States with a highly educated populace and higher taxes on cigarettes have fewer smokers, according to a new Gallup study of poll data.

The study found that one out of five American adults smoke, a number that has held relatively steady in recent years. Utah had the fewest smokers, at just 13 percent, while Kentucky and West Virginia tied for first place at 31 percent.

The South and Midwest dominated in smoker-heavy states. Besides Kentucky and West Virginia, Tennessee, Indiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Louisiana, South Carolina and Alabama all had populations in which 25 percent or more people smoked. States that were under the national smoking average of 21 percent included: California, Idaho, Montana, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Minnesota, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Arizona and Maryland.

Higher rates of smoking correlated with lower rates of formal education, according to the Gallup organization. West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Indiana, Tennessee and Oklahoma, for example, are all states where fewer than 25 percent of residents have college degrees. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and the District of Columbia, all areas with high rates of education, had some of the lowest rates of smoking.

Cigarette taxes are also associated with low smoking rates, though it’s not clear whether taxes discourage smoking or whether states with fewer smokers are more likely to pass high cigarette taxes. In states where smoking was well above average, the average state cigarette tax was $0.66 a pack. In average states, it was $1.59, and in below-average states, it was $2.02.

The only exceptions to the rule were the well-below average states for smoking, Utah and California, where the average cigarette tax is on the low end — $0.78. Utah’s 13 percent smoking rate could be explained by high rates of Mormonism, which forbids smoking, Gallup suggested. The poll can’t explain California’s 16 percent rate.

States that discourage smoking with regulations against smoking in public places also had lower smoking rates, but again, pollsters can’t say whether anti-smoking policies discourage smokers or whether such laws are easier to pass in states without many smokers.

The findings, released Aug. 26, are based on Gallup-Healthways Well Being Index data from 2009. Phone interviews were conducted with a national sample of 353,849 employed adults. The margin of error is plus or minus 1 percent.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO – A new study on the effect on children of watching smoking in movies found that federal and provincial subsidies to Hollywood studios undermine public health efforts to reduce smoking.

“Studies worldwide show smoking in movies is one of the most powerful recruiters of young people into lifelong tobacco addiction,” said Neil Collishaw, research director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, which commissioned the study “Tobacco Vector”. “Now we have estimates that 130,000 teenage Canadians who currently smoke were recruited by their exposure to smoking on screen, of whom 43,000 will die prematurely from smoking.”

The compelling evidence that exposure to smoking in films causes young people to become smokers has led the World Health Organization, the U.S. Institute of Medicine, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and now today the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, among many others, to call for steps to permanently and substantially reduce young people’s exposure. The U.S. film industry has so far refused appeals to change its self-administered rating system to apply an adult rating to new films with tobacco content.

“Canada’s provincial movie ratings don’t protect children as well as U.S. ratings,” said Dr. Chris Mackie, whose organization has coordinated campaigns for smoke-free movies in central-west Ontario. “Because so many R-rated films are re-rated ’14A’ or ‘PG’ when they cross our borders, Canadian youth can watch more than two-thirds of these smoking movies. American youth see fewer than half.”

“Canadian provincial and federal governments are unintentionally contributing to the problem,” said Jonathan Polansky, author of the study and a consultant to tobacco prevention agencies and policy research projects in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and other nations. “First, the provincial rating systems allow many of the U.S. studio films with the most smoking, R-rated in the U.S., to be dumped into the Canadian youth market, spiking youth tobacco exposure. Second, scores of U.S. studio films with smoking, accessible to young people, are actually being paid for by Canada’s taxpayers through generous production tax credits.”

The study estimated that, over the past five years, Canada’s provinces and the federal government granted a quarter of a billion dollars to fund Hollywood productions intended for young audiences and that featured smoking. Every dollar in film subsidies may in the end cost Canada $1.70 in societal tobacco losses.

“Our concerns are not with film artists, small producers, or documentary film-makers,” said Neil Collishaw. “The problem is with big Hollywood studios wittingly or unwittingly promoting smoking around the world, and with Canadian tax dollars being used to harm the health of young people world-wide.”

The report identifies several steps governments should take, including changing rating systems to ensure youth-rated films do not depict smoking (unless the smoker is an actual historical figure known to have smoked or the film unambiguously portrays the dire health consequences of tobacco use), ending display of tobacco brands in films, requiring film producers to attest that their production was not influenced to show tobacco, and making future youth-accessible films that depict smoking ineligible for public subsidies.

A meeting today in Henrietta was historic. The six nations making up the Iroquois Confederacy say it was the first time they’ve all met together in more than 200 years.

At stake are options in the wake of New York State taxing Native American cigarette shipments.

The Seneca Nation of Indians and the others say New York State does not have the authority to impose its laws on them. That they are sovereign nations — just as the United States of America is and they said that message is meant for Gov. Paterson and Andrew Cuomo.

The Six Nations said they are considering what their options are in the wake of New York State enforcing the new law that taxes most cigarettes headed for the Indian reservations. And they say this meeting is all because of Gov. Paterson and the state legislature.

“It has brought unity. It has brought us together in historic fashion. And we’re supporting one another, and it’s very significant and very important.” Ray Halbritter speaks for the Oneida Nation. “And we look and hope for peace and the Treaty of Canandaigua we signed with George Washington, the father of this country, the President who could not tell a lie. And we’re holding this country to its word.”

Two of the speakers talked about resolving this peacefully. But Senecas disrupted travel on the Thruway through their reservations in the summer of 1992 to protest the state’s plans to collect taxes on cigarettes sold on the reservations to non-Indians. They also staged protests in 1997 — upset with a state tax aimed at gambling revenue.

News 10NBC asked the Seneca Nation president if they really want peace and to sit down at the bargaining table. Barry Snyder said, “You’re exactly right. But you’ve got to remember, there are 7,800 Senecas and they have 7,800 different ideas about what the state should be doing to us. Again, I don’t have control over everybody. But I will do my damnest to make sure there is peace in our Nation and in our territories in western New York. I only speak for the Senecas.”

Under the new state law that takes effect September 1, the six nations get an allotment of tax exempt cigarettes for their people from a formula based on census counts.

For example, the state says there are nearly 8,000 Senecas and they are allowed 168,000 packs of tax free cigarettes every three months.

The state says the six nations sell millions of cartons of cigarettes and is counting on that new tax revenue.

How does this new law work?
All packs of cigarettes must have a tax stamp and wholesalers are ordered to collect the tax. The state Department of Taxation today said their agents are committed to collecting the tax. And Governor Paterson’s office issued a brief statement on the meeting today, “We have no comment on this.”

New York Governor David Paterson wants to raise tobacco taxes and collect levies on cigarettes sold to outsiders from American Indian reservations.

The proposals are part of Paterson’s 12th consecutive emergency spending plan, scheduled for a June 21 vote, to keep the government operating for another week. The measure is needed as lawmakers and Paterson haven’t agreed on a comprehensive budget that closes a deficit estimated at $9.2 billion when the fiscal year began on April 1.

“Our anticipation is that the budget extender will pass,” said Robert Megna, the state budget director, who described the weekly measure to reporters at the state Capitol in Albany.

New York, the nation’s third-most populous state, would expect to receive about $290 million this year from a $1.60 per pack increase in the cigarette tax, to $4.35, and a boost in the wholesale tax on other tobacco products, such as snuff and cigars, to 75 percent from 46 percent. Collecting taxes on cigarette sales from reservations would raise $150 million.

The estimated $9.2 billion deficit in Paterson’s $135.2 billion budget, submitted earlier this year, has been reduced by about half, Megna said. The additional tobacco revenue, plus spending cuts and savings in budget bills already passed or pending, and cuts in agency expenses that Paterson can order without lawmakers approval, have narrowed the deficit by between $4.5 billion and $5 billion, he said.

June 28 Deadline

Paterson earlier this week set a June 28 deadline for lawmakers to agree on a budget, which he said must not include borrowing. If there is no agreement, the governor said he would resubmit his original budget. That includes a 1 cent per ounce tax on sweetened beverages and larger cuts in school aid that many lawmakers don’t favor.

If legislators don’t approve the weekly spending plan, which provides appropriations to pay state workers for another week, they would cause a government shutdown, said Morgan Hook, a Paterson spokesman.

New York’s bond rating hasn’t suffered from the late budget or “very difficult state political process,” Moody’s Investors Service said yesterday as it affirmed an Aa2 grade, the third highest, for the state’s general obligation bonds.

“It appears likely that the state will solve the budget gap with some combination of spending cuts, revenue increases and one-time revenues that will not imperil the long-term fiscal health of the state,” the rating company said in a report.

