NEWS
Poll: Most voters back cigarette tax
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Katie Fischer:
- Wisconsin could see base closings (April 21, 2005)
- Proposal aims to relocate sexual offenders (May 4, 2005)
- Poll: Most voters back cigarette tax (February 28, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Group proposes cigarette tax (January 31, 2005)
- Cigar and pipe smoking equivalent to regular cigarette use (November 24, 2003)
- Fate of Doyle-proposed cigarette tax in jeopardy (September 6, 2007)
- Smokers dodge new tax online? (November 6, 2007)
- Cigar exemptions pass in committee (March 8, 2006)
by Katie Fischer
Monday, February 28, 2005
Seventy-seven percent of Wisconsin voters support a one-dollar-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax if the money goes toward funding health care programs, according to a January poll sponsored by the Wisconsin Health Association and the American Cancer Society.
State legislators proposed to raise Wisconsin’s cut on a pack of cigarettes to $1.77, increasing the tobacco tax on cigarettes by one dollar. State Rep. J.A. Hines, R-Oxford, chairman of the Assembly Committee on Public Health, calls for the tax hike, expecting it to reduce some of Wisconsin’s health care costs.
The Medicaid program spends an estimated $375 million on smoking-related illnesses annually. Legislators struggle to fund and reform the program, as a coalition of more than 400 organizations supporting the cigarette tax hike say the increase would be a continuing source of revenue. Estimates say the tax increase would bring in between $250 million and $340 million annually.
The Wisconsin Health Association and the American Cancer Society, partners in the alliance to raise the tax, sponsored a poll surveying a bipartisan group of 500 Wisconsin voters on their views on the proposed tax increase.
Madison showed the highest support for the tax increase with an 85 percent approval rating. According to the poll, 82 percent of Madison voters said it would make no difference or they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who voted to raise the cigarette duty after promising not to raise taxes while running for office.
Although there is strong bipartisan support, there remain some opponents to the tax. Some people are philosophically opposed, calling it a “sin-tax,” such as Assembly Speaker Rep. John Gard, R-Peshtigo. They argue funding of state programs should not depend on the habit of smoking.
Other opposition came out of fear the poor would be paying a greater portion of the tax because people with a low-income are more likely to smoke.
However, Public Relations Director of the Wisconsin Medical Association Steven Busalacchi argues the placement of the money in the budget is not as important as the result — getting people to stop smoking.
“We could take the money and burn it, and it would still make sense,” Busalacchi said.
Busalacchi added it is a “tax cut” because the price-sensitive poor would be more likely to quit if the cost increases.
The young are another group of price-sensitive consumers that would be affected by the tax. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids estimates the cigarette tax will reduce current youth smokers by 12,000 and make 44,000 adult smokers in Wisconsin quit.
Many Wisconsin voters supporting the move are against tax increases in other areas to balance the budget. As the state faces a $1.6 billion deficit, polls showed the cigarette tax stands as a more acceptable way of dealing with the budget than increasing property taxes, cutting availability of Medicaid or reducing spending on education.
“A ‘user-fee’ is a more palatable way of dealing with the budget,” Alison Prange, legislative liaison for the American Cancer Society for Wisconsin, said.
While legislators argue about the budget, support for the cigarette tax is strong throughout the state.
“The people are ahead of the politicians on this,” Busalacchi said.
Anonymous (February 28, 2005 @ 9:46am):
Poll: Most not smokers.
Anonymous (February 28, 2005 @ 9:47am):
Raising the cost is a most effective way to reduce smoking. The taxes on all tobacco products should be raised. There is no good thing that comes from using tobacco.
I started smoking at Madison when a pack cost 35 cents and cartons were two dollars and change. The cost is the reason I quit, especially when I thought of where almost all of the money was going - to lawyers, taxes and ads.
Anonymous (February 28, 2005 @ 10:29am):
Tobacco is generally not an elastic market. That's kinda the nature of addiction.
Effectively, this is a tax on the poor.
Anonymous (February 28, 2005 @ 11:33am):
"Effectively, this is a tax on the poor."
Yeah, 'cause rich people don't smoke at all.
Hell, if they're so poor they can't afford an extra dollar per pack, maybe they should stop smoking altogether. They'd be healthier, their health care costs would decrease (and taxpayers wouldn't have to spend as much to subsidize keeping them alive), and they'd have more money for food, clothing, shelter, and any other things they needed.
Oh wait...you don't suppose that's the point of punitive taxes on cancer sticks, do you?
Anonymous (February 28, 2005 @ 11:58am):
Wow, stopping an addiction is as easy as making it cost too much? Perhaps we should impose a crack cocaine tax on drug dealers.
Maybe someone ought to tell the bums on State St that they can stop asking for cigarettes, since they're too poor to afford them, they've defeated their addiction.
Anonymous (February 28, 2005 @ 12:01pm):
Poll: Most support tax on anyone but themselves
Anonymous (February 28, 2005 @ 12:23pm):
oooh, lets tax all sorts of little things so the government can try to control every aspect of our lives and not let us make any of our own decisions!
Anonymous (February 28, 2005 @ 9:37pm):
"Effectively, this is a tax on the poor."
Much more like a tax on the stupid poor. You definitely need more dollars than sense to continue smoking. I've got little sympathy for the person who puts back food so they can afford the butts.
But then, it's not PC to point out any connection between wealth and intelligence, is it. Wealth only comes to those born to privilege, just ask the two Google billionares or Soros or Grove.
