If food is more expensive, less fat people will be able to afford extra food and they will lose weight.
Increasing taxes is stupid.All it does is increase revenue for the government and make more taxes easier to pass in the future.

zzx375, BA (2/7/2009 7:22:08 AM)

Smoking or not smoking isn't the issue.

The cigarette tax is possibly the most regressive of all taxes by virtue of its impact on lower-income groups.

Interesting that a "free to choose" arguement in smoking is different than a "free to choose" arguement in other venues.

Echos, Tulsa (2/7/2009 7:42:29 AM)

Ok I just went and bought my smokes for the year. I saved 300.00 this year.

Popeye, T-Town (2/7/2009 7:51:12 AM)

I know raising the fines for speeding and running red lights certainly slowed people down and made them more cautious . . .

Quitting smoking is a no brainer, except for the fact that nicotine is addictive.

And how is it the poster that literally invented the word "REgressive" can now be in favor of this sort of punitive taxation? If you've changed your stripes "Quiting [sic} is good"!

Exchanging views, Tulsa (2/7/2009 7:58:17 AM)

Maybe they should tax their own vices, alcohol, and a few that can't be printed. Oh wait... alcohol kills more innocents than any other vice, but heaven forbid they tax their own pleasures from existence. Am I upset? He** YES Just another form of Taxation by Tyranny.

Exchanging views, Tulsa (2/7/2009 8:00:23 AM)

Maybe I now see the benifits of supporting the tribes that find ways to screw over the govt from collecting the tax on smokes!!!

Graychin, Eucha (2/7/2009 8:10:40 AM)

I'm always amused by the crocodile tears cried by "conservatives" because the cigarette tax is "regressive." They never gave a hoot about poor people before - only when it involves them having to pay more for cigarettes.

Some adults do want kids to start smoking. They are called tobacco company executives.

I get really upset when I see a cluster of 15 and 16-year-olds smoking and thinking that they look cool. If an increase in the price of cigarettes slows down the madness, then I'm 100% for it.

Bullhead, Nicut (2/7/2009 8:12:31 AM)

I went to the Cherokee Casino last night for their 7.77 12piece butterfly shrimp dinner. It's worth that much for sure but after I left, I wonder if it was worth what my poor lungs went through to get the shrimp!?! The class of people in that joint was scary, people in wheelchairs rolling around smoking their hexed cigarettes looking for a win.. scary. I actually seen one person in a wheelchair who obviously had taken chemo wheeling around looking for a machine. Yes, tobacco still rules many, many peoples' lives. I was glad to get out of there but it totally ruined my night from sadness in watching the people who honestly should have kept their money in their pockets and paid bills instead of looking for that big win that might change their lives.

Eagle 4, Tulsa (2/7/2009 8:22:11 AM)

I recently buried my wife, who smoked for 42 years. I wish now I had those thousands of dollars spent on tobacco and her still by my side.

Tax tobacco to death before it returns the favor.

Lunatk, (2/7/2009 8:55:18 AM)

More folks are gonna quit and the new tax money is going to pay for more children's programs. I really don't think that if all these folks that are using a legal product quit, there will be any tax money to pay for these additional give away programs by the gubment. Soooooo, who is gonna pick up the tab for these entitlement programs that will not go away when nobody smokes. I'm waiting for the wackos to start on the boozers. Oh, that won't happen, the wackos use booze.

Popeye, T-Town (2/7/2009 8:55:46 AM)

Eagle4: I am sorry for your loss. You're right, of course. [Please excuse me for using this article to launch a discussion with a few of my nemesis' the "Dr.'s Moriarty".]

Graychin, you say, somewhat predictably, ""I'm always amused by the crocodile tears cried by "conservatives" because the cigarette tax is "regressive." (You) never gave a hoot about poor people before - only when it involves them having to pay more for cigarettes.""

In an earlier proposal/discussion about a more "Fair Tax" structure, a consumption tax, you (and some of your ilk) complained that it would result in a black market. That such taxation would unfairly effect the poor and -- although many believe it would result in a boon for our struggling government by reigning in tax cheats and scofflaws (an apparent topic of interest to you liberals, of late) -- result in an unfair burden on "your" poor people.

Wouldn't it appear now, in light of your democratic "victory" on the huge and ridiculous spending package before "your" Congress, that an increase in revenue would be good business?

Graychin, Eucha (2/7/2009 9:26:14 AM)

Pop, I don't understand your the question in your last sentence. Please rephrase.

