California voters narrowly reject new tobacco tax
Source: Associated Press
A closely-watched effort to impose a new tax on tobacco to pay for cancer research in the nation's most populous state has failed by less than a percentage point after remaining too close to call for more than two weeks.
The measure failed by 50.3 percent to 49.7 with about 5 million votes cast, The Associated Press determined Friday. The measure was losing by about 27,000 votes with 150,000 ballots remaining to be counted; too few for the `yes' side to pull ahead.
Lighting up the airwaves with campaign ads, the tobacco industry was able to cut support for a $1-a-pack cigarette tax backed by cycling legend Lance Armstrong from a two-thirds majority in March to a dead heat on Election Day.
... Opponents of the measure, which would have used tax revenue to fund cancer research, raised $47 million to fight it, a large haul for even the most heated state races. By comparison, Jerry Brown spent about $36 million in his successful 2010 bid to become governor of California and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his allies spent $47 million to beat back his recall challenge.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/06/19/national/a121829D84.DTL&tsp=1
TBMASE
(769 posts)it's like Jews for Jesus, only with cigarettes
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bluesbassman
(19,374 posts)We in California are generally supportive of beneficial programs, and the fact that almost half the voters did vote yes on this shows that. However, the people who voted yes did not have all the facts. This was a crappy proposition and I doubt if more than ten percent of the revenue generated by this would have ever made it to cancer research.
I don't smoke, so the tax would have had zero impact on me, but I still voted no because it was a bad deal.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Much less help with a bad shortfall in the General Fund that is going to have a devastating effect on already underfunded K-12 education.
Personally, I'm also against making the state budget in any way dependent on behavior that we are trying to discourage.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Quit picking on us.
msongs
(67,420 posts)Lionessa
(3,894 posts)more than any other group as to be one of the income inequality issues that needs addressing.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....to educate the poor and working poor from wasting money on a pointless habit that will eventually cost them more money than the taxes.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)People partake in all manner of potentially harmful behaviors, smoking is just one of them, the one that's the most demonized, but still only one.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)As far as it being "demonized".....yeah, well maybe I'm imagining people with lung cancer including my uncle who died from it.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)And since there are so many lung cancer cases showing up now that have nothing to do with smoking, first or second hand, that argument is getting thin. Additionally, as the AHA points out, heart attack and stroke are actually the issues most relate-able to smoking, not lung cancer, I think even throat and mouth cancers are more prominent than lung cancer.
Everyone dies from something. Most everyone has at least one long, expensive hospital/medical issue, smokers are no different.
may3rd
(593 posts)Cancer from smoking is preventable but smokers will see the tax payer flipping the hospice bill
suffragette
(12,232 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)If the state brings in hundreds of millions of dollars per year in cigarette taxes (I believe it was expected to total more than 1 billion when added to the existing 87-cent per pack tax,) the state government no longer has a clear incentive to discourage smoking.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)More than $194 million in 2010, and over $1.1 BILLION over the last 15 years.
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco
It makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER that we would spend taxpayer money both supporting tobacco production and trying to discourage the use of all tobacco products. Pick one and stick with it. Either we like tobacco and want to encourage it, or we think it's bad for peoples' health and want to reduce consumption.
ETA I think the production of industrial hemp should be legalized immediately and tobacco subsidies ended. Help grows extremely well anywhere that tobacco can be grown. Hemp is a lot less labor-intensive than tobacco.
(I'm also in favor of total legalization of other strains of cannabis for any purpose, but that's getting pretty far afield of the topic.)
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)may3rd
(593 posts)That's why they grow tobacco instead of any other cash crop
IndyJones
(1,068 posts)I also voted no. And no, I am not a smoker.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)Get your own house in order instead of picking what you thought was a "no-brainer, slam-dunk" tax.
I'm surprised they didn't call it a "fee", it probably would have passed.
Cancer reasearch ?? Bullshit. What did they do with all the money they won a few years ago? They did the same as Florida did, they pissed it away ! This would have had the same end.
