Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds 
Author Message
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

The federal government is proposing a massive reduction in tobacco taxes
in a mis-directed attempt to reduce tobacco smuggling.  If implemented,
this reduction would have the effect of making cigarettes more available
to children and young {*filter*}s and will be sending a message that smoking
is less of a social 'vice' than previously believed.  The net results of
these messages will be a substantial increase in smoking rates and a new
generation of 'hooked' Canadians.

Instead of lowering taxes, the government should reintroduce the export
tax on tobacco.  This would reduce smuggling since most smuggled
cigarettes are first exported from Canada and then smuggled back in.  A
combination of a substantial export tax combined with increased
enforcement and policing would reduce smuggling while preserving the
health message/environment and maintaining government revenues.

I urge all people who have concerns over this proposal to write to their
MP, the federal Minister of Finance (the Hon. M. P. Martin),and the Prime
Minister (the Right Hon. J. Chretian).  Also, write to the Ontario
Premier (Mr. B. Rae) since Ontario is standing up against the proposed
changes.

BTW, don't forget that mail to the federal government is FREE!  Just put
'In her majesty's service' on the envelope and address it to the Minister
at the Parliament Buildings, Wellington St., Ottawa.

Nicholas Birkett,
Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine,
University of Ottawa.



Tue, 16 Jul 1996 13:05:08 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

Quote:

>The federal government is proposing a massive reduction in tobacco taxes
>in a mis-directed attempt to reduce tobacco smuggling.  If implemented,
>this reduction would have the effect of making cigarettes more available
>to children and young {*filter*}s and will be sending a message that smoking
>is less of a social 'vice' than previously believed.  The net results of
>these messages will be a substantial increase in smoking rates and a new
>generation of 'hooked' Canadians.

Are you sure? The net result of high taxes is an enormous increase in illegal
cigarettes smuggled in from the US. The people who sell cigarttes illegally
have nothing to loose by selling to minors (they are already breaking the law).
Regular stores are more reluctant to sell to minors as they might loose the
right to sell cigarettes if they are caught (big loss in income).

Why don't you support a ban on cigarettes if you think they are so evil?

Quote:
>Instead of lowering taxes, the government should reintroduce the export
>tax on tobacco.  This would reduce smuggling since most smuggled
>cigarettes are first exported from Canada and then smuggled back in.  A
>combination of a substantial export tax combined with increased
>enforcement and policing would reduce smuggling while preserving the
>health message/environment and maintaining government revenues.

Maybe that will work. But people might start to smoke American cigarettes
instead. Also this would kill the tobacco farms in Ontario, i.e., a lot
of unemployment.

cheers,
Jos



Tue, 16 Jul 1996 14:06:58 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

Quote:

> The federal government is proposing a massive reduction in tobacco taxes
> in a mis-directed attempt to reduce tobacco smuggling.  If implemented,
> this reduction would have the effect of making cigarettes more available
> to children and young {*filter*}s and will be sending a message that smoking
> is less of a social 'vice' than previously believed.  The net results of
> these messages will be a substantial increase in smoking rates and a new
> generation of 'hooked' Canadians.

do you have any evidence for this?  if one considers prohibition, it would
be apparent that legislating against particular vices isn't very effective,
and in fact results in a society less pleasant to be in, not more.

i don't think social norms are determined by legislation.  in fact,
although the legislation did serve to create a spectacularly lucrative
trade for cigarette smugglers, i would argue the social movement against
smoking was well underway before that.  all of this is my opinion, however.

what i *know*, as *fact*, is that after the introduction of higher cigarette
taxes, an older woman was brutally {*filter*}ed in a corner store not 10 minutes
from where i used to live.  for a carton of cigarettes.  if this could be
avoided by lower taxes, then a few more smokers in the world is a price
i would be willing to pay (even if that were the result, which i'm not
convinced it would be).

Quote:
> I urge all people who have concerns over this proposal to write to their
> MP, the federal Minister of Finance (the Hon. M. P. Martin),and the Prime
> Minister (the Right Hon. J. Chretian).  Also, write to the Ontario
> Premier (Mr. B. Rae) since Ontario is standing up against the proposed
> changes.

i certainly encourage you to do the same.

-=- sfw
--
Stephen F. White

gopher://descartes.uwaterloo.ca/h0/mathSOC/.csc/.www/.sfwhite/homepage.html
... reality is eighty million polygons per second ...