The "fair" tax is a scheme to permit the wealthiest taxpayers to pay less tax. A lot less. Unless you use voodoo math, who makes up the difference?

Unreported sales would be free of a 30% "fair" consumption tax. That sounds like an underground economy opportunity to me. And with the IRS abolished, who would enforce payment of the "fair" tax?

But let's keep our eyes on the ball here. I was aiming my comment at My View and at zzx375 in addition to you. In what other context have any of you ever complained about a regressive tax?

LE, Tulsa (2/7/2009 9:53:56 AM)

I find it funny that liberals always tout themselves as champions of the poor yet are always pushing regressive taxes or fighting their repeal.

Popeye, T-Town (2/7/2009 10:13:46 AM)

Chin, the question: ""Wouldn't it appear now, in light of your democratic "victory" on the huge and ridiculous spending package before "your" Congress, that an increase in revenue would be good business?"" relates to repayment of the expense of the "Stimulus" expenditure. Ergo, if we could more efficiently collect taxes, from more people (the people not reporting income, working for cash, immigrants come to mind), the ultimate "days" of reckoning would, at worst, be postponed.

YOU SAID: ""The "fair" tax is a scheme to permit the wealthiest taxpayers to pay less tax. A lot less. Unless you use voodoo math, who makes up the difference?""
~~~~~~ Since a "Fair" tax would be a consumption tax; anybody that spent money would be taxed at the point of purchase. The more you make, the more you spend, the more you spend the more you're taxed. It's not a perfect concept, but far superior to our current system.

YOU SAID: ""Unreported sales would be free of a 30% "fair" consumption tax. That sounds like an underground economy opportunity to me. And with the IRS abolished, who would enforce payment of the "fair" tax?""
~~~~~~ The 30% number comes from where?
~~~~~~ We already have an underground economy, hence the cacophonus howl from opponents to HB1804.
~~~~~~ The IRS would hardly be abolished. Stripped down and focused only on points-of-sale, we would need less agents, require less of everything they do, and be able to better police the system.

No, I can't recall complaining of a "regressive" tax in the context of our discussion today.
If: "A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases"
Then: The cigarette tax we're discussing is not a regressive tax.

okiebelle53, Tulsa (2/7/2009 10:42:33 AM)

But they can't quit now for that is how they are paying for the children's health care. So you got to keep smoking!! In fact you need more smokers to pay for this newest national health care plan!

That is what I do not understand. They raise the tax on cigs for health care but yet they preach to people to quit. LOL

Graychin, Eucha (2/7/2009 11:41:00 AM)

Pop:

I think that I didn't understand your question because it includes the assumptions that the "fair" tax would be more efficient and would increase tax revenue. I believe that those assumptions are both wrong.

Withholding tax on salaries is pretty darned efficient.

Employers who pay laborers in cash have their necks stuck way out with the IRS, since those payments are not deductible. Plus there are huge penalties for failure to file 1099's or W-2's and failure to withhold taxes. The notion of illegals not paying taxes in an underground economy is hugely exaggerated.

The good ol' boys up here in Delaware County, on the other hand...

"The more you make, the more you spend." Well, sort of. I seriously doubt that the overpaid CEO's raking in eight-figure incomes are spending as high a percentage of their income as you and I spend of ours. What do you think? As it is, they pay tax on all of their income. Under the "fair" tax they would pay tax on only a fraction of it.

The 30% number is a cunning concealment of the truth by "fair" tax propaganda. An item that costs $100 would have $30 "fair" tax added to it. "Fair" tax advocates call that a 23% tax ($30 / $130). What do you call a sales tax that adds 10% to the cost of an item? I call it a 10% sales tax.

As for abolishing the IRS - I guess I got confused by the cover of Neal Boortz' book. You know - the one with the IRS logo crossed out on the cover.

Did I miss anything?

Mar, Tulsa (2/7/2009 11:57:31 AM)

Hey Bullhead .... did you see anyone holding a gun to the persons in the wheelchairs? No? That's because they were there due to their own free will. Some people will spend their last $1.00 on something stupid. You can't abolish stupidity.

I go to the casinos every so often and am amazed at people in wheelchairs, with oxygen tanks, etc. One time I saw a very obese woman (maybe early 70's of age) smoking a cigarette and she had an oxygen tank. Gee whiz. lol

I do wish the casinos would put much better ventilation systems in their casinos and turn down the volumes on the gaming machines and ampifiers on the bands. Some are way to noisey and smokey.

