RDF:![[Valid RSS]](http://validator.w3.org/feed/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Liberal Nanny Fascism
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in Lefty America-Haters, Nanny Statism9:53 AM
The ever greedy fascists in New York have just upped the sin tax on cigarettes by $1.25/pack, for a grand total of $2.75/pack.
Of course it’s For The Childrrreennnnnn™, why do you ask?
New York Health Commissioner Dr. Richard Daines says an estimated 140,000 New Yorkers are expected to stop smoking with the tax increase.
Doubtful. More likely it will lead to booming business for Internet cigarette pushers, local Indian reservations and neighboring States, as 140,000 smoking New Yorkers spend their money elsewhere.
As far as the State is concerned, however, the difference is immaterial, because either outcome will result in plummeting State revenues, and if you ever thought that Nanny State gave a mosquito fart in a Fujita-5 twister for anything other than how much money they can leech from you to hand to themselves and their cronies, we’ve got a really nice bridge in Brooklyn that we’d like to give you such a deal on.
And that, the precipitous drop in revenues that is, will really get the government thieves’ attention in a hurry. It’s hard to buy votes, rent limos, pay off contracts handed out to friends and family and hire hookers if there’s no money coming in.
Have you guessed where this is going already? We’re sure you have. You see, whereas revenues will drop like a rock thrown into the snatch of Rosie O’Donnell, the outlays for the grandiose pork projects that the State parasites will spend all of the money that they expect to receive will not.
Which, of course, means that they’ll have to start looking for somebody else’s wallets to rob at gunpoint. Have fun with the upcoming tax increases, New Yorkers. They’ll hurt a bit, but at least you can comfort yourselves with the fact that the disposable income of some 140,000 smokers is enriching somebody other than you.
For the Children™, of course.
You get the government you deserve, and you’re about to get it good and hard. Makes you real proud of the times you’ve voted for a Nanny Statist Liberal Fascist, doesn’t it?
Entries (RSS)
And I thought cigarette taxes in NC were high. If I lived in New Yawk (G-d forbid!) I would have to seriously contemplate giving up the evil weed. Now excuse me, it’s time for a smoke break . . .
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 AMUsing
Has any hike in Cigarette taxes EVER lead to a meaningful decrease in smoking? It’s typical librul magical thinking: If you believe hard enough, and your heart is in the right place, it will happen.
Click your heels three times and say: We will reduce smoking. We WILL reduce smoking! :em41:
Cuntmuffins… It will only lead to decreased revenues and higher taxes for everyone else to make up for the shortfall.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 AMUsing
Gotta love the Libtards and their “for the chilluns” wealth-confiscation schemes, and like all of the others, this too shall fail. Interestingly enough, the cigarette taxes in New York now equal what I pay for a pack, when purchasing by the carton at the Santo Domingo Indian Pueblo in between Santa Fe and Albuquerque.
Personally I think we need to institute a Tofu and Sushi tax.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 AMUsing
From 2006 -not sure what it is now, but maybe this is what Michelle Obama is whining about when she says she can barely make ends meet on their combined salaries.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 AMUsing
Heh, just did this story too. This Pennsylvanian welcomes this New York Nanny Behavioral Modification Tax and the revenue it should bring to our state with open arms, and will be praying the shortbus all-stars in Harrisburg don’t screw things up. Now if only we could break up our state’s liquor store racket…
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 AMUsing
Shhh! Doubleplus, you’ll give the librul anal-klingon-encrusted health fascists something to consider. Since history is constantly being rewritten by these dolts, memories of Prohibition and the mayhem it caused will be erased from the Prole memory bank.
The one thing you can get a good deal on in NYS is alcohol. There’s a discount wine and spirit store near me that has a sign in the window: “Cheaper than water.” It is in some cases it is. :em03:
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 AMUsing
LET THE SMUGGLING BEGIN !
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 AMUsing
Cigarette Taxes Do Reduce Smoking But Can Lead To Bootlegging, Study Says
http://www.scienceda.....183333.htm
In other news, it was determined that water is wet. :em95:
Cig smuggling has been a major source of mob revenue for decades in NY, I figure that the black market will be making more money off this tax than the government.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 PMUsing
This is awesome!
Remember in the opening scenes of ‘Beverly Hills Cop’ - when Eddie Murphy was trying to stop a semi full of contraband cigarettes?
Now THAT was high art!
And topical once again - Somebody call Eddie Murphy!
… or Kevin Costner - there’s got to be an ‘Untouchables’ angle in here ssomewhere…
- MuscleDaddy
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 PMUsing
OT,
Does anyone want to talk about this?
- MuscleDaddy
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 PMUsing
That’s why I buy all my smokes in Indiana. 20 bucks a carton, with free lighters.
