Post by: Monkeyleg on December 18, 2006, 01:26:51 PM
Governor Doyle promised during his campaign that he would not raise income taxes or property taxes.
So, where to go for money? Why, smokers, of course.
Doyle has been having the heads of various state agencies float fee increases to the media, and has been watching the public reaction. When the transportation department suggested raising vehicle registration fees from $55 annually to $85, the public went nuts. And then Doyle said he wasn't in favor of such an increase.
But raising cigarette taxes? Why not? Only 25% of the public smokes, so there's not much downside.
Cigs are already over $4 a pack here.
The $1 increase is supposed to go for smoking education programs, smoking cessation programs, and other supposedly noble ventures.
In his first term, Doyle took the money the state got from lawsuits against tobacco companies--monies which were to go to these noble ventures--and used the money to help offset the overall budget deficit.
Want to bet that the estimated $227 million from increased cigarette taxes finds its way back into the general revenue stream?
Post by: Warren on December 18, 2006, 01:51:44 PM
Post by: Strings on December 18, 2006, 02:31:47 PM
Hey... I gots a better revenue generating idea! Let's impose a tax on every dollar raised for political campaigns... say a quarter of every dollar raised for a political campaign must be paid into the state general fund?
Post by: AJ Dual on December 18, 2006, 02:49:10 PM
Only the things I care about should be protected...
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 18, 2006, 02:50:42 PM
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on December 18, 2006, 03:15:26 PM
Quote
Want to bet that the estimated $227 million from increased cigarette taxes finds its way back into the general revenue stream?
HA! Whoever estimated that needs to have his tiny little brain examined. A little bit of tax evasion goes a long way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarettes#Online_cigarette_stores
I want to start smoking just to piss on people who hate it.
~GnSx
Post by: Mannlicher on December 18, 2006, 03:16:29 PM
Post by: Vodka7 on December 18, 2006, 03:43:26 PM
And while I have seen B1G1 and B2G1's in other areas, the quantities I'm talking about here are way, way above what you'd see anywhere else. There are two gas stations, a corner market, and a pharmacy within walking distance of my aparment, and I guarantee you all four of them will have at least two different brands with free packs every single day of the week (the pharmacy and corner store usually have about five brands with specials, and we're talking Marlboro and Newports here, not Kools or GPC's.)
So while the state gets a bit of money (nowhere near what they anticipate, of course), the consumer isn't really affected, and the tobacco companies have to suffer through a little bit less profit than they're used to. And of course, no one quits smoking.
Post by: Monkeyleg on December 18, 2006, 05:30:55 PM
Organized crime, anyone?
Post by: Standing Wolf on December 18, 2006, 05:37:01 PM
Government always finds a way to devolve into tyranny.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 18, 2006, 06:21:47 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 19, 2006, 08:45:16 AM
Regardless, as much as I dislike the habit, I dislike even more the idea that people's right to do so can be legislated away, either by straight-up zoning laws, or back door BS like the $1/pack increase in price.
Roll your own sounds like a way around it. Same thing I do for all my ammo, handloaded sans Federal Excise Tax.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 19, 2006, 08:54:16 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on December 19, 2006, 09:05:24 AM
There was an article in the WSJ some time back about this in NYC. The level for a felony is something like 250 cases. So people take cargo vans to NC and load up with 249 cases. Then they drive to NYC, stand around the subways and sell them for $2 less than in the stores and $3 more than they paid for them. Cops don't even write tickets for this anymore.
Post by: HankB on December 19, 2006, 09:07:28 AM
Wisconsin is having budget problems, just like a lot of states . . . So, where to go for money? Why, smokers, of course. . . . The $1 increase is supposed to go for smoking education programs, smoking cessation programs, and other supposedly noble ventures.
Let me get this straight . . . the state is having budget problems with its current programs, so they're proposing a $1/pack tax on cigarettes . . . which will be spent on new programs.Will somebody please explain to me how diverting new revenue into new programs will help with the budget shortfall caused by overspending on the state's current programs?
Post by: K Frame on December 19, 2006, 09:56:19 AM
Huge numbers of smokers either quit, or in violation of the law, started getting their smokes from other states.
What did the state do?