BTW .... my dad died of lung cancer in 2007 at the age of 80. :-( He had quit smoking in the 1970's.

Mar, Tulsa (2/7/2009 12:00:42 PM)

Graychin .... please read the book The Fair Tax and then read the follow-up book The Fair Tax: The Truth. Thought from your comments I can't tell if you read it already or not. If you did, read it again. It is such a different way of paying taxes, so different than how we have been brought up, it takes several reads to totally understand it and the concept. The Fair Tax is the way to go.

ajohnb, Jenks (2/7/2009 12:17:08 PM)

Graychin said "I get really upset when I see a cluster of 15 and 16-year-olds smoking and thinking that they look cool. If an increase in the price of cigarettes slows down the madness, then I'm 100% for it."
We agree on this Graychin.

Popeye, T-Town (2/7/2009 1:02:56 PM)

You know I haven't read Boortz's book. I don't listen to Limbaugh. I don't watch Hannity, or O'Reilly either... What time I do have, and there isn't a lot, I spend frugally.

I am fascinated by new concepts and new ideas. The "Fair Tax" seems worth considering. I would like to learn more about it's nuances and find your input always educational.

Our tax laws seem too complex. We will see our taxes increase over the next four years, undeniably. It will take us beyond our (yours and mine I suspect) lifetimes to resolve the money our Congress is spending...

Fred, Tulsa (2/7/2009 1:20:11 PM)

I have no problem at all with raising the cigarette tax. People will still buy tobacco and roll their own, though. Emphysema took my mother in a most hideous fashion. She smoked all of her adult life.I smoked too in college but when my wife and I married we decided to quit together. I think a pack of cigarettes was 35 cents then. I can't even go into a casino because the smoke is something I find repugnant. I am happy that after so many years, they finally stopped the smoking in the main Cain's Ballroom and put a great ventilation system in the smoking area and you can't even smell the smoke. I sure missed a lot of great shows there but I have caught some great ones lately.
A bad as smoking is for your cardio-vascular system it would be nice if non smokers were treated first in Hospital Emergency Rooms when people had heart attacks. Smokers take up too much space that could be used by non-smokers who were doing what they could to avoid heart problems as opposed to not really caring what happened to their hearts.

J3SS!CA , S0NkA (2/7/2009 1:25:06 PM)

After smoking for 10 years I managed to quit. For my kids. You wouldn't believe how much better thing smell. I hope that this tax hike well push people to quit. Stop and smell the rose's--@

Few Clothes, Austin, TX (2/7/2009 1:33:02 PM)

Chin must be a lunger!

Ignatz, Broken Bow (2/7/2009 1:41:30 PM)

Smoking killed both my Mom and Dad. Taxes on it cause a pack to sell for $15.00 in Australia and believe me, it's nice to walk around there without kids blowing smoke in your face. Tax the things to oblivion, I say! Howver, I hope the tax on fine cigars doesn't get so high I can't enjoy one or two of the nasty things every week or so. Then again, I don't inhale em, never did.

Graychin, Eucha (2/7/2009 1:58:47 PM)

What's a lunger?

Ignatz, Broken Bow (2/7/2009 2:02:12 PM)

chin, a "lunger" is what every bad guy calls Doc Holliday in every movie made about the OK Corral. He had TB and choked up blood (killed him eventually).

Daniel Day Simpson, Edmond (2/7/2009 2:14:59 PM)

Some of the guys at work go to Tulsa Indian smoke shops and buy large sacks of tobacco and tubes. They they assemble the cigs or what brits call (the TW wont let me write it, very weird.) in a newfangled contraption with a lever. They say the homemade cigarettes are 20 cents each. So, they do not have any motivation to stop anytime soon.

Norm, (2/7/2009 2:26:15 PM)

Graychin is obviously COMPLETELY uneducated about the FairTax - yet, feels free to complain about it nonetheless.
First off - he is ignoring the embedded tax that we ALREADY pay on items, that will immediately go away with the fair tax. Take away that embedded tax - and competition will lower the prices.
He loves to talk about the "percentage" of tax that actual earners pay now compared to the percentage they'd pay under the FairTax. He of course, ignores the "Percentage" that over half of America that DOESN'T pay ANYTHING now (and would still get their 'poverty' prebate to cover their basic expenses).
His worries about an "Underground" economy apparently don't include the bartenders, waitresses, strippers, drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens - and the contractors, repairmen, and yes, even DOCTORS who work with an off the books cash payment system. None of them are paying taxes on their income - yet they all use the system (and in fact, are a bigger drain on it).