Departmental Cuts Made

The Assembly yesterday trimmed the deficit by about $1.05 billion in budgets approved for departments including public safety, transportation and economic development, Megna said. After the Senate has an opportunity to study the measures, they “will pass,” said Travis Proulx, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader John Sampson, a Democrat of Brooklyn.

The bills also would cut $302 million from aid for New York City. The state cut municipal aid payments to other cities by 2 percent to 5 percent, or about $15 million in all, budget documents show.

While Senate Democrats have opposed any tax increases in spending plans, Megna said they might be swayed to accept higher tobacco levies as a way to avoid even larger cuts in health-care programs.

“Full consideration has to be given to all responsible proposals which balance the budget and maintain necessary funding for health and Medicaid programs,” Proulx said.

Politicians of both parties have pushed to resume collecting revenue on cigarette sales from American Indian reservations. The state hasn’t tried to make the collections since the early 1990s, when an attempt resulted in violent opposition that injured a state trooper and closed the main Albany-to-Buffalo highway. Court rulings have affirmed the New York’s right to collect the taxes.

By Michael Quint
Bloomberg, Jun 19, 2010

Utah’s oldest smoke shop is scheduled to close on June 30, a day before a state tobacco tax hike goes into effect.

The owner of the historic shop blames Utah’s cigar tax, the second highest in U.S., while the rate for cigarettes will tie with Montana for the nation’s 18th highest.

“Why would the Utah Legislature pass a law that forces someone to go out of business?” asked customer Bill Staker, as he picked up a box of cigars for half the regular price. “It’s the same as highway robbery, without the mask or a gun.”

Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden, who fought for years to raise Utah’s tobacco tax, said he’s surprised that Jeanie’s is going out of business.

Christensen had discounted warnings from Jeanies’ owner Gary Klc that the higher taxes on cigars and pipe tobacco — the mainstay of his business — would force him to close his shop at 156 S. State St.

“I felt it was one of those things that people speak out in reaction to something, and think better of it later,” said Christensen. “I hate to see any business impacted by the government that actually goes out of business. But on the same hand, these are business that are selling a dangerous drug. I wish them all luck as they go into a different field.”

Klc (pronounced Kelch), had also that said he could not come up with $125,000 on July 1 to cover the higher tax on his existing inventory, among the state’s most-extensive stock. He said it was too big an investment for products that will be taxed at some of the highest rates in the nation.

In Murray, the Tinder Box, open for nearly four decades, is staying put.

“We’ve reduced our inventory so we won’t have to pay more taxes on products we had already paid taxes on,” said Manager Ken Crandall. “We’re also looking for some good cigars at a lower price point. We’ll make this work — at least we hope we can.”

Jeanie’s employee Tom Calder, one of four workers who will lose jobs, said it’s sad that Utah is losing a classic, old-time gentleman’s shop that harkens back to the 19th century. Despite the high-end products and leather chairs where customers relax and read, Jeanies catered to a broad spectrum of customers.

Klc, a nonsmoker, was known for cashing checks for some of his regular customers, mostly day labors and disabled who would have had to pay a fee elsewhere. Klc said he will miss his customers most, particularly the ones who often dropped by on Saturday mornings to chat.

“The funeral is almost over,” said an emotional Klc of the family business that began in the 1940s when his late father bought out the old United Cigars store on State Street. The shop’s name changed through the years, finally to Jeanie’s in honor of Klc’s mother.

At this point, Klc, 50, has no immediate plans, other than to save some of the historic memorabilia, such as the life-sized Punch wood sculpture, signifying a cigar manufacturer that first registered its brand in 1840, and a Utah cigar box, recalling the days when dozens of factories in Salt Lake City manufactured the smokes.

So far this year, bills increasing tobacco tax rates have become law in three other states: Hawaii, New Mexico and South Carolina. In 2009, bills increasing tobacco tax rates became law in the District of Columbia and 13 states, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Nationwide, state tobacco tax collections for 2007 totaled $15.2 billion, compared to state alcohol beverage taxes of $5.1 billion.

By Dawn House
The Salt Lake Tribune, June 03, 2010

BOSTON – Smoking is one of the most dangerous and addictive things you can do, and stopping is one of toughest. That’s why getting smokers to quit, and keeping kids from ever starting, is crucial. It is important not only for them, but for everybody who pays higher health costs to care for people with smoking related illnesses.

Despite that, money for anti-smoking programs has gone down in Massachusetts, while state taxes on cigarettes bring in hundreds of millions of dollars.

Cyndy from Mansfield Declared her Curiosity:

“I’m curious where the tax money on cigarettes goes?”

Mary from Centerville asked:

“How much is being used for anti-smoking programs?”

The answer is – not much.

HOW MUCH MONEY?

Massachusetts has one of the highest cigarette taxes in the country – $2.51 on every pack. Last year that meant $562 million in state revenue. The big tobacco settlement brought in another $315 million. However, out of the nearly $900 million the state took in from cigarette taxes and settlement funds, lawmakers dedicated only $4.5 million to anti-smoking programs this year.

“Right now the program is funded at less than 1% of what the state brings in in tobacco revenue,” said Russet Morrow Breslau, the head of Tobacco Free Mass, a consortium of health groups.

WHERE THE MONEY GOES

Almost all of that revenue goes into the state’s general fund. Not a penny is earmarked for anti-smoking, so the state’s Tobacco Cessation and Prevention Program is funded at whatever level lawmakers decide.

The last time state cigarette taxes increased was two years ago. The tax went up by a dollar a pack. While that money did not go directly to anti-smoking efforts, it is earmarked to help pay for the state’s health insurance program.

“If you’re going to increase prices on cigarettes and tobacco products you need to use that money to help people quit smoking,” said Breslau.

A number of years ago the state did just that. For example, in 2000 Massachusetts spent $54 million on anti-smoking programs. Back then the state was a national model. But tough financial times caused the legislature to use that money for other needs.

“You can’t balance the budget on the backs of smokers,” Breslau said.

FLUCTUATING FUNDING

Funding for the state’s anti-tobacco program fluctuates. It was down to about $2 million a few years ago, and then increased bit-by-bit until it went up to nearly $13 million last year. But the recession and lowered income tax collections caused the legislature to cut $8 million to this year’s $4.5 million level.

“We are doing everything we can with our limited resources to provide them the help they need,” says Lois Keithly, PhD, the head of the state’s Tobacco Cessation and Prevention Program.

FUNDING TO REBOUND?

She points out that the state’s smoking rate has come down and is hopeful that by using their reduced resources wisely they can keep the rate from going the other way. Keithly also said she hopes that funding will increase along with an improved economy.

“We’re hopeful that when the funds become more available that we will be first in line to get additional funds,” she said. “I’m not sure there’s a better investment.”

That’s a feeling shared by Breslau.

“Our hope is that incrementally we increase funding to the program over the next several years. We’re not looking for all the money that comes into the state to go to the tobacco control program.”

Breslau estimates that a $25 million budget would create a strong program, but that’s $20 million more than is being spent today.

By David Wade
May 21, 2010

COLUMBIA — The Senate tonight stripped down a bill to increase the cigarette tax and earmarked almost all of the money it would raise toward future health care costs as a way to prepare for an expected veto from Gov. Mark Sanford.

The bill would raise the tax by 50 cents to 57 cents a pack and is expected to generate $136.1 million to be used to plug expected shortfalls next year in the state budget.

The bill now returns to the House, which passed it last year.

Most of the money would go toward Medicaid expenses. Additionally, $5 million would go to the Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina for lung cancer research and another $5 million toward helping people quit smoking and stop them from starting.

The Senate took out provisions that would have set aside $2.7 million for promotion of South Carolina’s agricultural products and $3.5 million toward an infrastructure grant program for the state’s Interstate 95 corridor.

By adding money for I-95 projects and agriculture promotions cost the legislation votes, and put the bill at risk of failing short of the votes needed to override a probable veto by the governor. The Senate had added that spending on March 31 when the body gave the bill key approval.

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, and Sen. Mike Rose, R-Summerville, had said they wouldn’t vote for the bill if it was loaded down with new spending commitments unrelated to health care.

“I am for a 50-cent increase with all the money being spent for health care,” Rose said this morning. “What I am not for is raising a cigarette tax with millions of the money going for expenditures that have nothing to do with health.”

The Senate reached a compromise by annually directing $3 million to go to I-95 infrastructure improvements and $1 million to the Department of Agriculture for marketing South Carolina-grown crops from the state’s tobacco settlement money, when available.

Rep. Chip Limehouse, R-Charleston, said he will lead an effort in the House to approve the cigarette tax increase. Supporters in the House are also preparing for a veto.

South Carolina’s cigarette tax is the lowest in the nation and has not been increased since 1977.