I say "GOOD ON YA" for the majority of Californians.
msongs
(67,420 posts)russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)who voted 'no' are fed up w/ new taxes carrying the lead weight of mandate instead of going to the general fund. One of the problems now is too much revenue has to go to various departments because of earlier initiatives. I vote no on anything, anymore, w/ a destination mandate. The taxes on cigarettes, passed by earlier initiatives, are also for research. If this one had addressed treatment or care, I might have voted 'yes'.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)Dokkie
(1,688 posts)everybody and then use the money for cancer research? Thanks to the good people of California for rejecting the petition. No more sin taxes
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)At a certain point you drive up the taxes so high that you will encourage a black market for tobacco products.
may3rd
(593 posts)Fine tobaccos should be shipped off to other countries to create a positive trade balance
/sarc
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)Here in Georgia, we voters did not have that choice. The cigarette tax was just increased without a vote from the people.
valerief
(53,235 posts)may3rd
(593 posts)I can't imagine a majority of non smokers would pass up a chance to tax a minority of smokers into giving up the bad habit.
I say recount
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The money that would have been brought in would not have been applied to the state's General Fund. It was earmarked for research, which is OK except for the fact that there was no requirement that any of the new money, other than about $125 million per year to pay for a new bureaucracy, would be spend inside of California. Hundreds of millions of dollars could have been spent outside of the state.
The state needs money. Lots of it, especially for our schools. Collecting it and pissing it away didn't make sense to me.
Retrograde
(10,137 posts)We definitely don't need another single-purpose bureaucracy, which this proposition called for. If the money generated by the new tax went into the general fund it would have passed easily.
christx30
(6,241 posts)And if I was in CA, I would have voted no. People are tired of new taxes and increased taxes just to live their lives. People want to be left alone. The state can go fuck themselves. They can't even fix the sidewalks or street lights with the money they get, and they want more? Do the job we hired you for, or lose it.
IndyJones
(1,068 posts)better manage the money they have and close corporate loopholes. As a CPA, I am tired of seeing corporations pay little to nothing on their millions and billions they make. Plus close the sweetheart property tax deals made with big corporations. Many pay no property taxes at all.
Don't ask for individuals to pay more until they eliminate corporate welfare and make them pay their fair share.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)When so called "Democrats" can only repeat the tea party "taxed enough already" rant, hope of ever changing our country is hopeless.
IndyJones
(1,068 posts)Demanding corporations pay their fair share and insisting on accountability is not anti Democrat. It's common sense. And yes, I am taxed enough already.
I am glad the proposition to increase cigg taxes failed. The money would not have stayed in CA.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Native. Born and raised. And I can tell you that "we don't need more money, we just need to manage it better" is bullshit. It is the Republican party line. And it is what is causing closed libraries, closed firehouses, giant class sizes, etc.
What made CA great (when it was great) is that it invested in itself. People were proud to build roads, schools, and libraries. The University of California used to be FREE to attend. FREE. You can't send your best students to world class schools without paying taxes and making it happen. Businesses wanted to be in California because it had world class ports, roads, rail, and services to move goods and keep them secure. Then Prop 13 happened and CA could no longer raise taxes without a 2/3 vote. So we basically haven't raised taxes since 1978. We'll never be a world class state again until we contribute to each other and quit the "i got mine, go fuck yourself mantra."
But go on, keep complaining about how you pay enough and how public servants waste your money. Then go join the Republicans.
IndyJones
(1,068 posts)Insulting people who disagree with you doesn't make you right. Our perspective is not bullshit. I have prepared taxes for huge corps. Close all of the loopholes and have corporations pay the millions and millions they should before creating new taxes for the middle class. Until that is done, I'll vote no every time on new taxes.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Is another Tea Party meme. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html)
Taxes are about contributing to your community. They are about everyone saying "we are all in this together" and this is the kind of community we want to have. They are our patriotic duty. If you find being compared to a Tea Partier an insult, then quit using their words and ideas.
Of course I could individually pay more. But even if I paid 100% of my measly salary in taxes, and lived on the street, it would not solve the problem. This is not the kind of problem that is solved by individualism. And your resort to individualism just shows how deeply the Tea Party meme has infected America.
Telling me I can pay more will not solve the problem unless we repeal the Bush tax cuts (ALL OF THEM), close the corporate tax loopholes, close individual tax loopholes, close tax havens, and generally reset to a system that we are all contributing enough instead of saying "I, me, mine" all the time.