In truth - the ONLY group that is negatively effected by the FairTax are those that cheat the system now.
More importantly - the Government will not be able to use taxes as social policy anymore. They won't be able to punish success and reward failure anymore.

As for the cig tax - in theory, I'm all for punishing hillbilly smokers in every way possible. However, my logical side wonders where the funding for all of this government control is going to come from when all of the hillibillies stop smoking and/or die??

Daniel Day Simpson, Edmond (2/7/2009 2:26:32 PM)

Also,
Those men all have the same payday routines. Depending on if Friday falls near the first of a month or in the middle. If its near the first, they all first pay rent. Then its usually the utility bills on which they extended the payments. Then its bags of tobacco and tubes. Then its groceries and sundry items. If its the second check of the month, its the rest of the bills they didn't catch on the first, then more tobacco and tubes, then groceries and the occasional used drier or stove. At all junctures of the family budget, tobacco and tubes are always priority over groceries. That should give you a probe into the smoker's private lives. If you want to see a good rift form between husband and wife, hang around my place of employment when one of the guys gets into a heated dispute via his cellphone over family finances. I would like to tell you that being a non-smoker that I have a vice that replaces smoking. But I pay all my bills when do, stay ahead of grocery needs, and am able to put back every other check into a savings and 401k. Then again, I don't go out after work with the guys who smoke and spend $200 at local bars drinking. Then the smoking guys also visit the Indian casinos where they can feel at home with 300 other chain smokers. I've mentioned on this site before that I cannot stomach most casinos in this state, even Remington Park. I did just get back from the World of Concrete convention in Vegas this week. Most Las Vegas casinos have extensive air management. None of my clothes smelled like smoke even though at night we played the nickel and penny machines until 2AM. I played the Cherokee casino once and I just threw away the clothes from that visit.

Angry Citizen!, Bluejacket (2/7/2009 3:07:59 PM)

Change at last, change at last, change at last!

CPT Ron, Lawton (2/7/2009 3:16:39 PM)

I don't think that smokers will stop smoking because the price of cigerettes goes up. Smokers are addicted and cannot stop smoking, regardless of the price.

My two brothers died of smoking cigerettes. They started smoking when cigerettes were 25 cents a pack, and continued to smoke when they were $2.25 a pack.

Raising the price of cigerettes just makes people poor, not healthy.

CH33S3!, S0NkA (2/7/2009 3:17:30 PM)

I am tottaly w/you the smoke hole. It is very hard to quit and lay off of them for good. I kind am w/ what gwinnith podrow (spell check) "I can't wait to be 70 so I can lite one up."

Or Hommer "MMMM Cigarette'ssss" Now 4 real quiting now is better then ur family having to bury you later. (to soon)

The Real Joe Dolty, TULSA (2/7/2009 4:01:20 PM)

I agree, it's quite obvious that graychin knows nothing about the fair tax proposal making those comments that he does.

Graychin, Eucha (2/7/2009 4:38:55 PM)

Norm - Don't assume that I haven't educated myself about the "fair" tax just because I still think that the "fair" tax is as credible as a game of Three Card Monte.

Please tell us more about this "embedded tax" that will allegedly "go away." It's a lot like Bigfoot - we hear a lot about it, but no one has ever seen it. It's actually one of the more outrageous fibs in the "fair" tax scheme. How is a merchant (who is making much less than a 30% margin on his sales) going to pass along a supposedly-disappearing "embedded tax" that will offset the 30% "fair" tax add-on?

Most of us still believe that prices rise and fall according to laws of supply and demand - subject to some quirks, like monopoly power. "Passing along" costs - especially this mysterious "embedded tax" - is a popular but unreal concept.

Dolt: If you're so darn smart - what did I say that is incorrect?

FC: Thanks for the definition of "lunger"! They told us in school that we should learn a new word every day. As I get older, that gets harder to do.