And gas is 30 cents cheaper too.
God, I hate this state.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:57 PMUsing
Sin Tax Error
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 PMUsing
Sin Tax Terror
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:33 PMUsing
The Shinnecocks (local Indian tribe) are delighted.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 PMUsing
Okay, I don’t really see how raising a tax $1.25 is “Fascism.”
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:54 PMUsing
The sun comes up
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:56 PM‘n’ the sun goes down
‘n’ higher taxes
Keep comin’ aroun’
‘n’ all because o’
Some congress clown.
Life gets teedjus, don’t it?
Using
I’m waiting for His Dishonor, da Mayor Blumbutttinski to do to internet tobacco vendors what he’s done with his pet Federal Judge and Persecutors to out of state gun dealers. E-tailers refuse to collect taxes for Albany, so why should they do it for NYC?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 PMUsing
Dude, love your site, but please, no more Rosie O’Donnel imagery…
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 PM:em38:
Using
My first thought was of Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci) and his cohorts boosting a truck full of cigarettes in “Goodfellas”.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 PMUsing
Gyorglyquor-
Sorry, no can do. She’s too fugly not to endlessly mock. ‘Sides some folks around here have TONS of ’shopped Rosie O’ Donuts files and you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet…beware the NSFW links.
We never pretended to be a ’self-help’ site.
The Rottweiler Empire, creating mental patients since 2003.
Here’s a HAWTIE for ya’ and it isn’t Rosie O’ DippedinShit.
BTW, Welcome To The Empire !!!!!
:em95:
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 PMUsing
That’s gotta be some form of Godwin’s Law there Thug.
:em38:
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 PMUsing
I stopped a 2+ pack a day habit seven years ago this July. Actually my doctor, my panicky wife and my ticker stopped me. I thought it was way too high when i was spending $60/month at the Injun ciggie stores; $15 a carton for generic brands back then. And the injuns were fighting over the ciggie stores amongst themselves.
I had a squad of riot cops sitting on the interstate one night waiting for the troopers and the sheriff to call for assistance while the injuns were burning each other’s ciggie stores down on the reservation. Seems the Chiefs wanted a cut of the action from one owner and refused to tell the rest o’ the tribe what they were going to do with all the dough.
It is big money and, yes, ciggie smugglers will be getting rich(er) from this.
NYS - Why all the screwing around? If ciggies are that bad just ban the d**n things and be done with it. The motive for this is greed, nothing more. The state is facing a five billion dollar deficit and the politicians need to keep the pork rolling no matter the cost or who pays it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:40 PMUsing
Cause prohibition proved oh so successful in the past. It succeeded in giving organized crime leverage never before seen. Booze, drugs, Sex, cannot be legislated out of existence due to one factor and one factor alone…. human nature. All NY has succeeded in doing is creating a enfrocement issue. I guess you’re only allowed the “pleasure” of smoking if you are financially able to afford it….. What a bunch of dumb motherfuckers (not you Sig94, the legislators in NY)
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 PMUsing
Gotcha Troy. :em69:
I am just so sick of the hypocrisy of our politicians. :em58: This Cato Institute article is somewhat dated but you can get some idea of the money to be made from one single high jacked load of tobacco. Plus it creates a situation (self induced crisis) where limited resources are diverted from addressing real enforcement issues to chasing artificial ones created by idiot politicians.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 PMUsing
This is why I roll my own, and my best friend is a Nevada resident………
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 PMUsing
From the Cato link provided by Sig94
“cigarette delivery truck more profitable than an armored tuck”….
“street gangs and TERRORIST GROUPS” …..
Those who fail to remember history are condemned to repeat it. What are they going to do next put a sin tax on fast food (high fat, high calorie, high colesterol) for contributing to obeseity and heart disease? ABSOLUTE FUCKING NONSENSE AND IM SICK OF IT.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 PMUsing
IMHO, the large decreases in smoking we’ve seen over the last several decades have more to do with public education campaigns than increases in the price of ciggs.
With that out of the way….
A major increase in the price of any good that is at least partially elastic will result in decreased demand for that good. To suggest otherwise is simple ignorance of basic economics. (Yeah, Deej, I’m agreeing with you).
Ciggs are definitely leaning towards the inelastic end of the scale, heavily leaning for people who have a serious habit, but they are far from being perfectly inelastic. We’re talking about ciggs here, not insulin. Jack the price high enough, less people will smoke.
Whether or not I agree with the ciggs policy has little to do with whether or not the idea behind the policy is sound, and in this case, from the standpoint of attempting to reduce demand for a good by manipulating the market, it’s sound policy.