Wed, 17 Jul 1996 03:46:48 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

Quote:

>The federal government is proposing a massive reduction in tobacco taxes
>in a mis-directed attempt to reduce tobacco smuggling.  If implemented,
>this reduction would have the effect of making cigarettes more available
>to children and young {*filter*}s and will be sending a message that smoking
>is less of a social 'vice' than previously believed.  The net results of
>these messages will be a substantial increase in smoking rates and a new
>generation of 'hooked' Canadians.

I have to comment on this posting as has someone else already.
I don't smoke and still cannot understand why someone would do something
like that to themselves.  However, I can only agree with the proposed
cuts in taxes.  Making a 'legal' pack of cigarettes around the price
of an 'illegal' pack is the only way to get rid of the illegal packs
of cigarettes.  I am much less willing to buy 'illegal' items if they
are only 10% less in price, but I would if they were 65% less in price.

If the illegal packs are gone, then the only cigarettes sold would be
through stores which would worry about losing licences etc. for selling
to youngsters.  But this should not be store-owners' responsibility
but the responsibility of the parents and society, in general, on
education.

Using the argument that a low price makes cigarettes available to
youngsters, I must say that any 8 year old will
find a way to get enough money.  More than likely, the money will be
through some form of stealing.  Hence the high prices may aid in
fostering the criminal element, but I digress.

Quote:
>Instead of lowering taxes, the government should reintroduce the export
>tax on tobacco.  This would reduce smuggling since most smuggled
>cigarettes are first exported from Canada and then smuggled back in.  A
>combination of a substantial export tax combined with increased
>enforcement and policing would reduce smuggling while preserving the
>health message/environment and maintaining government revenues.

I can't agree on adding export taxes thereby killing the business of the
sellers.  However, any money generated using such an export tax should ALL
be put into education.  Besides, aren't we trying to get tariffs and
trade blocks eliminated to form a world market?

My own two cents:

People are showing that they have been overtaxed now.  The government
HAS to cut taxes.  The recent 'illegal cigarette moving markets' in the
news are proving the point.  Why else would a truck of cigarettes sell
out in 2 hours?  Obviously people are frustrated at the high prices
and feel that the government isn't listening to them.

I think I will send my own comments to my government representatives.

Quote:
>I urge all people who have concerns over this proposal to write to their
>MP, the federal Minister of Finance (the Hon. M. P. Martin),and the Prime
>Minister (the Right Hon. J. Chretian).  Also, write to the Ontario
>Premier (Mr. B. Rae) since Ontario is standing up against the proposed
>changes.

Bye for now,
Elmer


Wed, 17 Jul 1996 04:39:49 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

My own 0.02$ worth..

As a non-smoking tax payer.  I really don't feel I should be paying for a
smokers medical expenses.  The smoker made the choice to barbeque their
lungs.  I shouldn't have to pay for their time in the hospital in their
later years.  Thats what the Tax is for.  I am assuming the cigarette tax
goes into medicare.  The link between smoking and lung desease has been
supported beyond a reasonable doubt.  If a smoker does not wish to pay the
taxes involved, he /she shouldn't have the right to ask society to pay
for his medical expences.  Simple as that.  Smoking is a great stimulant.
With that stimulation comes a price, I won't pay the price for you.  If
you smoke you better be willing to pay, with  both your money andwith your
health.
--
Brian Go                        | One thing to remember

2nd year Chem Geek!             | I surely would have closed my eyes
Displaced Montrealer            | If I had known the real you. <INFOSOC>



Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:53:40 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

Quote:

>My own 0.02$ worth..

>As a non-smoking tax payer.  I really don't feel I should be paying for a
>smokers medical expenses.  The smoker made the choice to barbeque their

How do you feel about others with bad habits that contribute to health
problems?

Like overeaters, obsessive exercisers, workaholics, the hygiene-deficient,
et cetera.

Get consistent OR get lost!  And you can keep your $ .02.

R L Samuell

--
"Ever wonder why Hell is a fiery, smoky place?  Who do you suppose would be
more uncomfortable there?  To whom would it be more of a torture?  Smokers
or non-smokers?  Think about it!"

