[fd8IIys2]

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/loca...ks-20100619-ac

Cigarette Tax Will Mean $10 Packs

Updated: Sunday, 20 Jun 2010, 11:54 AM EDT
Published : Saturday, 19 Jun 2010, 8:18 PM EDT

ADRIAN CARRASQUILLO

MYFOXNY.COM - Almost $11 for a pack of cigarettes? It might soon become a very real reality in many stores in New York City.

The cigarette tax in New York would jump $1.60 a pack under a tentative deal struck between Governor David Paterson and state government leaders.

The proposal is part of an emergency budget bill which is due for a vote on Monday.

In the city, which levies steep taxes of its own on tobacco products, a pack of cigarettes would come with a tax of $5.85, making it the nation's first city to break $5.

The Paterson administration hopes the proposal would generate $440 million in revenue this year, which would be a help close the state budget gap which is estimated to be over $9 billion. Despite the dire budget situation there is no guarantee that the emergency bill will pass after Republicans threatened to vote against a bill that includes tax increases.

By at least one estimate, half the cigarettes consumed in New York are purchased from Native Americans who don't collect and pay state taxes. A new proposal would attempt to limit the number of cigarettes purchased from tribes.

[Vokbeelllicky]

And this is a bad thing why?

[ElcinBoris]

My thought exactly, Dave!

[Mearticbaibre]

I know, guys, any tax that falls disproportionately on the poor is a good tax right? It is about time the poor start paying their fair share of taxes instead of socking it to the rich? You would think the poor will give up smoking, but of course that is not what will happen. Say goodbye to the sustenance you were getting kids (your mommy is feeding her addiction). And what with schools not open in the summer where will the children eat?

[CsFLhGNp]

Statistically, it can be shown that raising taxes on cigarettes does, in fact, reduce the number of smokers over the long term. Here are a few sites that give some information:

http://contexts.org/graphicsociology...smoking-rates/

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/resea...s/pdf/0146.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...9-1Alede_N.htm

[seekfrieddy]

None of those studies demonstrate the income level of those who reduce cigarrette consumption. And frankly I don't see where they account for the number of people that are reducing smoking regardless of the price. For example how much would smoking have been reduced without a tax increase? What do smoking bans in public places contribute to the reduction? There are too many other reasons why there has been a reduction in smoking to be able to attribute it to increased taxes.

[fount_pirat]

None of those studies demonstrate the income level of those who reduce cigarrette consumption. And frankly I don't see where they account for the number of people that are reducing smoking regardless of the price. For example how much would smoking have been reduced without a tax increase? What do smoking bans in public places contribute to the reduction? There are too many other reasons why there has been a reduction in smoking to be able to attribute it to increased taxes.

On the first page of the second source Pinky cited there's a specific reference to lower-income populations, so your first sentence is simply untrue. They are accounting for the number of people that are reducing smoking regardless of price by looking at data pre-tax increase, analyzing trends, etc. That's why statisticians do. The argument that there are too many variables at play is a weak one as that is true in virtually every situation. There are a number of statistical methods used to control for different variables and tease out effects. If you want to pick apart each study cited in Pinky's links and say "well, they didn't consider xyz" have at it, but to make this kind of blanket statement is silly.

[adolfadsermens]

...The argument that there are too many variables at play is a weak one as that is true in virtually every situation. There are a number of statistical methods used to control for different variables and tease out effects. If you want to pick apart each study cited in Pinky's links and say "well, they didn't consider xyz" have at it, but to make this kind of blanket statement is silly.

That argument is made by the researchers themselves in the study you cite. ...Second, this analysis does not control fully for other factors unrelated to price (e.g., differences between states in social and policy environments) that could reduce demand and be confounded with the state's excise tax level... Silly, Good Grief?

[Rx-Ultram]

I did not cite one specific study and make any statements about what they did or did not control for; I merely pointed out that, contrary to your statement, one of the studies explicitly addressed income. In other words, I pointed out that you were wrong which as we know you cannot handle.

I stand by my remark that it is silly to make blanket statements such as the one that you made.

[DJkillos]

Then find a current study not one that uses data from two to three + decades ago, that only divides income into above and below the medium income levels (doesn't segregate poor as was my original claim) and even at that doesn't have income data from almost 15% of the respondents and admits doesn't control for many variables that effect cigarette consumption.

Like I said None of those studies demonstrate the income level of those who reduce cigarette consumption. I said demonstrate not say. That particular study does not demonstrate even though it says it does.

BTW -- back in the day, in the years the study encompasses being below the median in income did not mean you did not pay Federal income taxes.

[esenesesinas]

Then find a current study not one that uses data from two to three + decades ago.....

From the first link: "Washington residents smoke fewer cigarettes than they did a decade ago, dropping 29% between 1997 and 2006..."

In the second link, on page 3, are two clearly-cited reports dated 2007.

The third link, an article from USA Today, was originally posted in August of 2007.

Data in all three articles includes studies from 2000 and later. Older data is provided as context for the current figures.

Since you're obviously confused, Paul, 2006 and 2007 were only 3and 4 YEARS ago, not 2-3+ decades, as you stated (but didn't demonstrate).

[RobertLS]

Then find a current study not one that uses data from two to three + decades ago, that only divides income into above and below the medium income levels (doesn't segregate poor as was my original claim) and even at that doesn't have income data from almost 15% of the respondents and admits doesn't control for many variables that effect cigarette consumption.

Like I said I said demonstrate not say. That particular study does not demonstrate even though it says it does.

BTW -- back in the day, in the years the study encompasses being below the median in income did not mean you did not pay Federal income taxes.

Sorry, not doing your research for you. You're the one who made the claim that none of the studies in Pinky's links met certain criteria. Pinky posted at 5:25pm. You responded at 5:48pm. In 23 minutes, you were able to review the multitude of studies cited in the links she provided in order to make the general statement that you made? Call me crazy, but somehow I doubt that.

As for the Incident Semantics Game, thanks but I'll sit this round out.

[truttyMab]

I know, guys, any tax that falls disproportionately on the poor is a good tax right? It is about time the poor start paying their fair share of taxes instead of socking it to the rich? You would think the poor will give up smoking, but of course that is not what will happen. Say goodbye to the sustenance you were getting kids (your mommy is feeding her addiction). And what with schools not open in the summer where will the children eat?

Let this be remembered in the anals of ALD: for the first and last time, a conservative makes a statement against taxing the poor!