Keep voting no on new taxes, and California will keep going down the drain. California will keep taxing like it was 1978, and its infrastructure will keep crumbling. Way to support your neighbors and community, by calling on others to sacrifice, but apparently being willing to contribute nothing yourself.
christx30
(6,241 posts)When you work 40 hours a week and due to taxes, fines, fees, assessments, ect, you are able to bring home less than 10% of your check, will you be there with us? Or will you pay that with a smile on your face as you are trying to make ends meet for yourself and your family?
They totally mismanage our money, then they ask for more.
If I give my wife $200 to pay the electric bill, and she uses it at Garden Ridge to buy stupid statues and crap like that, then she asks for more money and I balk, that's not me being selfish or Tea Party like. That's me saying, "I gave you that money for a specific purpose, and you failed in that. You can't have any more, and I was wrong for trust you with something that important."
That's why I'm saying when I say that we don't need new taxes, we need new people to manage the money that we give them. They waste our money, then they want more. I'm saying No. You messed up. You don't get another chance.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 24, 2012, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)
You are going to punish every single person in public service (and every single person who benefits from public goods and services) because Reagan bought some gold plated hammers and toilet seats back in the 80s? Because Bush II lost billions in mismanagement in Iraq? Let me tell you something. When the money was lost in Iraq, it was lost forever. So you are going to punish today's people on Medicaid and Social Security and Food Stamps because you decide that some past government wasted money? How does that make sense? That money is gone and it ain't coming back.
There has to be "another chance" -- that is the nature of budgets. There is a new one every year. And to say to the government "I was wrong to trust you with something important" is to give up on government entirely. That is the essence of the Tea Party. We need public goods and public services--but the Tea Party thinks we don't, and they don't want to contribute to them. If we refuse to contribute our tax money to support those things, we will live in an ever deteriorating country that will look more and more like a third world country every day.
And yes we do need new taxes. We pay less taxes than at any other time since WWII. We pay less taxes than any other developed country. And we wonder why we have crappy public services? There is no way to make them better without the money they have not been getting for these things for years, while service and infrastructure have been deteriorating.
1. The government has collected less in taxes as a proportion of the economy in the past three years than it has in any three-year period since World War II, and tax rates are at historic lows.
2. One out of three multi-millionaires pays a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the vast majority of people making $60,000 a year.
3. Chairman Paul Ryans budget proposal, which has been praised by Governor Romney, would deliver benefits to people with incomes over $1 million that are 10 times greater than the benefits to those earning $40,000 or less.
4. Corporate income taxes for the past three years have hovered at just over 1 percent of GDP, lower than for any three-year period since World War II. The average for OECD countries is 3.5 percent.
5. The Bush tax cuts added $1.7 trillion to the nations debt between 2001 and 2008, which is more than it would cost to send 25 million kids to four-year public universities.
6. America has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. It is only because of the Bush tax cuts that our national debt is rising. If not for those cuts, our debt would be stabilized at under 60 percent of GDP.
7. General Electric, which reported over $4 billion in US profits in 2010, paid ZERO taxes.
8. A financial speculation tax of only 0.50 percent on financial trades could raise up to $170 billion annually.
9. Upper income households save an average of $5,500 thanks to the mortgage interest tax deduction whereas families earning between $40,000 and $75,000 save only $500.
10. Only two OECD nations collect less revenue as a percentage of GDP than the United StatesChile and Mexico.
http://prospect.org/article/top-ten-tax-facts
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
And PS, I work 60 hours a week, and you and I both know that even the richest person in America brings home far more than 10% of his or her income. The US long ago abandoned the 90% take bracket and even then, it only taxed income at a certain amount at the 90% rate. No one in the history of the United States has ever paid 90% of his or her whole income in taxes, but we can discuss how tax brackets work in another post if you are interested.
christx30
(6,241 posts)The corps need to pay more. But i don't need to. I'm good.
And I know how tax brackets work. What I was asking was where would your personal limit be? If the tax rate for you was over 60%, and you kept seeing the government pissing it away year after year and demand more and more from people who had to choose between making the car payment or the electric, you'd be pissed too. You'd want someone from the budget sitting in front of Congress getting his intestines handed to him. The people in that office are incompetent and deserve to be on the streets.