Started crying about reduced tax income levels.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 19, 2006, 09:58:07 AM
What bugs me most is that its a tax on 25% of the population. Its picking on a minority group, even if its an unhealthy vice.
I'm against this tax, too, but is that your real reason? Criminals are a minority. Business owners pay certain taxes, and they're a minority. I'm sure we could think of other cases where behavior-defined minorities are treated differently from others.
Post by: Monkeyleg on December 19, 2006, 01:33:02 PM
Hey, butthead! That's exactly what you did almost four years ago when you raided the tobacco lawsuit fund.
Mike Irwin, I've read some accounts that some street gangs in NY have switched from dealing cocaine to selling smuggled cigarettes. Lots of money, and less punishment.
Think about those 70,000 cartons of cigarettes that fit in a semi trailer. Even if hijackers sold the cartons to middlemen for $5 each, that's $350,000 for one trailer. The middlemen sell the cartons for $10 each to street-level dealers, and make $350,000. The street dealers sell them for whatever, and everybody is happy. Except the government, of course.
Post by: crt360 on December 19, 2006, 01:42:05 PM
The states are taking advantage of people with a health problem to make money, which puts them on about the same level as the tobacco companies. If the state really had its citizens' best interests in mind and wanted people to quit smoking, it could use the $0.41 tax it already charges to set up or support small help clinics at the street level that actually interact with people instead of just throwing away a few million a year on TV ads or other ineffective campaigns. But hey, it's the same state that promotes urban sprawl and makes it impossible to go anywhere safely on a bicycle or on foot, while telling people they don't exercise enough; the same state that takes more and more of your money to build and maintain bigger, faster roads and highways, so you have to spend more on bigger vehicles and expensive gas to carry all of your crap on your daily commute which covers more miles than some families used to on their summer vacation. F' the G', man.
Back to the topic. I think the dollar a pack tax is stupid, especially if a cent of that money is going to anything other than tobacco related health care, be it cessation programs or long-term treatment. I personally don't like smoking, but know well the power of nicotine and if people make it a part of their lifestyle, I'm not going to support punishing them with an oppressive tax.
Post by: brimic on December 19, 2006, 03:48:00 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on December 19, 2006, 06:32:17 PM
They know where the price point is.
OTOH, the last time I visited Kentucky, I bought cigarettes there for half of what we pay here. If I'd been driving my truck, instead of riding my motorcycle, I would have filled the truck with cigarettes.
But my point is not about cigarettes per se. It's about the idiots who run our governments. Almost none of them seem to have learned anything from history.
Ban something, and a criminal and/or underground economy grows to fill the void.
Raise taxes, and people will either find a way to evade taxes, or just leave for a better tax environment.
Abuse the citizens, and they will leave. Or, if things really get out of hand, they'll put the heads of their abusers on stakes.
It's History 101. Amazing how many of these elected dolts haven't bothered to study it.
Post by: Strings on December 19, 2006, 10:14:32 PM
Dick, think about the last election cycle. Then revisit the quoted remark...
The folks in this state will, upon being anally raped, bend over and in an Oliver Twist voice ask "please sir, can I have some mo'?".
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 20, 2006, 05:59:43 AM
Quit being buttheads and quit smoking. Deny them their ill gotten gains.
You'd all smell a lot better too.
Post by: garyk/nm on December 20, 2006, 10:03:18 AM
I buy mine on the local rez for $18.00/carton. In the non-indian stores they're $45. Guess what the difference is.
What really kills me is charging sales tax on something that is already 60% tax. Talk about stacking!
Post by: Guest on December 20, 2006, 06:24:53 PM
Post by: Gun Runner on December 21, 2006, 11:39:36 AM
We have reservations a plenty but no price break there either for some reason.
I do miss the good old days of $19.99 cartons for name brands. The state next door has them for $28, but that's still not a bargain.
I've seen them sold in cigarette machines at a resort miles from anywhere for $7 a pack, generics included.
Post by: Monkeyleg on December 21, 2006, 01:54:43 PM
My state senator hasn't returned my call. Thanks a lot, Tim. I got a couple of people to give $1500 to your friend's senate campaign. The least you could do would be to ask a staff member to return my call.