The House also approved a 30-cent increase as part of the state budget. But the bill to increase it by 50-cent is expected to be the proposal to be voted on.
BY YVONNE WENGER, Postandcourier
April 14, 2010

Cigarette taxes were increased in 15 states last year, bringing the national average to about $2.35 a pack as lawmakers aimed to discourage smoking and add more than $1 billion to government coffers, a U.S. report found.

The mean increase was 52 cents, raising state taxes to about $1.34 on each pack, according to the study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The federal tax was also increased last year to $1.01 from 39 cents a pack.

Smoking rates in the U.S. fell about 15 percent in the last decade, though declines slowed in the last five years, according to the Atlanta-based CDC. Thomas Frieden, the agency’s director, has warned that decades of smoking reductions may be ending unless taxes increase and more money is spent on education.

“Increasing cigarette excise taxes is one of the most effective tobacco control policies,” the report’s authors wrote. “Additional increases in cigarette excise taxes and dedication of all resulting revenues to tobacco control and prevention programs at levels recommended by CDC could result in further reductions in smoking.”

Each $1-a-pack increase brings in about $9.1 billion in annual tax revenue, according to the report. A dollar increase, over time, also prevents about 1 million smoking-related deaths and stops 2.3 million children from becoming smokers, the CDC said.

None of the 15 states that increased taxes last year mandated that the money go to smoking prevention programs, which would help curb tobacco use, the CDC said. The states may have increased their taxes because of budget shortfalls last year, the agency said.

All 50 states have cigarette taxes. About 460 cities, towns and counties also impose taxes, which weren’t included in the $2.35 per-pack tax in today’s report. New York City charges an extra $1.50 a pack, and Chicago-Cook County charges $2.68, according to the CDC.

While an increase in the tobacco tax has caused some to light up with joy, others are fuming.

As of midnight Wednesday, smokers will be paying 2.7 cents more per cigarette due to a 14.75-per-cent increase in the tobacco tax. The tax on a package of cigarettes is going from $4.50 to $5.25.

Taxes on cut/loose tobacco are going up by 21 cents per gram and cigars by 100 per cent of the retail price, subject to the existing minimum and maximum tax amounts per cigar.

In what will likely be the most controversial move, subject to the passing of legislation, First Nations individuals could be seeing a significant decrease in the amount of cigarettes they can purchase tax-free. If the government gets its way, on-reserve, tax-free cigarette purchases will be limited to one carton per customer per week — down from three.

That’s already met with criticism from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, which claims the move will cost First Nations businesses millions in lost revenue.

“This is a serious infringement on Treaty Rights without the benefit of meaningful consultation,” FSIN Vice Chief Morley Watson said in a written statement. “The Province has extended its authority beyond its jurisdiction. The Province is unilaterally changing quotas on how much tobacco First Nations people can purchase. This is Indian Agent mentality. The old Indian Agent would tell us how much grain, wood, fence posts and other goods we could produce and provide for our families.”

While Health Minister Don McMorris said he understands First Nations people might be upset by the proposed change, as far as the government’s concerned, it’s strictly about health.

“I’m going to look at what is better for the health of our general population, how to reduce some of the harmful effects of tobacco use, and that is my only goal is to reduce those harmful effects,” he said. “I can understand some of their frustration, but I also understand the costs that it has to the health care system.”

Donna Pasiechnik with the Canadian Cancer Society was thrilled with the government’s direction.

“We recognize that smoking rates are very high among First Nations people,” she said. “We know the importance of price in reducing tobacco use and so no smoker was not affected by these measures today.”

From a business perspective, Colin Craig, Prairie director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, also praised the government’s announced intention to reduce the number of tax-free cigarettes sold on First Nations, stating: “If you can level the playing field between activities on reserve and off, I think that’s a step in the right direction.”

McMorris said he’s “very confident” the legislation will pass.

But NDP health critic Judy Junor wasn’t enthusiastic about either the proposed legislation or the increase in tobacco tax. While she acknowledged tax increases do lead to decreased smoking, she claimed the decrease is “marginal.”

“People will just do without something else,” she said. “People who are truly addicted, they’re going to go find another way to get the cigarettes and that will be less food, shelter costs, clothing, school supplies, whatever.”

All in all, the tobacco-related changes would mean $35.7 million more in revenue for government.

Meanwhile, the beverage alcohol price increase means an estimated $18.1 million more for the province’s General Revenue Fund.

Effective April 1, most 750-millilitre bottles of premium spirits will go up by 50 cents; 1,140-ml bottles by 75 cents; and a dozen bottles of beer by 75 cents.

Higher-end wine and spirits will also increase in price by about five per cent, although cheaper wine products (below $20) in the 750-ml size won’t change in price.

The alcohol price increases are the result of changes to the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority’s markup structure.
March 25, 2010, The Regina Leader-Post

Topeka – A poll released Tuesday shows more than two-thirds of Kansas voters would support a tobacco tax hike.

The survey of 500 likely Kansas voters was backed by a coalition of groups including the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The poll showed 69 percent of Kansas voters support raising the tobacco tax by $1 per pack to cut the state’s budget deficit. The support comes from a broad-based coalition of voters, including 71 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of Democrats, and 59 percent of Independents.

“Kansans understand the difficult choices our leaders face as they deal with the State’s budget woes. We know that many legislators are reluctant to support any tax increase, but 69 percent of Kansas voters want them to raise the tobacco tax instead of making deeper cuts to critical programs like education, roads, and services,” said Chris Masoner, Legislative & Government Relations Director in Kansas for the American Cancer Society. “These results show that, regardless of party, voters across Kansas understand raising the tobacco tax is a smart way to help plug the hole in our budget.”

Kansas voters strongly prefer the tobacco tax over other options, such as sales and income taxes, for addressing the state’s budget woes.

Out of more than a dozen proposals tested, the tobacco tax and alcohol tax are the only two favored by a majority of voters to help address the budget shortfall. While 71 percent support increasing the tobacco tax for this purpose, a majority opposed other options such as increasing state sales and income taxes, taxing utilities, churches, and non-profits, and reducing funding for health care, education, social services or highway maintenance.

The survey also found among Kansas voters:
·54 percent are more likely to support candidates who favor the $1 proposal, while just 25 percent are less likely to do so.
·80 percent support using part of the revenue brought in from the tax to fund programs to keep kids from smoking.
·81 percent favor taxing other tobacco products such as cigars and smokeless tobacco at a rate comparable to cigarettes.

“Raising the cigarette tax by $1 per pack will not only reduce possible cuts to important programs and services, but will also encourage more Kansans to quit smoking and prevent more Kansas kids from becoming future smokers,” said Mary Jayne Hellebust of the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition. “It’s a win-win situation.”

A recent report by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other public health organizations found that a $1 increase in Kansas’s tobacco tax would raise nearly $75 million in new annual revenue. Such an increase would also prevent 21,600 Kansas kids from smoking, save 10,000 state residents from premature, smoking-caused deaths, and save $492 million in tobacco-related health care costs. Increasing the tax rate on other tobacco products would raise an additional $23 million in new revenue, for a total of nearly $98 million.

The survey was conducted by the national polling firm Public Opinion Strategies. The statewide poll has a random sample of 500 likely Kansas voters and was conducted March 17 to March 18, 2010. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.38 percentage points.

In Wednesday’s column disparaging Maryland’s life-saving 2007 tobacco tax increase (“Did cigarette tax increase do more harm than good?” March 17), Marc Kilmer neglects to mention that this increase, along with other policies such as Maryland’s smoke free workplace law also encated in 2007, have combined to make Maryland’s smoking rate the fourth lowest in the nation, saving thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars that would have been lost because of tobacco caused illness and death.

Like the tobacco companies and other critics of tobacco tax increases, Mr. Kilmer wrongly asserts that the drop in tobacco sales in Maryland after the tax went up was caused by people buying their tobacco in other states and that the tax did not bring in as much as was expected. In 2008, when tobacco taxes were increased in Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia, cigarette sales in those three states dropped by 108 million packs. At the same time, in the three neighboring states that did not raise their cigarette taxes, Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, cigarette sales went up by only 37 million packs. Therefore, the vast majority of the net drop in cigarette sales in Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia, was from people smoking less.

The one dollar tobacco tax increase also brought into Maryland state coffers an additional $144 million in revenue, which was almost precisely what we in the public health community estimated based on an analysis by the Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids. And, this money was used to help fund health care expansion for over 100,000 Maryland parents and children, which brought Maryland from 44th in the nation in health care for adults to 16th.

Plainly, Gov. Martin O’Malley and the Maryland General Assembly can be very proud of the success of the 2007 tobacco tax increase, and we look forward to working with them very soon to raise that tax again in order to keep reducing smoking and continuing to expand health care in Maryland.

