Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Jacob Sullum :: Townhall.com Columnist
Buy Cigarettes for the Kids
by Jacob Sullum
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What do you think of John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate?



Politically, making smokers pay for children's health insurance is a great idea: Everybody loves children, and everybody hates smokers. But once you get beyond the popularity contest, it's clear that financing an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with a big increase in the federal cigarette tax is neither fair nor wise.

As a group, smokers are less affluent than nonsmokers, and a poor person's spending on cigarettes represents a much bigger chunk of his or her income than a rich person's. These facts combine to make cigarette taxes highly regressive.

According to a Tax Foundation analysis, the Senate proposal to pay for a $35-billion SCHIP expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to $1 a pack is the "least defensible alternative" because "no other federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax." The foundation's Gerald Prante calculates that "the burden of the proposed cigarette tax hike on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households is 37 times heavier than it would be if the government raised the money with the federal income tax."

Some supporters of higher cigarette taxes argue that smokers should bear a disproportionate fiscal burden because they account for a disproportionate share of taxpayer-funded medical expenses. But researchers such as Harvard economist W. Kip Viscusi estimate that, if anything, smoking saves taxpayers money.

Because smokers tend to die earlier than nonsmokers, they do not consume as much health care in old age or draw on Social Security as much as nonsmokers do. Leaving aside Social Security savings, a 1997 study in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that total health care spending would go up, not down, if everyone stopped smoking.

Even if smoking does, on balance, increase government outlays, a 1994 report from the Congressional Research Service concluded that cigarette taxes in all likelihood already covered any external costs that reasonably could be attributed to smoking. Since then, the average cigarette tax (state and federal combined) has tripled, rising from 50 cents to $1.46, an increase of more than 100 percent in real terms. And that's not counting the price hike needed to fund the tobacco companies' settlement payments to the states.

Relying on yet another cigarette tax hike could mean that the people paying for SCHIP's expansion will be poorer than the people benefiting from it. The current Senate bill would raise the family income cutoff for SCHIP, currently 200 percent of the official poverty level, to 300 percent. Some legislators prefer a limit of 400 percent, which comes out to $82,600 for a family of four.

A decade ago, SCHIP's supporters sold the program as a way of providing health coverage to children whose parents could not afford it but were not quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Now they are proposing changes that would make SCHIP resemble a middle-class entitlement.

President Bush is not the most credible opponent of a new federal health care entitlement, given his support for the exorbitant Medicare prescription drug benefit. But he is right to oppose SCHIP expansion and the tax hike that comes with it -- a burden that nonsmokers eventually will find themselves bearing as the percentage of the population that smokes continues to dwindle (an explicit goal of higher cigarette taxes).

SCHIP expansion is especially worrisome in light of research by economists David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, who found that making publicly funded health care more broadly available tends to crowd out private coverage, encouraging people to decline employer-provided insurance or drop coverage of dependents. According to a 2007 paper co-authored by Gruber, "the number of privately insured falls by about 60 percent as much as the number of publicly insured rises."

This research suggests that much, if not most, of the money spent on SCHIP expansion would pay to cover children who already have insurance. That does not seem like a smart use of taxpayers' money, even if the taxpayers are an unpopular minority.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jacob Sullum's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Subject: I know I'm getting into
this discussion late, but ANY tax that specifically targets only one segment of the populace (smokers in this case) is by definition discriminatory, punitive and unfair.... and I say this as a non-smoker.

It's a slippery slope to taxing other behaviors socially repugnant to those who are wiser than the rest of us. Why not impose a fat tax, for example (I said FAT, not FLAT). The purported goal would be to reduce obesity. Everybody would be required to weigh in annually at a federally sanctioned weigh station. For every pound you exceed the federal standard for your age, height & gender, you will be taxed, say, $10.00. Think of the revenue this will bring in for children's healthcare (Oh, yes, it's for the children, you know). It will never come to that, you say? Don't be too sure. One state, New York I think, is already taxing Big Macs or french fries (I could be wrong on the details). The point is that taxes such as these are targeted at folks who, for a variety of reasons, can't fight back. Is this the kind of repressive society we want our children and grandchildren to grow up in? The wealthy won't give a damn; the middle class, lower class and under class will shoulder the burden.

ANTI Smoking Nazi's
Naked Pagan etal

After reading your hysterical rants about smoking, I have concluded that you are the kind of person that is called an Anti Smoking Nazi.

Hitler would have loved you and you could have worn a brown shirt and proudly put every one in jail for violating the anti tobacco laws.

You claim your father died from smoking. Did you know there is no causal test for illnesses that are supposedly caused from smoking.When doctors claim you got cancer or any number of diseases from smoking they are making a wild eyed guess.Most of the time they rely solely on the fact a patient checks the smoking box on their health form. Coroners are listing the cause of death for unknown causes as smoking related when the "have your ever smoked box is checked by relatives."

Did it ever occur to you that the majority of cancers, asthma type illnesses that have exploded since the turn of the century are caused by auto and truck emissions?

There is alot of research on that subject but the smoking lobby does every thing it can to keep those facts from the public.

The biggest offender is diesel smoke and the particulates that every one is forced to breath if they live in our cities.Ditto auto emissions.

I can provide you with numerous long term double blind studies done by the CDC and European health agencies but it will be a waste of time.

Rush Limbaugh provided his listeners the 25 year study conducted by the CDC costing taxpayers 50 million dollars that stated 2nd hand smoke did not have a statistical significant effect on spouses or children in the home of a smoker. The CDC tried to suppress the results and still today it is buried in the archives.As a previous poster cited the study by the Europeans came to same conclusion.

2nd hand smoke does not cause cancer.

You sir, are the perfect example of someone that has been so successfully brainwashed by the anti tobacco lobby of constant propaganda being spewed by the MSM.

Anyone that claims they are offended by cigarette smokers 50 yards away in a outdoor public park has a pathological mental disorder.

Just like with Global Warming, The Anti Smoking movement in this country is based on consensus science and hysteria being promoted in our schools and the MSM.

God help you if one of your habits or favorite pastimes gets on the list of things that just has to be stamped out for the public good based on junk science.

IMHO-We truly are evolving into a Police State.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.