                                           -- THE SMOKER'S GOSPEL



Wed, 17 Jul 1996 18:02:02 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

Quote:

>The federal government is proposing a massive reduction in tobacco taxes
>in a mis-directed attempt to reduce tobacco smuggling.  If implemented,
>this reduction would have the effect of making cigarettes more available
>to children and young {*filter*}s and will be sending a message that smoking
>is less of a social 'vice' than previously believed.  The net results of
>these messages will be a substantial increase in smoking rates and a new
>generation of 'hooked' Canadians.

We here in the States are [finally] considering increasing the tax on
cigarettes, so I follow your experiences with interest.  The trick is to
find a tax that gives the optimum balance between smoking deterrence and
black market sales.  Other ways to try to limit or regulate cigarette
sales is to sell them only in state-run stores, like the state liquor
stores in some states here, and ban all cigarette advertising.

David Nye, MD * Neurology Dept., Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
For all but the elite, work holds less promise, less purpose, less
security and less dignity than a generation ago -- Peter T. Kilborn



Wed, 17 Jul 1996 15:27:10 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

Quote:

>Why don't you support a ban on cigarettes if you think they are so evil?

And give the drug dealers more business?  Bad idea.

Quote:
>Maybe that will work. But people might start to smoke American cigarettes
>instead. Also this would kill the tobacco farms in Ontario, i.e., a lot
>of unemployment.

They can always grow something else.  No one deserves to keep a job
making an {*filter*}ing carcinogen.

David Nye, MD * Neurology Dept., Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does
not want to adopt a rational attitude -- Karl Popper



Wed, 17 Jul 1996 15:27:34 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

Quote:
>My own 0.02$ worth..
>As a non-smoking tax payer.  I really don't feel I should be paying for a
>smokers medical expenses.  The smoker made the choice to barbeque their
>lungs.  I shouldn't have to pay for their time in the hospital in their
>later years.

If you are willing to not get treatment
for any problems that could possibly stem from
non-totally-necessary activity -
such as eating meat, drinking any amount
of {*filter*}, driving/riding in cars/busses,
flying, having sex, living where the air
is even slightly polluted - then you can
make these sorts of blanket statements.
If you're not willing, then you are merely
saying that you want other people to pay for
the risks *you* choose to take but that you
won't pay for a risky activity that doesn't
interest you.  It's convenient but a little
hypocritical, don't you think?

--
---------------------------------------------------------

       ...beauty is convulsive or not at all...        



Wed, 17 Jul 1996 20:51:17 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

: My own 0.02$ worth..

: As a non-smoking tax payer.  I really don't feel I should be paying for a
: smokers medical expenses.  The smoker made the choice to barbeque their
: lungs.  I shouldn't have to pay for their time in the hospital in their

How about motorcyclists w/o helmets, people who don't wear seatbelts, people
who drive too fast, drug users incl. marijauna smokers, etc.

Mark



Wed, 17 Jul 1996 23:36:28 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds

Quote:


>: My own 0.02$ worth..

>: As a non-smoking tax payer.  I really don't feel I should be paying for a
>: smokers medical expenses.  The smoker made the choice to barbeque their
>: lungs.  I shouldn't have to pay for their time in the hospital in their

>How about motorcyclists w/o helmets, people who don't wear seatbelts, people
>who drive too fast, drug users incl. marijauna smokers, etc.

People who do the things you listed above are breaking the law.  Why
should we pay for that?

******************************************************************************

(a.k.a Organic Lass of the LNH)     |    Silliman College, Yale University

"Death cannot stop True Love.  All it can do is delay it a bit."
                                                - The Princess Bride
******************************************************************************



Thu, 18 Jul 1996 07:09:40 GMT
 Tobacco tax reduction proposed by Feds


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 309 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Tobacco tax reduction proposed by FeIn article <CKH72J.EJ1@under

2. Tobacco tax reduction

3. TOBACCO TAX RATES

4. TOBACCO TAX ?

5. Proposed tax cuts and dentistry

6. tax : Hot News. turbo tax,tax liens,california franchise tax board,free printable tax forms,income tax forms

7. Smokeless Tobacco/ Risk Reduction

8. Why I am mistrustful of tax reduction and its relationship to dentistry (general dentistry)

9. Smokeless Tobacco/ Risk Reduction

10. Posting Reminder for newbies and old-bies ... QUOTE

11. File a $0.00 Tax Owing Income Tax Return

12. AOL tax deductible, teeth not tax deductible!


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software