Virginia Delegate Aims to Raise Cigarette Tax - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sports and W...

Another scum Democrat ripping people off for more undeserved money.

Nothing new.

And the thought of cutting state spending never entered his mind. Don't you just love Democraps?

Wow!!@ George and ImYa what did I miss in the story.
If this is approved, money from this tax would be used to offset your CAR TAX!

What? a democrat advocating for a lower tax?

I bet more people in VA have cars than smoke, would like to see the stats on that one if available.

At least there could be more availability of options for those looking for a program to assist in stopping the addiction to nicotine.

@ George and ImYa, either one of you smoke? If so, I dont see why you should not be paying more in health insurance premiums as well.

TJeff wrote:

Wow!!@ George and ImYa what did I miss in the story.
If this is approved, money from this tax would be used to offset your CAR TAX!
What? a democrat advocating for a lower tax?
I bet more people in VA have cars than smoke, would like to see the stats on that one if available.
At least there could be more availability of options for those looking for a program to assist in stopping the addiction to nicotine.
@ George and ImYa, either one of you smoke? If so, I dont see why you should not be paying more in health insurance premiums as well.

You don't get it do you? It is immaterial whether I smoke or not.(I don't by the way.) The notion that government should tax one segment of the population to benefit another section of the population is asinine and smacks of class warfare. If the democrat in question truly believed that smoking is bad and therefore should be penalized, why not advocate a tax on fast food? There are more obese people now than smokers and they are a much greater drain on healthcare resources than smokers ever thought of being. After we tax the obese, we can go after the wine and latte crowd.

Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:

<quoted text>The notion that government should tax one segment of the population to benefit another section of the population is asinine

like paving roads for non-drivers, or property tax for couples who will have no kids, or a portion of federal income tax to pay for your posts here?

Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:

<quoted text> You don't get it do you? It is immaterial whether I smoke or not.(I don't by the way.) The notion that government should tax one segment of the population to benefit another section of the population is asinine and smacks of class warfare. If the democrat in question truly believed that smoking is bad and therefore should be penalized, why not advocate a tax on fast food? There are more obese people now than smokers and they are a much greater drain on healthcare resources than smokers ever thought of being. After we tax the obese, we can go after the wine and latte crowd.

I'm with Zack Huckleberry on this one. You "Democraps" don't know a thing about cutting taxes. Take the Republi"con" front runner Mitt Romney who pays 15% tax on his hundreds of millions of dollars worth of wealth. I bet that if he is elected he will assure us working stiff's that the 33% tax us poor people now pay will be cut back to a more manageable 15% rate like his. That's right after he finishes pulling the wool over your eyes like Bozo Bob has.

Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:

<quoted text> You don't get it do you? It is immaterial whether I smoke or not.

Is it material whether you drive/own a car/cars?

Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:

The notion that government should tax one segment of the population to benefit another section of the population is asinine and smacks of class warfare.

Maybe you read different things than I did. What I read was that the efforts to raise the tax on cigarettes for the purpose of helping smokers couldn't get off the ground. That is why this effort only allocates 5% of the revenue to helping smokers.

Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:

If the democrat in question truly believed that smoking is bad and therefore should be penalized, why not advocate a tax on fast food?

Again, you seem to be reading a completely different story. The essence of the tax is not a penalty. It is, in so far as it is aimed at the smokers at all, a deterrent. That's a very significant difference.

Moreover, since every evaluation I've seen in the last decade and more says that ~2/3 of smokers continue to smoke ONLY because they cannot beat the addiction when they try to quit, this tax benefits them by increasing their motivation as well as by funding programs to directly help them to succeed in taking their lives back.

This hardly sounds like punishment.

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it material whether you drive/own a car/cars?
<quoted text>
Maybe you read different things than I did. What I read was that the efforts to raise the tax on cigarettes for the purpose of helping smokers couldn't get off the ground. That is why this effort only allocates 5% of the revenue to helping smokers.
<quoted text>
Again, you seem to be reading a completely different story. The essence of the tax is not a penalty. It is, in so far as it is aimed at the smokers at all, a deterrent. That's a very significant difference.
Moreover, since every evaluation I've seen in the last decade and more says that ~2/3 of smokers continue to smoke ONLY because they cannot beat the addiction when they try to quit, this tax benefits them by increasing their motivation as well as by funding programs to directly help them to succeed in taking their lives back.
This hardly sounds like punishment.

I think you may have smoked too many "left handed cigarettes" in your time. The complete text of the story reads,"It could soon cost you more to light up a cigarette in Virginia. One state delegate wants to raise the cigarette tax, and use that money to lower the car tax.

47th District Delegate Patrick Hope (D) wants to raise the cigarette tax from the current 30 cents a pack to the national average -$1.45 a pack.

Eight percent of that money would go to programs that help people quit smoking and the other 92 percent - about $265 million annually - would go to cutting the car tax in half.

Hope said, "What we're really giving legislators is a choice. Do they support big tobacco and their profits, or do they support continuing the car tax? I think it's an easy choice."

Philip Morris, one of the world's largest tobacco companies, calls Richmond home. Delegate Hope's bill last year to raise the cigarette tax to pay for Medicaid failed in committee."

Nowhere does it state that."What I read was that the efforts to raise the tax on cigarettes for the purpose of helping smokers couldn't get off the ground. That is why this effort only allocates 5% of the revenue to helping smokers."

It is also immaterial whether I drive a car or not. When government decides to tax one segment of the population to benefit another segment is where I have a problem.
Maybe we should just tax obese people to lower the car tax. There's more of them than there are smokers.

Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:

<quoted text> You don't get it do you? It is immaterial whether I smoke or not.(I don't by the way.) The notion that government should tax one segment of the population to benefit another section of the population is asinine and smacks of class warfare. If the democrat in question truly believed that smoking is bad and therefore should be penalized, why not advocate a tax on fast food? There are more obese people now than smokers and they are a much greater drain on healthcare resources than smokers ever thought of being. After we tax the obese, we can go after the wine and latte crowd.

Actually, "tax[ing] one segment of the population to benefit another" is the ONLY reason for taxes. People who don't understand this are constantly carping about "letting people keep their money" and such. Problem is, they don't seem to have a problem when the redistribution is upward. This is just a Democratic delegate who wants to PAY FOR a promise made by a Republican governor.

The side benefit of this is that Virginia, by approaching the national average cigarette tax, will no longer be a major source of cigarette piracy. The Commonwealth's unnaturally-low rate means that truckloads of cigarettes make their way to points north, such as New York, and create a huge law enforcement problem.

Maybe then ATF would be able to enforce the "laws already on the books" the gun nuts insist are sufficient to stem gun violence.

How about increasing the tax on the winos and the lushes? How much do wineries and ABC stores give to the school system in Virginia? They should all match the monetary gifts that PM gives.

http://www.news.vcu.edu/news/Virginia_Commonw...

Barnaby Wilde wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, "tax[ing] one segment of the population to benefit another" is the ONLY reason for taxes. People who don't understand this are constantly carping about "letting people keep their money" and such. Problem is, they don't seem to have a problem when the redistribution is upward. This is just a Democratic delegate who wants to PAY FOR a promise made by a Republican governor.
The side benefit of this is that Virginia, by approaching the national average cigarette tax, will no longer be a major source of cigarette piracy. The Commonwealth's unnaturally-low rate means that truckloads of cigarettes make their way to points north, such as New York, and create a huge law enforcement problem.
Maybe then ATF would be able to enforce the "laws already on the books" the gun nuts insist are sufficient to stem gun violence.

How does this create a huge law enforcement problem for New York? They have much bigger problems than cigarettes.

nyc gets nearly $8/pk vs $3+ here, so every bust they make saves their taxpayers $$, and worth enforcement I guess economics trumps societal mores

Colt 45 wrote:

<quoted text>
How does this create a huge law enforcement problem for New York? They have much bigger problems than cigarettes.

Time to consider concepts here. The very fact that there are other things requiring the time and effort of law enforcers is an explanation in itself for why the need to enforce the smuggling laws is a problem.

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
Time to consider concepts here. The very fact that there are other things requiring the time and effort of law enforcers is an explanation in itself for why the need to enforce the smuggling laws is a problem.

Well if i am a New York police officer i would not be to concerned if someone is making a few bucks on cigarettes as opposed to the drug dealers,killers or thieves.

GoUVa wrote:

<quoted text> Take the Republi"con" front runner Mitt Romney who pays 15% tax on his hundreds of millions of dollars worth of wealth.

I think you are already aware of the fact that the capital gains tax is assessed on profits that result from investments and that the investor had already paid a 35% tax on that money. I guess you are one of those tax the rich to pay for more social engineering.

If they tax cigarettes like the do other luxury items, why not tax beer and alcohol the same and pay off the national debt!! Oh, that's right.....like all our taxes, they would be given to another country or pay off another CEO's compensation for leaving a company he ran into the ground and proffitted from! We constantly pay taxes and get nothing in return to help OUR fellow country men and women. When are our legislators and leaders going to create businesses and jobs. They keep taxing what we don't have to give and we are not receiving cost of living wages to offset. On top of that, our retirement saving thru VRS is being drawn against by the state to fund state needs. They just took another 5 percent from our pay, and say they will pay it back. How when they don't have a way to do it now? Sorry for venting, but when will our government leaders control their spending,look at a way to create business/ job growth and start saving some money!! QUIT TAXING EVERYONE INTO POVERTY!!!!

Concerned Citizen wrote:

like all our taxes, they would be given to another country or pay off another CEO's compensation for leaving a company he ran into the ground and proffitted from! We constantly pay taxes and get nothing in return to help OUR fellow country men and women.

Actually, the purposes of this proposed tax are to
1) fund programs to help Virginia's smokers quit doing that to themselves and everyone around them

2) make it more affordable for Virginia's populace to own and drive cars

3) make smoking a less attractive habit to take up and add incentive to quit by raising the cost

It is, for the non-delusional among us, difficult to see that as a question of throwing tax money into other countries.

and
4)lower health care costs for everyone

just like NYC's giant sugar drink ban does, which even liberal/democraps poke fun at as gv't going 'too far'

heh wrote:

and
4)lower health care costs for everyone
just like NYC's giant sugar drink ban does,

Just like it, except that it's not. There are a few little differences, like smoking's ranking #1 in preventable causes of death, sources of significant radiation exposure, sources of littered objects, and causes of fatal apartment-fires, and SHS ranking at #3 on "preventable causes of death" on lists that include it as a separate category from smoking generally. Oh, and possibly a WEE bit different in that most countries in the world have and/or are developing/tightening programs aimed at reducing and/or eliminating tobacco use.
Then again, there is the evolutionary factor that has provided humans with an appreciation for sweet tastes in order to ensure that we will take in enough carbohydrates to keep us going--a trait that no longer serves us well in a world where marketing has made carbs so readily available--while other evolutionary developments have made us inherently inclined to avoid breathing in smoke. Think about the level of marketing--even WITH addiction to help things along--that went into overriding THAT imperative.