They always want more, and tgen they piss it away. And every time they put a put a tax increase on the ballot I will vote against it. They went to Garden Ridge instead of paying the electric. Time for someone else to hold the checkbook.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Much of the money CA lost was due to Enron ripping off the state and charging astronomical prices during 2001-02. Then Morgan Stanley and its ilk sold city governments credit default swaps that went bad. And every time voters have been presented tax increases since 1978 (Prop 13), they have rejected them (except in the case of a few local school taxes and a few other local taxes). Literally, what do you have to complain about? CA state taxes have basically been stagnant since 1978 (yes, sales taxes have risen, mostly at the local level, but also temporarily at the state level, but those are the most regressive of all taxes and not what should be rising, especially in comparison to property taxes, income taxes, or sin taxes). Meanwhile, income taxes and CA Vehicle License fees have actually been lowered, while everyone bitches and moans about taxes being too high. Meanwhile, they are paying historically low rates, and the state is taking in historically low revenue compared to state income, but repeating the Tea Party meme about mismanagement, when it really is a revenue problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/27/AR2009052702904.html
christx30
(6,241 posts)How much are you willing to pay? Is there a personal limit to where you would say that taxes are too high?
People are not willing to slit their own throats. Higher taxes are going to have to be imposed. People will NEVER vote for them.
And people are hurting right now. No one is going to cast a vote that is going to hurt themselves. it's not selfishness. It's survival.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)"to hurt themselves." Less than 20% of Americans smoke, and most people never would have paid the tax. As for me, I think the vote is indicative of the ascendancy of the Tea Party, of the "no money for government, ever" POV. Why else would anyone oppose taxes they'll never have to pay?
Your question presupposes that we are already overburdened by taxes, and one more straw will break the camel's back. It's simply not true. We paid higher tax rates in the 90s, under Clinton, and nobody talked about being overburdened by taxes. The economy wasn't perfect, but it grew, we created jobs, and the federal government had a surplus. Hell, I'd take the rates under Nixon, Kennedy, or Reagan, too. Under none of those rates were taxes repressive, and they were all well within my "personal limit," assuming I have one.
IndyJones
(1,068 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)Don't mug the average person until the large multinational corp has to pay something.
Besides... The crap they pump into the air probably does more to hurt non smokers more than cigarettes.
beaglelover
(3,486 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)I'm a smoker who has been a non smoker for 20 years. It's a fucking addiction. Addictions need to be treated themselves, not punished. I voted against it because it does nothing for either smokers or people with cancer.
If you want to pay for cures for illnesses then use the taxes everyone pays to get single payer health benefits for the entire country. Don't just target one group of addicts.
And further, punishing [div style="color:blue;font-style:italic;display:inline"]anyone with taxes to cure other people is stupid.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)If not a tobacco tax, then they are going to have to impose a liquor tax soon. With the housing market in total disarray, they need money in there communities to pay for services.
Last I checked, it does not grow on trees.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)I do know that the infamous Prop-13 sucks most of the time now and more poorly written voter mandated tax legislation is not need now, thank you very much
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)I'm glad it failed. Everyone should share in the pain when it comes to funding cancer research because all of us have a risk of getting cancer. Why should smokers be the only ones to fund this research? Why should it be on their backs alone? We all know that smoking isn't the only thing that causes cancer but smokers are the ones that the state repeatedly goes to like a kid raiding a piggy bank. It's wrong to single out smokers to pay for everything that the state dreams up merely because smokers engage in using a legal product. If non-smokers would do the right thing and speak up the state would stop singling out smokers with an unfair tax burden. If you agree with the tax to fund cancer research it should be an across the board tax.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The money was going to be spent on CANCER RESEARCH. The next time any of you "anti" voters are watching a friend or relative die of cancer, remember that their lives might have been saved by anti-cancer researchers in other states who couldn't find the funding to pursue their ideas...simply because stingy and territorialistic Californians decided that California cancer research is somehow superior to cancer research in other states or countries.
Liberalism is founded on the idea of pursuing the common good. We can't pursue the common good if we're limiting our contributions based on imaginary lines on a map.
And California takes another step to the right...
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)In my opinion.