Flame away.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 PMUsing
Sig
Yeah that reminds me of a situation last year when Tennessee raised their cigarette tax. From the numbers I heard at the time, in the eastern end of the state, the State Patrol ended up spending more trying to enforce the two carton limit on Tennesseans buying their smokes in North Carolina then the tax was raising. They forgot that these people are already used to shopping in NC to avoid TN’s excessice sales tax.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 PMUsing
Holy Smokers ! Cig’s are $6 a pack $47 a carton in Washington State. Pots’ cheaper.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 PMUsing
PuddlePirate, decreasing the number of smokers isnt the motive behind the increase in the tax. If it was then how could they say that tax would be a revenue generating entity? Less smokers, less income generated from tax right? Best case scenario maintenance of status quo.
Also if that was the motive, then the reduction in smokers due to being priced out of the market would be dependant on a “sole source” for the product. Since is has already been historically proven that a portion of those targeted (or expected to be priced out) will result to a already established and available alternate source, the numbers of of those projected to cease smoking probably becomes marginal at best.
So they create a LE problem, create a segment of population that have to interact with criminal minded persons to get what they want, send money to the coffers of non-tax paying operators all to gain what ? Still makes no sense to me …..
June 4th, 2008 at 12:16 AMUsing
Just think under a real nanny state you’d pay
$1.70 per LITER of diesel (a good portion of which is tax)
$25 for a 2oz packet of tobacco (unsure but at least 50% of that is tax)
$52 for a (700ml) bottle of Makers Mark (at least 50% of that tax)
…..wait…. That’s what I pay…
I understand that the Meat Boilers over there in PomeLand have it even worse.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:42 AMUsing
Well dammit, Troy beat me to it.
And you’re right. But, as is the case with every other case study in economics, you have to assume ceteris paribus for it to work exactly that way. In this case, as Troy pointed out, you have to assume that every possible source for the good increase the price at the same time. If that is not the case, then you simply direct the demand in a different direction (assuming, of course, that the alternative sources have the capacity to meet the increased demand, which is pretty safe to assume in this case. I’ll disregard natural price increases from the alternative suppliers due to increased demand here for simplicity’s sake but also because it’s safe to say that any price increase on their part will be tiny compared with the price increase imposed by the State. Also, the alternate sources, although they certainly could push prices up close to what regular cigarettes now cost, are hardly interested in pricing themselves out of business as long as they have an ample supply).
Ah, what the Hell, I’ll do what you always do in economics and build a simpler model with less variables:
I have about a dozen gas stations within easy reach of my home. If one of them decides to jack up the price of a gallon of gas by a dollar, it’s not going to decrease gas consumption in my neighborhood. We’ll simply fill up at one of the other eleven, who will be more than capable of handling the added demand. Sure, they’ll be tempted to increase their prices too, but not by the same amount since it would mean bye-bye to the increased volume when people once again went back to the old gas station. They also face the problem of having to increase their prices by the same amount at the same time, or they’ll simply be moving their business to their competitors. Granted, gas is an even more inelastic good than cigarettes, but the analogy, while imperfect, works.
There’s nothing wrong with your theory, it’s absolutely spot on, it’s just that you didn’t include all the variables. Nobody does, because it’s impossible. I had to make assumptions too.
Factor in the added inconvenience of driving out of state for cigarettes (or dealing over the Internet where you can’t get your smokes “right now” but have to plan in advance) and yes, there most likely will be a decrease in demand, but it most likely won’t be as dramatic as the do-gooder busybodies project.
But let’s assume that it is, just for the heck of it. That brings us back to the original point of my post, which is that now the state is out of revenue. Not only will they not be getting the windfall from the added tax since people either quit or buy elsewhere, they won’t even get what they got before, which will lead to a budget shortfall. Which, again, will lead to added taxes elsewhere to make up for it. Those taxes, in turn, will then take money out of the economy and mess up the natural market mechanisms in other areas which, again, will lead to… Well, you know the rest.
Short version: The state is cutting off their noses to spite their faces, all because they can’t quit meddling. The net gain for society is negligible to non-existent, since most smokers will simply find other ways to satisfy their cravings and, on top of it, the “healthcare benefit” that is often touted by Nanny Statist Smoke Nazis isn’t there in the first place. Several studies show that the state makes far more from sin taxes and the general boost to the economy than they ever have to dole out to treat the small percentage who get seriously ill from smoking.
Add to that a flourishing black market completely exempt from taxes and, seeing as how it has to operate outside the law in the first place, not exactly being made up of outstanding pillars of society, and you have a whole heap of new problems with nothing but a good feeling that those “evil cigarettes” got a kick to the nuts to show for it.
Think Prohibition or think The War on (Some) Drugs.