Vincent DeMarco, Baltimore

The writer is president of the Maryland Citizens Health Initiative.

The legislative spotlight this week will shine brightly on tax increases.

Senate committees this week will tackle tax bills aimed at bringing millions in new revenue to the state in an attempt to close a budget shortfall that exceeds $400 million. And while House committees already have taken up many of the issues — and dismissed at least some — there may be more willingness to consider raising taxes in the Senate.

Senate President Stephen Morris has already said he believes the state will need to come up with $300 million in new revenue before the session is over. No one wants to raise taxes, he said, but lawmakers also don’t have an appetite for further cutting schools or programs that aid Kansans with disabilities — programs that account for the majority of state spending. And yes, he said, he knows lawmakers who are adamant the state can cut its way out of the fiscal hole.

“I don’t see how,” Morris said.

So, the Senate Taxation Committee will launch its second week of talks on controversial tax increases with votes expected Thursday on bills that would raise the cigarette and tobacco tax, the sales tax and taxes on alcohol. There is even a bill that would tax sugary drinks.

Meanwhile, the Senate Ways and Means Committee will consider eliminating some sales tax exemptions for many nonprofits and fundraisers while slapping the state’s sales tax on residential utility bills.

Sen. Les Donovan, chairman of the Senate Taxation Committee and a Republican, lamented tax increases throughout hearings last week. Donovan hails from Wichita, among areas of the state hardest hit by unemployment, and he owns a General Motors dealership that has seen better days.

As convenience store and tobacco shop owners told Donovan’s committee last week that a tax increase could put them out of business and drive customers across state lines or to the Internet, Donovan commiserated.

“I understand the impact of things that are outside your control and how devastating it can be to a business when you have invested — in my case millions and millions of dollars into facilities and infrastructure and people,” said Donovan, who counts himself lucky that he hasn’t laid off any workers.

But, Donovan told the crowd, it is going to be difficult to escape without bringing in new revenue.

“Hopefully, this recession will end someday,” he said.

The current budget troubles are unlike anything seen by even the most tenured of lawmakers. The state is in the midst of its third consecutive year of declining state revenues with numbers expected to continue sinking in 2011. Before the current slide, such declines happened just three times in about 40 years — none consecutively.

For many lawmakers, that is the perfect reason not to raise taxes.

Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican, suggests that the state should cut and paste budget figures from 2007 and use them in 2011, which he said would balance the budget.

“Why is there such a deficit?,” he asked. “Because we spent it as fast as we made it. It’s poor business, and it’s poor government.”

Schools and organizations that work with the disabled say they already have absorbed cuts that will have long-term effects.

“The simple fact is that Kansans are suffering due to budget cuts and, if more cuts are imposed, that suffering will increase,” said Mark Desetti, a lobbyist for the Kansas National Education Association.

If lawmakers agree, the question that may begin to be sorted out this week is who picks up the bill. Curt Diebel, president of the cigar shop Diebel’s Sportsmens Gallery, last week worked to make the case that his customers already pay their fair share. He said he has very real concerns about going out of business at his Overland Park shop.

“Putting small businesses out of business to placate bureaucrats and nonprofits is real,” he said. “Put a tax on the stones and those who throw.”

By Barbara Hollingsworth, Cjonline
March 14, 2010

www.jwhomes.com
Posted By – Paul Crawley – Updated On: 3/9/2010 6:02:34 PM

ATLANTA – One day after about 100 supporters urged the Georgia State Legislature to pass an extra dollar cigarette tax, another group of 100 or so rallied against it at the State Capitol — that and any other tax increase.

Sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, Tuesday’s group included many tea party activists as well as several conservative Republican lawmakers.

Even though the General Assembly is wrestling with balancing a budget with a hole of more than $1 billion, the protestors said raising taxes is not the answer.

“Step one is don’t raise taxes. Step two is stop the bleeding. Stop spending people’s money so much,” said national anti-tax activist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, the keynote speaker.

While Tuesday’s crowd also railed against President Obama and the U.S. Congress, who don’t have to balance the federal budget, they also called for no tax hikes and less spending in Georgia.

Some conservatives in the Republican controlled legislature are split over whether to raise the cigarette tax or to accept GOP Governor Sonny Perdue’s call for a hospital bed tax.

Smaller government is a long held dream of GOP conservatives, some of whom feel their day has finally come now that Georgia’s tax revenues continue to tank.

“I certainly believe there’re areas that state government needs to shrink,” says State Representative Tom Graves (R-Ranger), who attended the anti-tax rally.

“We’re for less spending in all levels of government and we’re certainly for reducing the tax burden on individuals here in Georgia,” Rep. Graves added.

Sponsors of a higher cigarette tax had accused the organizers of Tuesday’s rally of accepting money from the tobacco industry.

Monday they circulated a news release promoting the anti-tax rally that was paid for by Altria Client Services on behalf of Philip Morris, USA, the nation’s large cigarette maker.

But after the anti-tax rally, organizer Virginia Galloway of Americans for Prosperity said the news release was not theirs, but one put out by the cigarette company itself.

“It caused some confusion, unfortunately, and a lot of people got the idea that we were sending out that invitation and that Altria was paying for us to send out that invitation, which was not the case at all,” Galloway told 11Alive News.

On Monday House Speaker David Ralston, who opposes a higher cigarette tax, told 11Alive News he’d been invited to the rally, but wasn’t aware of any possible connection to Philip Morris.

Rep. Ralston said that would not change his plans to attend, but he was noticeably absent.

Some who attended the rally said they had a photo made with Ralston inside the capitol earlier in the day.
By Paul Crawley
3 March, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY — Should state lawmakers raise the tobacco tax or dip further into the rainy day fund to save education? A powerful business group says lawmakers should do both, but the governor and some legislators aren’t so sure.

It’s not often the state’s leading business group, the Salt Lake Chamber, calls for new taxes; but that’s exactly what it did Wednesday.

The Chamber is urging state leaders to hike the tobacco tax $1 from its current rate of 69 cents. It says that will raise about $40 million a year and help prevent potential higher education layoffs of nearly 1,400 faculty members and staff.

“My fear is that all this investing we’ve done in education over the last decades is going to come to a halt and we’re going to lose that competitive advantage that we have in our workforce, which is our No. 1 tool we have in our toolbox for economic development,” says Jeff Edwards, president and CEO of the Economic Development Corporation of Utah.

The Chamber also wants lawmakers to tap into the rainy day fund for $50 million to meet new, lower revenue projections.

“Ladies and gentleman, it’s raining. We need to make sure that we take care of our children and our young adults. We need to make sure that we’re not taking a step backwards,” says Lane Beattie, president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber.

Many lawmakers seem ready to look at either option.
“Increasing the tobacco tax from its current rate of 69 cents per pack of cigarettes to the national average of approximately $1.40 would generate an estimated $40 million for the state.” -Salt Lake Chamber

“The battle over there is how much is it going to be? So, is a dollar the amount in the Senate?” asks Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield. “I’d like to think we’re going to be able to keep it as a dollar as we go through; when all is said and done, we’ll come out at $1.70 a pack here in Utah.”

“When you have a business organization step up and call for targeted tax hikes, I think it’s significant,” says Senate Minority Leader Pat Jones, D-Salt Lake City.

Others worry about drawing too much from the rainy day fund, or upping anyone’s taxes.

“Where do you get the money from? And if by taking the money away from taxpayers, and thereby chill the recovery that were occurring, then you just spiral further in debt,” says Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan.

Gov. Gary Herbert reiterated his “no new tax” stance Wednesday, telling the Deseret News he’s prepared to veto a cigarette tax. He said it would hurt the state’s economic recovery. Instead, the governor favors taking more from the rainy day fund and delaying some road projects.

February 24th,
By John Daley

Many smokers and former smokers will tell you, it`s not easy to kick the tobacco habit, but some tobacco prevention advocates say there`s a sure-fire way to make it easier; raise the tax on tobacco products.

The report shows voters across the country say raising the tobacco tax by a dollar per pack of cigarettes is their preferred way to address state budget deficits.

North Dakota isn`t exactly strapped for cash, but the report released by a number of tobacco prevention groups like the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free kids shows increasing the tax on tobacco products by one dollar will bring $28 million of revenue to the state.

“While we`re not in a budget deficit, there`s still really good health programs that are going unfunded and this is a good way to generate new revenue to cover those health programs,” said Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy Executive Director Jeanne Prom.

Tobacco Prevention advocates say the best part about the increase is that the report shows it will keep 4,900 kids in North Dakota from becoming smokers, and will spur 3,200 current adult smokers to quit. The Center For Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy says price is everything when it comes to tobacco use.

