Follow this blog:
RSS

Study: New York’s high cigarette tax hurts poor smokers the most

By | September 23, 2012, 5:43 PM PDT

A new study from RTI International might have policy makers rethinking the use of sin taxes to control behaviors like eating junk food or smoking cigarettes.

After an investigation into the effectiveness of New York’s hefty cigarette tax, the study found that the state’s low-income smokers spend 25 percent of their income on cigarettes.

According to the American Cancer Society, statistics also show that those who earn less than $30,000 a year paid 39 percent of the state and city taxes on cigarettes.

Wealthier smokers who earn $60,000 or more, on the other hand, spend only 2 percent of their income on the habit.

For many, the study’s findings reveal a need to reconsider the state’s cigarette taxes, which are currently the highest of any state in the country at $4.35 per pack.

“The poor pay $600 million in cigarette taxes and get little help quitting,” Russ Sciandra of the American Cancer Society told the Associated Press, adding that low-income smokers also have less money to invest in tools that will help them quit.

Instead of downsizing the tax, however, the researchers suggest using some of the state’s revenue to implement programs that will help people kick the habit.

“Special efforts are needed to reduce smoking among those with low incomes,” said Matthew Farrelly, the study’s lead author and the senior director of RTI’s Public Health Policy Research program. “It seems only fair that states with high cigarette taxes should adequately fund cessation interventions for low-income smokers who shoulder a disproportionate share of cigarette taxes.”

Image: Valentin Ottone/Flickr

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Sarah Korones

About Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2012 to 2013.

Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones

Contributing Editor

Sarah Korones is a freelance writer based in New York. She has written for Psychology Today and Boston's Weekly Dig. She holds a degree from Tufts University.

Follow her on Twitter.

Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
13
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Cigarette tax
An important question is its effectiveness in reducing smoking overall, and, in particular, on teenagers who are at risk for getting hooked for the rest of their lives. Costs to the poor need to be weighed against benefits to everyone else.
Posted by kohagen
24th Sep
+2 Votes
+ -
Are we kidding here?
Smoking is voluntary. Yes, I understand addiction. Been there, done that. Smoking is voluntary. The tax "hurts poor smokers most"?! Give the bleeding heart a rest, folks. Cigarettes too expensive? Don't smoke!
On the flip side, I don't support legislating morality (which is exactly the purpose of high taxes on cigarettes). Either make them illegal or leave them alone. We're watching them move now from taxing cigarettes to outlawing the Big Gulp. When will New Yorkers get tired of their government nanny-sitting them? If those citizens continue to elect governments who want to "protect them from themselves", then they get what they deserve.
New York should be a model of what government should NOT be. I think I'll go have a smoke now....
Posted by SmartAndWorldly
24th Sep
+2 Votes
+ -
I love it when Progressives tie themselves in knots like this.
So on one hand we must impose high "sin" taxes to discourage "incorrect" and harmful personal behavior like smoking and fatty foods. But then it turns out that high taxes on bad behavior affect "poor" people disproportionately as compared to "rich" people. (Smoking is more prevalent among the "poor" than it is with the affluent) It pits the Progressive urge towards correcting "improper" behavior against their sense of "social justice". What to do, what to do?

IMHO, sin taxes should exclusively be used to mitigate the affects of the sin. However, the other knot in the rope is that governments are now as addicted to the revenues from cigarette and other sin taxes as the smokers are to the cigarettes. While logic might dictate that the revenues from these taxes should go to cessation programs, this will never be the case as we're talking about billions in tax revenue, and the bulk of those revenues already go to fund other aspects of government which have absolutely nothing to do with smoking. The reality is that government needs people to smoke as much as those smokers need to quit. The poor are just collateral damage to that end.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 24th Sep
+1 Vote
+ -
How about cutting government to the bare bone?
Government has a place, but this isn't it. All levels of government need to be slashed to where they are only performing absolutely necessary and constitutionally mandated functions.
Posted by Rodo1
24th Sep
+3 Votes
+ -
What?! Cigarette taxes hurt the poor?
Cigarette smoking hurts poor smokers (and rich ones, too) way more than the highest cigarette taxes ever will. When smokers develop emphysema or lung cancer, it hurts the smoker, his or her loved ones and society as a whole.

