Cheese clouds your thinking
This letter appeared in today's Star Tribune:
Tax and ban?
Does it seem ridiculous to anyone else that the state of Minnesota is looking to raise money with a cigarette tax at the same time it is trying make it more difficult for people to smoke?
How can the state justify taxing a product it doesn't want anyone to use?
I'm glad I live in Wisconsin.
Bob Strong, Hudson, Wis.
Apparently, Bob has never heard of using taxes to change consumption habits, which is kind of funny because that's been one of the primary uses of taxes throughout history.
posted by Luke Francl @ 12:10 PM |
| 
3 Comments:
I would agree with you on this. However, the tax that was designed to do just that was crafted and implimented many years ago, and is still incrementally increasing the tax on cigs every year. And will continue to do so.
What the *new* tax is for is exactly what he says it is for, extra revenue.
I would also agree with Bob, This is all about revenue, Money. But hey, they could be asking the poor and downtroden for the money and then you'all would have something more to bitch about.
It's not mutually exclusive.
This tax is for extra revenue, sure. But it will also impact use of tobacco.
Cigarettes are nowhere near being taxed out of existence. Is there irony in trying to get extra revenue out of a product you're trying to eliminate? Sure, but as long as people are foolish enough to smoke, cigarettes taxes are a pretty painless way to raise revenue (that's why they call 'em sin taxes) -- and discourage use.
Post a Comment
<< Home