“We need to raise the tax so it`s hard to start and easy to quit and when we raise the tax, more people will quit and those who do continue will probably smoke less and that`s all meaning a better health outcome for our state,” said Prom.

While prevention advocates call it a progressive tax, others call it regressive because most smokers are middle and lower class, and raising the cost of cigarettes won`t make them kick the habit, instead it will just hurt their pocketbooks even more.

“It just hurts the lower, middle class and poor people the most and the state quite frankly doesn`t need the revenue and so it seems to me like it`s a solution in search of a problem,” said Narloch.

But tobacco prevention groups say smoking in North Dakota is a problem and when people are faced with the choice between cigarettes and food, they`ll make the choice to quit their tobacco habit.

The Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy says it`s confident a price hike will urge people to quit because about a year ago when the federal tax was raised by about 60 cents, the Quitline saw a big increase in the number of callers asking for help to stop smoking.

The Russian parliament’s plans to sharply increase taxes on tobacco would create a boom in illegal trade in cigarettes and ultimately harm public health, according to the Finance Ministry.

The State Duma is considering a bill to raise excise duties on tobacco threefold in 2011 as part of government efforts to improve public health in Russia, which has one of the highest smoking rates in the world.

The ministry fears the bill would trigger a rise in illegal cigarettes sales, after similar laws have seen illegal tobacco markets thriving in the Baltics.

“High excise duties would prompt people to buy cheap and illicit tobacco products. This would hardly be to the benefit of public health,” the ministry said in a report.

Cigarettes in Russia are the cheapest in the developed world, with smokers paying around a dollar for pack a that costs $8 in the United States. Russian filterless cigarettes – including the notorious “papirosy” – cost less than 30 cents a pack.

The World Health Organization says more than 60% of Russian men are smokers, and about 400,000 Russians die from smoking-related diseases annually.

With smoking and alcoholism cited as two of Russia’s most widespread public health problems, Russian men have a life expectancy of only 60 years. President Dmitry Medvedev has begun to try to cut alcohol consumption, with a new law coming into effect on January 1 that set the minimum price of a standard half-liter bottle of vodka at 89 rubles (about $3).

MOSCOW, January 27 (RIA Novosti)

A new tax regime for asset transfers from parents to their children – which will be finalised after completion of a so-called “social dialogue” over proposed changes to the country’s tax system — is foreseen in an amendment tabled in Parliament by the finance ministry late Thursday evening.

The same amendment also envisages higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.

The late-night amendment stipulates that tax on gifts or parental asset transfers will be calculated under an existing status but on temporary basis. Final settlement will be made under a new law, following deliberations between the government and so-called “social partners”.

A finance ministry statement, issued on Friday, referred to the current PASOK government’s policy statement as well as comments by the prime minister – on Dec. 13 — advocating a reinstitution of inheritance, gift and parental asset transfer taxes. The ministry press release also opined that the measure was fair.

Under the amendment, tabled in Parliament, the government will raise the special consumption tax on cigarettes from 57.5 pct to 70 pct and on alcohol by 20 pct, a move aimed at reaching the average tax rates prevailing in the EU. The new taxes will be valid from Jan. 12 and Jan. 8, respectively.

The ministry said it estimates that the measures will raise an additional 930 million euros annually from tobacco products, and around 70 million euros from alcohol.

TOPEKA, Kan. — Gov. Mark Parkinson will propose increasing Kansas’ tobacco taxes next year, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.

The Democratic governor’s plan is likely to face strong opposition in the Republican-controlled Legislature, although the Senate’s top leader said he’d support the idea.

Parkinson spokeswoman Beth Martino said the governor hasn’t settled on how much of an increase he’ll propose. But she hinted that he’s considering asking legislators to bring Kansas’ cigarette tax up to the national average.

Kansas’ cigarette tax is 79 cents a pack. The national average for states and the District of Columbia is $1.34 a pack, according to the Washington-based group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

“He is going to pursue a tobacco tax of some sort,” Martino said. “He is still looking at the options.”

Martino said Parkinson has not decided whether to ask legislators to dedicate the new revenues to health programs, or use it to help the state balance its budget for fiscal year 2011, which begins July 1.

Legislative researchers estimate that increasing the cigarette tax by 55 cents, to $1.34 a pack, would raise about $88 million during the next fiscal year. The state also imposes a 10 percent tax on other tobacco products, but doubling it would raise only $5 million during the next fiscal year.

Parkinson said last week that he’s not planning to propose deeper cuts in spending to avoid a budget deficit for fiscal 2011. The state has had five rounds of cuts and other adjustments to keep the budget balanced for the current fiscal year.

He said he’s considering proposals to eliminate exemptions to the state’s sales tax and eliminate tax breaks granted in previous years. And he didn’t rule out raising some tax rates.

Senate President Steve Morris, a Hugoton Republican, said a cigarette tax increase would have the best chance of any proposal to raise tax rates.

“I would support it,” Morris said. “I think it’s probably the only tax increase that would have the possibility of getting through the Legislature.”

But many GOP legislators, particularly House conservatives, worry any revenue-raising measures will slow the state’s economic recovery and hurt struggling families.

House Taxation Committee Chairman Richard Carlson, a St. Marys Republican, said states typically raise taxes near the end of recessions — only to see revenues boom upon recovery.

“I’m going to be very cautious about looking at tax increases,” Carlson said. “I think Kansas will grow out of this recession. We just need to look at it in the long-term.”

Merchants also worry about losing business to other states. While Colorado and Oklahoma have higher cigarette taxes, Nebraska’s is lower, and Missouri’s, at 17 cents a pack, is second-lowest in the nation, behind only South Carolina.

Public health advocates have long argued that Kansans will support higher tobacco taxes if the money is used for health care programs.

But in 2002, when legislators boosted the cigarette tax from 24 cents, they did it to help close a budget shortfall. When then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius outlined a plan in 2004 to raise tobacco taxes for health care, legislators ignored the proposal for several years.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – On July 1, Florida’s cigarette tax increased to $1.34 and during the four months since then, cigarette sales have dropped 27 percent, the Miami Herald reports. However, collection of tobacco taxes in the state is on target, thanks to an accurate forecast of sales declines by state economists.

The higher tax provides Medicaid with needed funds. Economists predicted last week that the $1 a pack increase would bring in $881 million in 2009 and $907 million in 2010. The new tax has raised money in excess of the amount predicted to be lost because of declining cigarette sales.

“This is working exactly the way we had hoped,” said state Sen. Nan Rich, who was in favor of the tax. “We wanted to cut down on smoking and keep healthcare programs from being cut.”

However, not everyone is rejoicing at this news. The Florida Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association pointed out that fewer cigarette sales is harmful to small stores because tobacco products bring in customers, who then also buy 34 percent of other in-store items, such as beverages and snacks, in addition to cigarettes.

“Any time you reduce sales by big percentages, you eliminate a significant portion of profit that retailers use for things like payroll and rent,” said Jim Smith, president and CEO of the association. “If you’re a customer and you’re not going in for cigarettes, you’re not going to go in at all. And a lot of sales at convenience stores are impulse buys. That cuts into the bottom line.”

Smith also pointed out that the state faces heavy losses in payments from the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. “Tobacco companies pay the state 40 cents a pack for every pack sold, and those revenues are significantly lower and will continue to fall,” he told NACS Daily.

North Florida smokers are likely slipping over the state line into Georgia, where the tax is around 97 cents lower. Smith said he’s heard that Georgia convenience stores along the border have seen a five-fold jump in overall sales.

“The reduced sales are not an indicator that people have quit,” said Smith. “I’m certain that some have, but I’m just as certain that many consumers are purchasing online, at Indian smoke shops, crossing state lines and no doubt some smuggling cigarettes.”

When the federal government raised the tax on the loose tobacco people use to roll their own cigarettes a staggering 2,000 percent, companies stopped selling “loose tobacco.” Smokers stopped buying it. Very little of the projected tax revenue of $35 million per month appeared.

Yet smokers still roll their own cigarettes and still legally buy the ingredients.

Pipe tobacco is taxed at a rate of $2.83 per pound. Loose cigarette tobacco is now taxed at $24.78 per pound. Although pipe tobacco is, in general, cut rougher and sold moister than that used for cigarettes, there is no legal distinction between the products. They are taxed based on what their labels call them.

In just a few months, the production of tobacco labeled for pipes rocketed from 270,000 pounds per month to 1.7 million pounds per month. The production of tobacco labeled for cigarettes plummeted from 1.5 million pounds per month to 660,000.

It shows what happens when taxes unfairly target specific behaviors and assault narrow groups. Savvy producers and consumers have switched to unusually dry, unusually fine “pipe tobacco” for rolling their smokes.