Actually, my lungs are in excellent shape in spite of all the second-hand smoke I was subjected to for many years. Lets go for a walk, and see if you can keep up with me. I would still be running, but that also gets more difficult as I get older.

oldrustytulsa, Tulsa (2/7/2009 7:32:38 PM)

You can roll your own, its cheaper. and No tax on each pack, So back to the drawing board, Prince Albert is still pretty good tobacco.Where theres a will theres a way.Tell Obama to stick that where the sun dont shine.

CPT Ron, Lawton (2/7/2009 11:01:32 PM)

Smokers will not quit buying cigarettes at $10.00 a pack, just like drivers will not quit buying gas at $4.00 a gallon. They will just be poorer, and need more public aid for rent and medical bills.

Norm, (2/8/2009 12:42:13 AM)

Graychin - I'll explain it to you, since you have just PROVED my point that you haven't the slightest clue what the FairTax is about.

Since corporations do not "pay" tax - they merely pass them on from the consumer to the government - the Embedded Tax is ALL of the taxes that are passed on to the final consumer in the total price of an item.
Payroll taxes that the manufacturer pays on each of their employees are passed on. As are the payroll taxes of every employee of every vendor they do business with. So are all of the property taxes for the manufacturer, and all of their vendors. Income taxes that are earned by the companies? Passed on too.
When you look at how much of the actual retail price of an item is ate up with embedded taxes that have been paid by the manufacturers, vendors, suppliers, and retailers - it adds up to a LOT more than the 23% FairTax.
Since I am so glad to hear that you (unlike most libs) believe in Supply and Demand - once you take away the Embedded Taxes, prices will actually fall due to the decreased costs and competition between companies.

An added side benefit - once companies know that they can keep what they earn (instead of passing it on to the consumer) - the US will become the biggest tax haven in the world (instead of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, as it is now). Companies from all over the world will be tripping over themselves to do business HERE. That means JOBS. You do realize that part of the reason so many companies have gone overseas is because the government has made it too expensive for them to do business HERE.

I would LOVE to go into more detail for you - but I have a feeling that like most libs, you've already made up your mind off of the demUnderground talking points (regardless of actual facts).

Gailmail, (2/8/2009 2:29:18 AM)

I am still not convinced that smoking kills. I guess because my dad smoked all his life, lived to be 86 and skin cancer took over his body over the years- he was a farmer. My grandma lived to be 96 and she smoked a pipe and chewed snuff. BUT who am I think this way- Im no scientist. But I am a smoker and I guess if I do get lung cancer I can feel elitist because I could afford to smoke?

Graychin, Eucha (2/8/2009 8:43:58 AM)

Norm - Like I said above, I reject the "pass-along" theory of price-setting, and so should you if you actually believe in supply and demand. Even this "lib" seems to be miles ahead of you on that.

Graychin, Eucha (2/8/2009 8:45:34 AM)

If Gailmail still doesn't believe that smoking kills, what hope is there to make any headway with global warming deniers?

Exchanging views, Tulsa (2/8/2009 8:58:43 AM)

I wonder how much $$ they would make (and that is what this is all about...not getting anyone to stop smoking) if they placed a $10.00 tax on every bottle of whiskey? I think they would make a lot more money this way. Maybe they should place a $5.00 tax on every item bought from a fast food joint. Or a $15.00 tax on every ticket sold for any form of racing w/vehicles.

bubba oky, tahlequah (2/9/2009 11:51:21 AM)

so why not just make them illegal, and not even see them on the shelves. Then if you get cought with ciggs it would be the same as pot or any other drug,a few years in prison will make them quite.

Mr. Brown, Tulsa (2/9/2009 4:44:41 PM)

theshokehole
Actually, it's been updated, again. It's called "climate crisis", now. It's all the same though. People are still travelling and living lavishly, while recommending that others ride their bikes to work and turn their thermostats
to a low level.
The fact is, our Congress is just looking for ways to take our money. Just last week, the Porkilus Package set aside millions for smoking cessation. Yet, they hope to fund child care from
taxes collected from smokers. Sigh...

Exchanging views, Tulsa (2/10/2009 12:04:10 AM)

bubba, marijuana has been illegal for how long? (initially thanks to Duponts greed). Surely you don't think making something illegal will make it disappear? As for getting caught and given jail time, get real, we need the beds for REAL criminals.

Exchanging views, Tulsa (2/10/2009 12:57:33 AM)

Criminals like Stipes, Libby, Gov Ryan, and ... Need I go on?

Exchanging views, Tulsa (2/10/2009 12:58:26 AM)

sorry I meant Scooter, Gov Ryan...