It doesn’t work. The state needs to quit meddling with market forces, because nothing good has ever come from it and it never will.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:55 AMUsing
Or, to quote (from memory and therefore not quite verbatim) my first professor of economics when he addressed us all for the first time:
“You’re about to learn all of the ’secrets’ of what makes economies work, but before you open your books and read even the introduction, I want you to commit this to memory: The theories of micro and macroeconomics are based on one central assumption, and that is that human beings, when faced with any given situation, act rationally.
They don’t.”
Knowing full well that the ones among us actually paying attention were now thinking “so you’re saying that the whole mess of equations, rules and laws that we’re about to waste years on learning are useless?”, he added:
“This doesn’t mean that the subject of economics is useless, it only means that you will invariably be surprised by how the real world responds to real life situations. You’ll invariably be wrong to some degree, because humans are irrational. Economics is not an exact science. It’s a way of making educated guesses, and if you ever find yourselves saying “all of my calculations are spot on, so this is how it’s going to be”, then you’ve failed. If, on the other hand, you find yourself saying “where did I go wrong? What factor did I forget to take into account and how can I best avoid making the same mistake?”, then you’ve got the general idea. But you’ll still be wrong the next time, although hopefully not to the same extent.”
June 4th, 2008 at 2:12 AMUsing
Misha, thats great what your professor said. In my house we call it the difference between therory and reality.
But the saddest thing of all, is that the therory in this case, has already been historically disproven by events within the relative recent past. The information is there for perusal, living witnesses, studies, etc. Yet they persist…. a true example of your Professors assertion that humans are not rational.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:56 AMUsing
Absolutely agree, Sire. The overarching idea behind the policy is retarded, I was merely addressing the nuts and bolts economic tactics being employed. Increasing prices does reduce demand (albeit to varying levels depending on an almost infinite amount of variables), but can create a host of other problems to go with it.
I had the unfortunate pleasure of getting into a debate on this issue earlier in the day with one of those “Taxes never solve anything, people always do what they want”-types, and had to fight the almost overwhelming desire to choke the life out of him. I had to have a painfully slow and simple conversation with this individual before he dimly grasped the idea that if you make something more expensive, people will buy less of it, and if the entire point is to make people buy less of the good, then we consider that outcome a success.
Here, it’s nowhere near that simple, as both yourself and Troy have eloquently explained, particularly because the driving expected outcome behind the tax is increased revenue, not decreases in smoking. Revenue increases?! Hardly. I wouldn’t be surprised if it worked out to be a net loss overall. Personally, as an ex-smoker (quit two years ago), I’d expect a pretty healthy drop in demand, as buying out-of-state is a huge pain in the ass, particularly when you factor in the ever increasing price of gasoline. But, ain’t nobody in the gubmint gonna be making any money off this in the long run.
Now, if the state actually did it’s damn job and lived within its means (must….stop….laughing…), the situation changes. In the magical pixie dust example where government has fiscal responsibility, one could very easily budget an eventual slight loss in revenue due to a tax without appreciably affecting other areas, if the point of the tax was to reduce consumption of the taxed good.
The reason I quit smoking (and it was an extremely unpleasant experience) was because it was almost impossible to maintain the habit without causing someone in my vicinity to have to breathe the carcinogenic shit I was exhaling. If I want to mess up my own body, so be it, but I draw the line when my actions adversely affect the health of others who have no say in the matter. I don’t have that right. Same reason why I reserve a special dark place in my heart for the assholes who set up clan labs in apartment buildings. Same reason I have absolutely no mercy for DUI and BUI.
In my opinion, the fact that there will certainly be some degree of noncompliance and unpleasant side effects associated with banning an addictive and dangerous substance is not an acceptable reason to openly allow it. If the side effects on society of banning a substance eventually reach the point where they’re more harmful than openly allowing its use (as was the case with prohibition), then utilitarian ethics and basic common sense dictate a repeal. Try attacking the problem with public education instead. On the other hand, meth is illegal and it should damned well stay that way. That shit destroys everything it touches.
Now, I am in no way trying to put smokers and tweakers in the same category. Not even remotely close. However, as just one example, the proven long-term adverse health effects of both smoking AND regular exposure to secondhand smoke make heroin pale in comparison. If heroin is illegal, then why should cigarettes be allowed?
At what point do we draw the line?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:26 PMUsing
Puddle Pirate .. its late I would like to continue this discourse in the AM as I find it interesting in the give and take (it gives me brain candy to process). So do me a favor and look for my response tommorow.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:54 PMUsing
Indeed, sir. Unfortunately, I’m working AM shift tomorrow, but I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter after I throw ye olde uniform back in the locker tomorrow evening.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:20 AMUsing