Anything or anyone that will legitimately help discourage addiction to smoking, whether government, family, friend, animal or vegetable should be applied. Helping any individual steer clear from a life of addiction that can lead to the horribly debilitating effects of emphysema or lung cancer is well worth the effort.
Posted by MaineBikah
24th Sep
+2 Votes
+ -
Cigarette tax hurting the poor?
I think that the cigarette tax is saving the lives of the poor. I moved into an engineering office in 1979 and then retired from there in 2000. There were approximately 250 employees at that location, half smoked and half didn't. By 2000 most of the smokers has died from smoking related illnesses such as cardiovascular, heart, or cancer. Of the none smokers then and now most of them are still alive and enjoying their retirement. So, don't give me the crap about taxes being a bad thing. Smoking is one of the evils of this world that gradually takes over peoples lives, takes away their ability to enjoy life, and then takes their lives away altogether. Corporate tobacco wants your money, nothing more. And they will kill you in the process of getting it. Don't be a sucker, kick it, don't get started, stay alive, have fun while you can.
Posted by radiodog4@...
24th Sep
+1 Vote
+ -
The headline should read "helps the poor the most".
Finally, a tax that will help poor people more, since more of them will simply find smoking unaffordable. Of course a fully rational tobacco policy would also educate the poor to the fact that "snus" can satisfy that nicotine craving with almost no negative health consequences. Maybe snus should benefit from a sharply lower tax rate. Or would that be too offensive to the "eliminate all nicotine" puritan crowd?
Posted by John Hartshorn
24th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
Not really
Most poor smokers I know will buy cigarettes before food.
Posted by jred
26th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
True enough.
Most beggars I see seeking alms are smoking. If you can afford to smoke, you can certainly afford to eat.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
26th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
poor smokers
If that is the case, then presumably they will not be fat. So, most poor fat people are probably non smokers.
I am constantly surprised by the strange attitude people have the the nanny state. NO ONE IS GOING TO TELL ME TO GIVE UP SMOKING! O.K.sucker, just carry on. You are only hurting yourself.
Posted by kitemanmusic
27th Sep
+1 Vote
+ -
Punitive taxes always hurt the poor more.
It is a long known fact.

Take a look at why Obamas cap and trade legislation failed and you will see the same answer.

Obama could not convince his own party members in Congress to support it because they realized its collection of punitive taxes on fossil fuels would disproportionately hurt lower and middle income people.

You cannot save the planet by driving a majority of the population deeper into poverty by punishing them for wanting heat or lights.

The excuses used are many, like reducing smoking or oil use, but the root of all tax hikes is to raise revenue.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 28th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
It depends on which goal they are more interested in.
If the goal is exclusively tax revenue, sin taxes are great. But there are ways to mitigate the effect on lower and middle income people if that is also a priority.

Cap-and-trade, had it gone further than it did, would have provided an interesting test for Obama's priorities. Had it not been DOA and proceeded further, it was my expectation that tax credits would have been provided to address the problem of lower and middle income people to mitigate the effect. (For example, in most jurisdictions, there are already like programs in place to provide low cost or subsidized heating) The desired effect would be to shove the bulk of the cost of cap-and-trade to upper-middle and higher income consumers, which politically, is what the Democrats really want.

The downsides of this approach is that it makes an already convoluted and distorted tax code even more so, would have had other "unintended consequences" and it only works well for "sins" that everyone commits; There's no practical way to apply it to smokers.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 28th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
cheapest cigarettes online
i m very shock poors peoples waist 25% his mony in smoking goverment should take some action to stope this
discount cigarettes
buy cigarettes online
dunhill cigarettes
Posted by luckygee
7th Nov
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!