There is no justification for hiking the tax rate of any legal product 2,000 percent. It places an undue burden on consumers of a legal product, and in this case, it placed an undue burden on the group of mostly small businesses that produce loose tobacco.

The tax increase, enacted alongside hikes in the federal levy on cigarettes and cigars, is pointlessly discriminatory. Why should people who place their tobacco in cigarettes be charged 10 times as much tax as people who place their tobacco in a pipe?

Again and again we see that taxes meant to change the behavior of the taxed backfire. They rarely raise the revenue their proponents promise, generally don’t cause people to act as predicted and often create unintended consequences.

The fairer a tax is, the harder it is to evade. An income tax, if the government stopped providing deductions targeted to manipulate behavior, would be fair and almost impossible to circumvent. A sales tax, if the government applied it to all items rather than excluding goods and services it wants you to buy, would be fair and almost impossible to evade. A property tax, if it simply reflected a set rate multiplied by the current value of property rather than varying based on behavior legislators want to encourage, would be fair and almost impossible to evade.

Seemingly incapable of learning, the federal government is now looking to set stricter legal distinctions between pipe and cigarette tobacco in an attempt to collect its money. Unmentioned is the issue of why the tax on one should be 10 times the tax on the other.

Perhaps government policymakers think pipes are cool and intellectual, and home-rolled cigarettes are just uncouth. If so, that’s a poor rationale for tax policy.

November 17, 2009 Goupstate

TALLAHASSEE — Cigarette sales have fallen sharply across Florida since a $1-a-pack tax increase took effect July 1, plunging nearly 50 percent in some counties.

Statewide, cigarette sales that regularly topped 100 million packs per month dropped to 73 million packs the month the tax became law. Since then, sales have inched back to around 78 million packs but remain well below prior levels.

To supporters, the sagging sales are evidence that the tax is meeting its public health objective: getting smokers to quit. Critics, however, say many people are simply buying their cigarettes elsewhere or switching to items that aren’t subject to the higher tax, like small cigars.

The state charge on cigarettes is now $1.34, compared with the 34-cent tax that had been in place since 1990.

“It’s working exactly the way it was designed to work. People are quitting,” said Rep. Jim Waldman, D-Coconut Creek, a cigarette tax champion. “If I could, I’d raise it another dollar.”

The state tax isn’t the only factor influencing sales. A 62-cent federal cigarette tax increase also went into effect last April. And Florida is a national leader in job loss and home foreclosures, which is surely pinching some of the state’s 2.7 million smokers.

The most dramatic decline in cigarette sales was in Miami-Dade County. In June, the month before the higher tax took effect, retailers and convenience stores sold 8.9 million packs; a month later, 4.4 million. Sales since rose to 6 million packs in September, the latest month for which county-by-county information is available.

Cigarettes sales in Broward and Palm Beach counties both saw a similar initial decline — evidence of sticker shock among smokers — and then recovered a bit. Broward’s monthly clip of about 6.5 million packs now is below 6 million packs a month. Palm Beach County sales dropped from around 5.5 million packs to 4 million.

Despite the sharp falloff in cigarette sales, the new tax is bringing in as much revenue as expected. Anticipating a drop in smoking rates, state economists predicted the extra $1 charge would generate $958 million this year. Through October, the tax had brought in $325 million — on track to meet or slightly exceed the target.

While the cigarette tax was used to help plug Florida’s budget shortfalls, Gov. Charlie Crist and legislators cited public health as the primary motivator.

Dramatically lower cigarette sales surely chip away at the state’s smoking rate, which is 20 percent for adults. But how much is not clear.

There were 7,900 calls to the state’s tobacco quit line in the three months after the new tax took effect, a 25 percent increase over the same period in 2008. But the state also beefed up its anti-smoking TV, radio and billboard advertising campaign, which helps account for the higher call volume.

At Mike’s Beer Barn in Tallahassee, whose owner lobbied for cigarette manufacturers, customers haven’t necessarily given up smoking, but they switched to cheaper brands, said general manager Dan Felger.

Instead of buying Marlboros — now $6.29 a pack — more are opting for little cigars that sell for $1.50 a pack or low-cost Dosal cigarettes, on special at two packs for $7.

Barney Bishop, president of the Associated Industries of Florida, which fought the cigarette tax increase, conceded the tax might persuade some smokers to quit, but he said many more will simply get creative. Smokers will stock up during trips to low-cost states, he said, or buy cigarettes tax-free over the Internet. Border counties have seen some of the sharpest declines in cigarette sales.

“People aren’t buying fewer cigarettes, they’re just not paying taxes,” he said.

Waldman, though, noted that people who are worried about the tax probably can’t afford to buy a dozen cartons of cigarettes on a trip to Georgia. He said there’s been a “perfect storm” in Florida to get smokers to kick the habit. “The recession, the increase in the cigarette tax — it came together at the right time,” he said.

TAIPEI, Taiwan — The health surcharge of NT$20 imposed on every pack of cigarettes sold will be subject to a 5 percent business tax (or value-added tax), according to revisions to the Business Tax Law that passed the first reading by the finance committee of the Legislative Yuan yesterday.

Based on the revisions, if one pack of cigarette sells for NT$50, including the NT$20 health surcharge, then the five percent business tax will be imposed on the base of NT$50, instead of the existing NT$30.

At the moment, the annual health surcharge income from sales of cigarettes amounts to around NT$30 billion, and the 5% business tax on the surcharge, if put into practice, will bring the state an additional annual income of NT$1 billion.

After the 5% percent business tax is imposed on cigarettes, consumers will inevitably pay more to buy cigarettes. Whether this will undermine their willingness to buy tobacco products remains to be seen.

The revisions also stipulate that the five percent business tax should be incorporated into the pricing structure for commodity products and services. Violators will be fined NT$1,500 to NT$15,000. In other words, the price tag for any commodity or service should include the five percent business tax.

Dealers of higher-price commodities or 3C products have usually told consumers if they don’t demand invoices, the five percent won’t be calculated into the sales prices, thus evading business tax payment. Such a practice will be fined after the newly revised Business Tax Law is ratified by the Legislative Yuan.

Meanwhile, the business income tax applicable to foreign securities firms will be slashed to 3 percent from the existing 5 percent, rather than 2 percent as proposed by the Ministry of Finance. This is because the business tax income contributed by domestic securities firms and other financial institutions will be funneled into the Resolution Trust Company fund designed to relieve financially-troubled institutions, while the income contributed by foreign securities firms will be directly funneled into national coffers.

November 6, 2009 Chinapost

A majority of the 20 companies billed for a new cigarette tax have paid.

Responding to a lawsuit, Hinds County Chancery Court Judge Patricia Wise issued a temporary restraining order in the case last month, preventing the state from collecting the tax.

The tax – which is typically 20 cents a pack – was due in mid-October. It’s applied to cigarettes warehoused in Mississippi for sale in other states.

The state billed 20 manufacturers $537,499. Sixteen manufacturers paid a total of nearly $282,687, said Kathy Waterbury, spokeswoman for the state Tax Commission.

In a lawsuit, The Corr-Williams Co., a Pearl-based distributor, and Commonwealth Brands, a Bowling Green, Ky.-based cigarette manufacturer, are challenging the constitutionality of the state taxing goods for sale in other states.

This tax only applies to cigarette manufactures not included in the state’s 1997 tobacco settlement.

The lawsuit does not involve cigarettes that are sold in the state.

Commonwealth paid the $56,000 tax bill in protest, said Rob Wilkey, the company’s attorney. The company has said that about 80 percent of the cigarettes it sends to Mississippi are destined for sale in other states.

The temporary restraining order remains in effect until Tuesday, the day of the next hearing.

For bills due this month, manufacturers have been billed $458,701, Waterbury said.

In granting the order, Wise wrote the harm in this case would be greater for Corr-Williams than the state, “even considering the present economic condition of the State of Mississippi and the potential implications of up to $590,000 a month in reduced revenues,” the order might cause to the state’s budget.

The judge also said there might be a loss of jobs and tax revenue if distributors such as Corr-Williams leave or move part of their operations out of the state.

The state began assessing the 1.25-cent per cigarette tax in July. The first payments were due last month.

Commonwealth describes itself as the fourth largest cigarette manufacturer in the country. Its brands include Premier, McClintock and Rave, among several others.

In its effort to get state tax nixed, Commonwealth argues that it’s being taxed twice if Mississippi is allowed to institute the tax against the non-settling manufacturers. The company voluntarily joined a settlement agreement with 46 other states, With that agreement, Commonwealth pays taxes based – in part – on its cigarette sales, including those in Mississippi.