My state rep called back, and said the tax increase won't go anywhere. But she's such a bubblehead that I don't think the Democrat leadership even lets her know when they're having caucus meetings.
I love the way politicians run things. "I will not raise taxes on Wisconsin citizens." That's codespeak for, "instead, I'm going to raise motor vehicle registration fees by 55%, increase the fee for 'anti-smoking initiatives' by 230%, increase the fees for hunting licenses by 50%, and look for other 'revenue sources.' And I will not raise your property taxes. Instead, we'll just reassess your home. If it was worth $150,000 last year, it must be worth at least $300,000 today."
Post by: thebaldguy on December 21, 2006, 05:05:54 PM
This "fee" was brought to us by a Republican governor who promised not to raise taxes. This wasn't a tax, it was a fee.
Post by: Guest on December 22, 2006, 08:58:45 AM
Wisconsin is having budget problems,
Who cares?
Post by: Ron on December 22, 2006, 10:36:40 AM
That will increase revenue guaranteed. Everyone from northern Illinois will have the same opportunity that those in Illinois next to Indiana have. Cheap smokes.
Post by: Monkeyleg on December 22, 2006, 11:52:41 AM
Years back, Canada raised the tax on cigarettes to outrageous levels. The result was people buying cigarettes in the US and bringing them back home. Tax revenues fell, so the government reduced the taxes so they could collect more.
Post by: brimic on December 22, 2006, 01:31:29 PM
Quote
And I will not raise your property taxes. Instead, we'll just reassess your home. If it was worth $150,000 last year, it must be worth at least $300,000 today."
I just about had an aneurism when I opened my property tax bill. To add insult to injury, the little letter from the villaeg president talked about how proud he was that the village tax rate didn't go up. Yeah, and now my house is assessed for $50,000 more than what houses are selling for in my neighborhood (or make trying to sell, many houses have been on the market for 2 years or more for asking prices a lot lower than what my property is assessed at).
(note: there isn't an emoticon on this board angy enough to express my feelings. Something involving a head banging against a wall why cursing and vomiting at the same time would be about right)
Post by: The Rabbi on December 23, 2006, 02:06:59 PM
In TN we have not had a proposed increase in any taxes in the last 20 years that was not earmarked for the schools. You would think our schools would be the best funded on earth by now. At least last summer the voters in Davidson county managed to see through this fib and voted down another increase. In the last election the same citizens voted that property taxes could only be increased subject to public approval. That will end the councilmaniacs' predilection for saying they would never support an increase and then voting for it anyway.
Post by: brimic on December 23, 2006, 05:13:11 PM
Quote
Brimic, most places have an appeal process if you think your property is appraised too high.
In TN we have not had a proposed increase in any taxes in the last 20 years that was not earmarked for the schools. You would think our schools would be the best funded on earth by now.
In TN we have not had a proposed increase in any taxes in the last 20 years that was not earmarked for the schools. You would think our schools would be the best funded on earth by now.
I know about the appeals system, but its almost pointless- I talked to my neighbors and we all got assessed about the same- within a few thousand or so... Individuals appealing would do no good- the village will say "look at the 10 properties to either side of yours, they are all assessed the same.
The worst part is that our village doesn't even have a public school yet except for a small grade school. The village has doubled in size since I lived here, and there will be demand to build a middle and grade school soon. I think that will probably be about the time I move.
Post by: brimic on December 23, 2006, 05:22:50 PM
Quote
At least last summer the voters in Davidson county managed to see through this fib and voted down another increase. In the last election the same citizens voted that property taxes could only be increased subject to public approval.
Unfortunately we don't have that kind of representation in our state. In our state, its whatever the x wants, x gets (insert Teachers Union, Government workers union, road builders/construction companies that own the politicians, or pet project of local politicians for 'X'). The republican controlled congress tried to get a 'Tax payers bill of rights' into law a few years ago, but Gov Jim Doyle and most democRATs in the state didn't think that citizens should have the right/power to determine how much they are taxed. Interestingly enough the other high profile right/power that the citizens wanted but Dyle vehemently opposed was concealed carry. At least I had the satisfaction of voting out the republican representative in my district who opposed the tax bill through inaction (she was the assembly majority leader) at a time when it could have been made law and replacing her with a much more conservative republican.