Yes: Raise cigarette tax to help Missouri's taxpayers
Yael T. AbouhalkahIt’s an easy call on Nov. 6: Vote for a higher cigarette tax, and Missourians will benefit mightily.
So why do gubernatorial candidates Jay Nixon and Dave Spence have such backward positions on the tax?
I’ll get to that in a minute, but let’s start with the positives of Proposition B.
Hiking the rock-bottom, lowest-in-the-nation tax from 17 cents a pack to 90 cents would generate from $300 million to $400 million a year. The tax would:
Reduce teen smoking rates by making cigarettes more costly. Stopping thousands of young people from taking up the harmful habit would be a substantial long-term victory.
Raise new revenue to improve K-12 schools and higher education. A total of 80 percent of the new funds would go for those causes. School districts in the Kansas City area would get millions of dollars, which they could use to replace teachers and educational programs slashed during the recession, all without imposing higher property taxes on residents.
Support programs aimed at helping more people to quit smoking. Proponents estimate up to 33,000 adults would snuff out their cigarettes for good.
Cut the potential for future health-related problems of smokers. That would trim the demands on public funding for Medicaid and other programs that now pay for health care of people who suffer from medical problems because of their harmful habit. Overall, tax supporters point to more than $1 billion in potential savings on health care costs.
Kudos to U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill for backing the cigarette tax increase, even though her stance might cost her a few votes with rural Missourians. Attorney General Chris Koster deserves the same pat on the back for being an early advocate for the increase, even while he’s also up for re-election.
But don’t look for leadership on this issue from Jay Nixon or Dave Spence.
The refusal by Gov. Nixon, a Democrat, to endorse the tax is politically cowardly and nearly inexplicable.
Polls have long showed that Nixon likely will cruise to re-election against Spence, a Republican. So even for a Democrat who’s often seen as being more of a Republican on fiscal issues, Nixon could have supported the cigarette tax without much voter backlash.
The tax isn’t on the general population; it’s targeted at smokers.
And because much of the extra funds will flow to K-12 schools and higher education, Missouri would be investing tens of million in priorities that Nixon has always claimed are high priorities.
With his muteness on the tax, however, Nixon essentially is coming out against creating more revenue to improve education in the state.
As for Spence, it’s true that he’s taking the usual GOP, anti-tax stance. But his reasoning is odd and financially flawed.
In a recent interview with The Star’s editorial board, Spence said he had “looked into the faces” of Missourians and determined that they couldn’t afford a few dollars a year in higher taxes.
What rubbish. It’s good that Spence probably won’t be governor in a few years, which is when he could look into the faces of Missouri smokers when they have gotten a terrible disease and are having to fork over tens of thousands of dollars for the health care needed to save their lives. If they can even save their lives by that point.
Now for a more upbeat ending.
It’s true that Missouri voters twice in the last decade have narrowly rejected cigarette tax hikes. This time around, though, the opposition is more muted because big cigarette companies aren’t financing a get-out-the-vote campaign.
Plus, even the new 90-cent tax per pack would be barely two-thirds of the national average of around $1.50 a pack. Missouri is hardly going to be an outlier on this issue.
Opponents led by convenience store operators say the higher tax means they will sell fewer cigarettes in the future, especially in the Kansas City area.
That’s bad news for them. But it would be an excellent outcome for most Missourians.
To reach Yael T. Abouhalkah, call 816-234-4887 or email abouhalkah@kcstar.com. He blogs at voices.kansascity.com and appears on “Ruckus” at 7 tonight on KCPT. Twitter @YaelTAbouhalkah.
Michael Johnson
6 months, 3 weeks agoFirst of all, the tax hike won’t bring in the money you’ve mentioned. You’re supposing that everyone who smokes now will continue to do so and buy cigarettes in MO. Many who purchase cigarettes here because their state tax is higher will revert to making purchases in their home state, which includes the other products they buy when they stop in for smokes, like milk, bread, gas, etc. So out goes that cigarette tax, and that other sales tax revenue as well.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that the tax will increase spending on schools. There might be a guarantee that the revenue goes to schools, but nothing to say that school revenue won’t be cut from other sources in an equal amount. That money won’t be subject to the regulations of this law and politicians will have more of a slush fund with which to line their pockets and fund their pork barrel projects.
And as for Spence not having to face smokers down the road who contract smoking-related illnesses, that’s rubbish. If Nixon wins, you make no mention of him having to face smokers because he doesn’t endorse the tax, but also, smoking is restricted to adults. Adults are responsible for their actions. It states clearly on the packet of cigarettes what the consequences might be. The decision is theirs. Government is not mommy or daddy. This is a free society with actions and consequences, risks and rewards. It isn’t government’s responsibility to run people’s lives. That is people’s responsibility.
I wish just once op-ed pieces were driven by economic reality instead of political one-sidedness.
Stan Cowan
6 months, 3 weeks agoFirst of all, the tax WILL bring in the money mentioned. Estimates provided in the Sec of State’s ballot title have factored anticipated reduction in tobacco consumption as more smokers quit, fewer youth start and yes, fewer cross border sales. The argument about other sales tax revenue going down is also lame. Smokers that quit or cut back will find more money in their pockets instead of the tobacco retailers pockets. With more disposable income for consumer goods that don’t addict and kill them, they will be paying sales tax when they purchase those other items.
Secondly, Prop B has built in safeguards to assure new revenues go to education and to tobacco cessation/prevention programs. Our legislative leaders considered the tobacco tax non-negotiable but our education funding fair game for budget cuts. With a voter approved dedicated funding source for education, these legislators would face the wrath of school boards, parents, college students and other voters in their districts. By the way, the legislators that blocked efforts on tobacco taxes have taken campaign contributions from tobacco companies and retailers. Go figure.
Politicians will have less influence than they do now. There won’t be a “slush fund: (favorite buzz phrase of Leone) as the funds will be administered by a special non-partisan commission with the State Auditor making required annual audits to assure funds are used as intended.
Adults are responsible for their actions. But how many adults decide to smoke? About 90% of smokers were addicted when they were kids. Their addiction removed the luxury of choice when they became adults. If it isn’t government’s responsibility to run people’s lives, then it should follow that it isn’t government’s responsibility to pick up the Medicaid tab for smoking-caused illnesses. But, when Missouri Medicaid is on the hook for over a half billion dollars per year to treat smoking-related illnesses, then government should have a say it how demands are draining the taxpayers’ dollars.
Mr Aboulhalkah’s op-ed very much recognizes the economic reality. A recent study calculated every pack of cigarettes sold in Missouri is costing our economy $12.68 in preventable health care expenses and lost productivity. The payments from the Master Settlement Agreement and Missouri’s tobacco tax approach only 40% in reimbursing the state government what it is paying out in Medicaid expenses for treating smoking-related illnesses.
More important than economics, a higher tax on cigarettes and having a sizable portion of the revenue dedicated to helping smokers quit and keeping youngster from beginning (something our legislature has been loathe to do) will reduce human suffering and add years to lives.
I wish just once op-ed pieces were driven by economic reality instead of political one-sidedness.
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/yes-raise-cigarette-tax-help-missouris-taxpayers/#storylink=cpy