The Corr-Williams Co. has argued that the additional tax would add to the price of its products, making it less competitive in the marketplace.

LaRaye Brown, November 5, 2009

MERIDEN, Conn.—On a recent afternoon, Lynn Lombardi stepped out of the Day Spa in Southington for a sidewalk smoke. A Prospect resident, Lombardi was there with her daughter, Jessica, who was to be married the following day. Lombardi was taking a break from getting “gussied up for the big day” to smoke a Newport.

Lombardi’s been a cigarette smoker for 33 years, starting when she was 13. She smokes about a pack a day, usually taking two or three puffs before tossing the cigarette away.

Her habit is about to get even more expensive.

On Thursday, the state tax on cigarettes will increase by a dollar, from $2 to $3 for a pack of 20, or from 10 cents to 15 cents for each cigarette. The increase makes Connecticut second only to Rhode Island, where the state tax is $3.46 per pack.

Connecticut increased the per-pack cigarette tax from 50 cents to $1.11 in 2002, added another 40 cents in 2003 and raised the tax again, to $2 a pack, in 2007.

None of this has kept Lombardi from smoking, and she doesn’t expect the $3-per-pack tax to stop her now.

“It’s not going to affect me,” she said. “I’ll still buy the cigarettes.”

Lombardi tried to quit smoking not too long ago during a hospital stay, with the help of a nicotine patch, but “when I got out, I decided that I did not want to quit smoking.

“I don’t know if I could quit just yet,” she continued. “I’ve been smoking for so long, I don’t know if I could think of myself without a
cigarette.”

Across Center Street from the Day Spa, Paul E. Raczynski runs “Fire N Smoke,” a shop that specializes in cigars, other tobacco products and, somewhat incongruously, hot sauce. Cigar sales make up about 95 percent of his business, he said.

On Thursday, the state tax on those tobacco products will increase from 20 percent to 27 percent. The price of the only cigarettes Raczynski sells, American Spirit, will rise from $8 to $9 a pack.

Many cigar enthusiasts smoke just one or two a week, but there are others who puff anywhere from six to a dozen a day, said Raczynski, who was preparing for his second annual party, an all-you-can eat, all-the-beer-you-can-drink Cigar B-Que for an anticipated 70 participants. The entertainer George Burns enjoyed 12 to 15 cigars a day, Raczynski pointed out, “and he lived to be over 100.”

“Probably,” said Raczynski, when he was asked if the tax increase would hurt his sales. “It’s going to hurt the manufacturers, I think, more than it’s going to hurt me.”

The tax increase on tobacco products was part of the overall state budget, the resolution to a standoff between Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the Democrat-controlled legislature over closing a projected multibillion-dollar deficit, and there are lawmakers who say they would not have voted to approve it as a standalone bill.

“I think at this point it’s too punitive,” said state Rep. Emil “Buddy” Altobello, D-Meriden.

Though he voted to approve the budget, state Rep. Joe Aresimowicz, a Berlin Democrat whose district includes part of Southington, considers the tax regressive because it targets those low on the income scale. “We keep going back to the same area,” he said.

“I think the smokers will tell you that enough is enough,” Aresimowicz said.

He kicked the nicotine habit a few months ago, he said, after 15 years of on-and-off smoking that never reached more than five cigarettes a day. He quit with the help of the medication Chantix. Among the motivations was his work with youth groups and his desire to set an example.

“It always worried me that if they saw me, it wouldn’t be sending the right message,” he said.

Advocates say the tax increase will help deter youngsters from picking up the habit and discourage young smokers because it’s become so expensive.

But there are those who feel it’s not right to tax cigarettes without spending at least some of the money raised on smoking-cessation initiatives.

The hope was that some of the money would go toward programs like nicotine replacement therapy for Medicaid patients, “and that just hasn’t happened,” said Margaret R. LaCroix, a spokeswoman for the American Lung Association of New England.

“I go further and call it immoral and unjust,” said Dr. Patricia Checko, an epidemiologist who is chairwoman of the coalition MATCH, which stands for Mobilize Against Tobacco for Connecticut Health. The coalition includes the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association.

Studies indicate that for every 10 percent tax increase on cigarettes, there’s an overall decrease in consumption of 3 percent to 5 percent, and 6.5 percent among young-adult smokers.

“The group we have the biggest effect on when we raise taxes is youth,” said Checko.

Those heavily addicted, however, will “give up other things just to feed the habit,” she said. “That’s a very serious issue for those on the low-income level.”

The smoking level among those on Medicaid is 45 percent, said Checko.

“The other reason to look at Medicaid clients is that these are the people who will have the greatest health costs down the road,” she said.

Smoking is more prevalent among those on lower education and income levels, “so the people who need it the most have no access,” Checko said.

The coalition is calling for $9 million of the money raised by the tax increase each year – by some estimates, that will be as high as nearly $100 million the first year – to go toward cessation efforts, including $5 million for a statewide telephone quit line.

“We’re very concerned that they might not be funded at all, and this is something that has been shown to work very well,” said Checko, adding that “given the economic times, it’s going to be difficult.”

Difficult economic times called for difficult decisions.

“Did we want to tax cigarette smokers particularly? No,” said House Majority Leader Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden. “Are we happy about that? No.

“We have a budget that funds a lot of things that smokers use, too,” he continued. “The state General Fund does things that smokers use. We fund Medicaid, so to say it doesn’t go to smokers – it does, but not to all smokers.”

The smoking rate among adults in Connecticut is 18 percent, or about 450,000 people, with the rate among high school students at 21 percent, Checko said.

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids applauded the state tax increase because it will help keep an estimated 24,000 state youth from turning into addicted smokers. But the state is missing an opportunity by not directing the funds toward Medicaid cessation programs, said Kevin O’Flaherty, director of advocacy for the organization’s northeast region. Funding for Medicaid would be matched by federal dollars, he said.

“They’re leaving something on the table,” he said. “They could get so much more out of it.”

Connecticut, now with the second highest cigarette tax, remains one of just a few states that do not provide Medicaid smoking-cessation coverage, and it ranks low in prevention funding in general. The other states that provide no tobacco prevention services at all under Medicaid are Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee.

Connecticut’s attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, called the tax increase “egregiously regressive.”

“I supported a cigarette tax increase only if some of the revenue would be used for smoking cessation programs, because I believe that forcing people who are addicted to nicotine to pay higher taxes is blatantly unfair and ineffective if we fail to provide help to those in breaking that addiction,” he said.

Connecticut continues to use little of the more than $100 million a year it receives from the settlement with tobacco companies, which Blumenthal signed in 1998, on smoking cessation or prevention.

Connecticut’s tax increase will put the average state tax on cigarettes at $1.34 a pack, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. South Carolina has the lowest state cigarette tax rate, at seven cents a pack.

South Carolina funds smoking-cessation therapies under Medicaid, including the patch and Chantix, though coverage does not include individual or group counseling. Rhode Island, the highest taxing state, provides Medicaid funding for all cessation therapies, including counseling.

South Carolina is also one of just four states not to have raised the tax on cigarettes since 2000. The others are California, Missouri and North Dakota.

Smoking would be banned in all enclosed public venues and penalties would be increased under new draft legislation for Beijing.

Cui Xiaobo, professor of Social Medicine at the Capital Medicine University, also a tobacco control expert helping draft the anti-smoking law, said a total ban was the only practical solution for public health.

“The city’s work on anti-smoking has indeed made a great achievement, thanks to the smoking regulation, effective May 1, 2008, a way to meet the country’s pledge of a smoke-free Olympics. But there is still more to be done,” Cui said.

Smoking restrictions are in place in about 70 percent of public venues in the capital. About 1,200 restaurants, 218 hospitals, and 66,000 taxis are smoke free.

But the current penalty for individuals found smoking in banned areas is just 10 yuan ($1.4).

According to the draft, the penalties for individuals who flout bans will be about 200 to 1,000 yuan, and it would be about 30,000 to 40,000 yuan for venues.

“The cigarette smoking rate decreased to 21.5 percent last year, 1.5 percentage points lower than 2007,” Cui said, referring to his survey conducted of 6,000 Beijing residents last October.

“More importantly, more and more residents are beginning to be aware of the harm of smoking.”

The survey found about 84 percent of residents supported the total ban in all enclosed public places.

In addition, more than 70 percent of Beijing residents wanted the government to raise fines for establishments if they fail to prevent smokers from lighting up cigarettes.

“Harsher penalties for establishments and individuals is an important way to ban smoking, but this is just an initial proposal,” Cui said.

“The draft will be completed by the end of the year, and then sent to Beijing municipal people’s congress for a decision.”

Qiao Jingyao, 23, a manager at Sculpting In Time cafe welcomed the proposal.

“It will not only stop people smoking in restricted areas, but also save thousands of people’s lives.”

The cafe has already established a smoking section, twice the size of non-smoking area.

“We receive about 190 to 200 guests each day, and most of them smoke. Staff have to work and breathe in second-hand smoke. Such a ban would be a big step forward in public health, especially for the restaurants workers,” Qiao said.

But a student surnamed Jiang from the University of International Business and Economics said people would continue to smoke regardless of the law.

“The problem is that when the ban comes in, people will move into the streets or come back home, and then smoke more, they can not ban smoking completely,” she said.

Oliver Dick, 28, from Germany, said many European countries have strict bans on smoking in public places.

When asked about he what to do if the ban was carried out in Beijing, Dick said he would go outside to smoke.

China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of tobacco, with more than 300 million people smoke and 54 million second-hand smokers. About 600,000 people died of lung cancer in 2008 across the country, an estimated one million more died of tobacco-related diseases.

It is estimated that about 100 million will die from smoking-related diseases by 2050 if no measures are taken, according to the latest figures from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Copyright © 2009-09-24 Chinadaily

It is now becoming a tradition that major legislation to protect the children’s health increase taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products. But unfortunately nobody thinks that this legislation will not make smokers to quit.

For example, continued increases in taxes and duties on tobacco products in the United Kingdom has caused many people to import their cigarettes, rolling tobacco, pipe tobacco and cigars from inexpensive sources.

Although there are ongoing campaigns and increasing help and support for people to give up smoking, many callous smokers do not want to give up smoking. Today there are more options to stop smoking while slowly reducing the need or craving for the nicotine. Doctor’s can now prescribe patches, gums, and a number of alternate therapies to slowly reduce the dependence on the nicotine. It is still not an easy road but holds great potential for many. But as tobacco prices increase smokers are finding it more and more expensive to provide their habit.

Anti-tobacco researchers reported that many of smokers have stopped buying cigarettes and instead they now buy rolling tobacco and roll their own cigarettes. This has been profitable for the manufacturers of tobacco brands such as Golden Virginia, Amber Leaf and Cutters Choice, three of the most popular brands.

This has lead to more smokers revolving to foreign supplies for their shops. Most European countries sell the same brands as the United Kingdom, but at cheaper prices.

Many people are taking short voyages over to France, Belgium and Spain, to bring back their tobacco and cigarettes duty free, while many are using the services of internet websites that send goods directly to them.

In every city or town in the United Kingdom can be found people which sell cheaper cigarettes and tobacco in pubs and cafes.

All of these methods can bereave the United Kingdom economy of huge quantity of income, but this has not urged the British government to reduce the duties which would increase purchases from shops in Britain and perhaps increase occupation.

MICHIGAN – In her budget proposal, Governor Jennifer Granholm has proposed some new taxes.

A big part of the governor’s plan to bring in new revenue has to do with adding taxes to certain items, things many people buy, at least once in awhile.

A quarter here, six cents there, the governor is suggesting that some of what Michigan residents buy could be taxed to help the state make ends meet.

Among the proposed taxes are an entertainment tax, which would add a six percent sales tax on the tickets to sporting events, concerts, or a night at the theater.

Another proposal is a one cent tax on every bottle of water sold in Michigan. Time at the spa could see a six percent tax added to those services. Smokers would also see another increase, another 25 cents on every pack of cigarettes sold.

The increases have gotten mixed reviews from consumers, and many smokers are certainly saying enough is enough.

“Not more, it’s crazy,” said Cassandra Rank, who opposes an increased cigarette tax.

As far as entertainment and services taxes, a few people Newschannel 3 spoke to on Wednesday said they wouldn’t even notice.

“I don’t think six percent is too high of a percentage,” said Dena MacRitchie. “I don’t think at the end of the day it’s going to make a difference.”

“People who can afford those non-essential items should be able to afford the extra change,” said Amber Hamilton.

The proposed increases are not yet set in stone, and state lawmakers hope to have a budget in place by October 1st to avoid a government shutdown.


Copyright © September 09, 2009 Wwmt

A health advocacy organization wants the city to raise cigarette taxes in Juneau from 30 cents a pack to $1.

The excise tax could show up on the October ballot.

The request comes from the Juneau affiliate of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, which asked the Juneau Assembly Finance Committee to consider raising taxes on tobacco products as a prevention measure for teens.

Some 90 percent of people who end up smoking as adults start in their teenage years, Executive Director Matt Felix said.

“If you can target that group and prevent them from starting through higher prices – and research shows that does work – then taxation is the way to go to get the price up,” Felix said.

Juneau is behind the curve on taxing cigarette purchases, Felix said.

Anchorage charges $1.30 per pack, and Sitka, Barrow and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough each charge $1.

“All we’re asking is to tax this product at the rate other cities are, so people don’t try to buy from one city in bulk and transfer it to another city,” Felix said.

The organization also wants to raise the excise tax on products such as cigars, snuff and chew to 45 percent from 12 percent.

If consumption habits don’t change, tobacco tax revenues could triple if passed as proposed. The tax would generate $1.6 million for the city, compared to $515,490 last year, according to city Finance Director Craig Duncan.

The revenues are paid out in grants to health and social services agencies. NCADD-Juneau does not receive those funds, Felix said.

While Felix said the Assembly could pass the excise tax “from the bench,” or without putting it on the ballot, city Attorney John Hartle said he suspected elected officials would since they’ve gone to the voters in the past with requests to raise any kind of tax.

That didn’t worry Felix because tobacco taxes are usually supported by voters.

“The last time a tobacco tax was put on the ballot it passed 2-1, so I don’t have any fear that it won’t pass,” he said.

Juneau adopted its tobacco tax in 2003.

Percy’s Liquor Store owner Robert Rodman said the last tax increase on tobacco products – a tripling of taxes on roll-your-own tobacco products – caused a large decrease in sales at his downtown store.

The largest federal tobacco tax increase in history took effect in April, going from 39 cents a pack to $1.01. The state tax in Alaska is $2 per pack.

At $3.01 per pack, Alaskans pay among the highest taxes on cigarettes. The tax is higher in five states and equal to Alaska’s tax in seven others. The highest tax is in New York, at $3.76 per pack.

The finance committee, which is made up of the entire Assembly, is expected to discuss the city’s tobacco tax on July 29. The Assembly would have to approve an ordinance by Aug. 24 for a question to appear on the Oct. 7 ballot.

Felix made a pitch to the finance committee to raise the city’s tax on alcohol purchases, but elected officials did not appear interested in pursuing the matter.

Hartle advised the committee that the state limits the ability of municipalities to tax alcohol, and any increase in Juneau would likely be challenged in court and take years of litigation to resolve.

• Contact reporter Kim Marquis at 523-2279 or kim.marquis@juneauempire.com.
Copyright © 2009 Juneauempire

A North Dakota advisory board’s plans for cutting tobacco use include more than quadrupling the state’s tax on cigarettes from 44 cents to $2 a pack.

The board also will be seeking a statewide ban on smoking in businesses and places where people gather. Smoking in bars and outdoor stadiums would be outlawed.

North Dakota voters approved the board’s formation last November. It is independent of the state Health Department, and it is financed by money from a state lawsuit settlement against tobacco companies.

Former Health Department tobacco prevention director Kathleen Mangskau is chairman of the board.

Mangskau says North Dakota is known as the “ashtray of the upper Midwest” because of its low cigarette tax. She says the tax is less than a third of the tobacco tax in Montana, Minnesota and South Dakota.

Copyright © 2009 Kxmb

When the federal tax on tobacco went up earlier this year, one man from Portage County decided “enough is enough”. He then decided to grown his own tobacco.

Don Carey says the decision was part protest and part economics.

He bought 33 variety of seeds to determine which ones grew the best in northeast Ohio.

His tobacco field was planted with the help of 15 volunteers.
The planting was the easy part.

Tobacco is a labor intensive crop that requires constant attention to keep pests from destroying it.

Carey, a pack a day smoker, needs about 17 pounds of tobacco a year for himself. The yield from his tobacco field could bring 200 pounds.

He says he’s willing to share his experience to help others. “Planning on selling plants and seeds and instruction manuals. I want to help anyone that wants to grow tobacco,” said Carey.

His daughter, a non-smoker, is helping her father because of the principle involved. “I think he’s doing a good thing showing people there are other options besides spending so much money,” said Lisa Carey.

At $5.56 a pack, smokers are spending about $120 per pound of tobacco.

It will take a big investment in time before Carey finds out if his plan worked out. It takes about a year to dry and cure the tobacco leaf.


Copyright © 2009 Wkyc