Do you support Gov. Mark Sanford's proposed 30 cents per pack cigarette tax increase as part of his overall economic plan ?
| Yes, it's a good way to generate revenue and a good way to offset the proposed income tax cut. | 72% | 619 votes |
| No, the combination of cuts and tax increases is not the way to solve our state's economic woes. | 27% | 232 votes |
| 851 total votes | ||
Post your comments about this poll!Notice about comments: The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Posted by lillycollette on December 10, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Profiting from addiction -- of any type -- is morally reprehensible to me.
Simply saying that those funds are to be spent exclusively on health care is no more than taking the word of people I already regard as [duh] -- morally reprehensible.
So I vote ‘NO’ on increasing cigarette taxes.
Posted by mkris on December 10, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A further wacky idea in the race to the bottom.
Posted by Missing_Home on December 10, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I used to think Mr. Sanford was smart.
Now I am shaking my head, He wants to tax cigs 30%. What happens to that tax base as more and more people are quiting? I don't see cigs being legal after 2020.
Then where will he get the funds from?
He should tax every cell phone user in SC 1 Nickel, he would come out way ahead.
This is a tax base that is only increasing.
Posted by Missing_Home on December 10, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The only true reason why someone would tax a waning tax base product like Cigerettes is probably because he hopes to force more smokers to quit.
Again, once the smokers quit, 1 of our future Gov. is going to have to deal with the shortfall.
Posted by rahard on December 10, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
1. reducing hi income taxpayer's tax by 50%? What is a hi income taxpayer please?
2. anything over 50 K is hi income. thus the gov would not be providing any relief to the MAJORITY of taxpayers...simply
rewarding the wealthy....Where is he coming from???
3.Because this is an internet poll, the 447 votes were internet obtained. How many of those voters, if they are voters and taxpayers, earn more than 50K? Probably 90 percent.
4. The result of course, if my premise is true, is obvious.
5. Why can't this newspaper prepare a more stratified
question which could leave room for under 50K taxpayers
to have a vote?
6. My conclusion therefore is that this poll was a waste
of my time.
7. try again.
Posted by rollo on December 10, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"5. Why can't this newspaper prepare a more stratified
question which could leave room for under 50K taxpayers
to have a vote?"
"3.Because this is an internet poll, the 447 votes were internet obtained. How many of those voters, if they are voters and taxpayers, earn more than 50K? Probably 90 percent."
If I'm reading you right, people who earn less than $50K are less likely to have access to this poll, therefore it is skewed toward those who earn more than $50K.
So, how would changing, "stratifying" the questions allow more under $50K earners access to this poll than already have access?
"6. My conclusion therefore is that this poll was a waste
of my time."
So,... You decided to 'waste' 20 more minutes of your time on this poll? You make more and more sense all the time!! LOL!!!
Posted by Paulie on December 13, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As far as I'm concerned, I would be extremely happy to see them tax cigarettes at 100% or more ...
Posted by moonpie on December 15, 2008 at 6:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe it will make people quit this disgusting habit.
But then how will it benefit the state coffers?
Posted by cfdoo7 on December 18, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As people quit smoking the revenue will slowly go down. Other states that have done this ended up with shortfalls and had to pull the money from the general fund.
Posted by WilBrowning on December 28, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally, I think we should significantly increase the excise taxes on alcoholic beverages. Certainly, I know that tobacco products are attributed to the deaths of many people, but I know that alcoholic drink kills many more. I find loud obnoxious alcoholic beverage drinkers in restaurants to be quite vile and their speech many times to be nasty and filthy. The smell of the drink is offensive to me, but then again I do not care a great deal for the smell of most perfumes. Couldn't we increase the tax on alcohol and perfume?
I think we need a tax levied on those that stink. They probably stink because they have spent too much time playing video games and not enough time in the shower. Couldn’t we add a ten dollar tax to video games? With such a tax on video games, perhaps more people would smell cleaner. Though you know, more showers will increase the strain on sewer districts. We must have a surtax imposed on showers.
I’m pretty sure that the increase in suds will also have a negative impact into the sewage released into our streams and creeks; can’t we add taxes to soap products? As tainted wastewater discharges decline wildlife in the area should rebound. Wildlife population increases in the area are likely not to be accepted by the many people who moved here from urban areas to get closer to nature. I think we should impose taxes on people harboring significant populations of wildlife. We can use the funds generated to bring more beneficial animals into the area like the spotted owl, which tastes like chicken.
How about a tax on the news media? I think that’s an exceptional idea. We could greatly increase the State's General Fund for each story published or broadcast by the media where facts are ignored since we know that the media has never let the facts get in the way of a good news story.
Posted by JC on December 10, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I usually agree with Gov. Sanford, but not in this case. This plan is giving to the rich and taking from the poor, widening the gap of the haves and have nots. Don't cut taxes for the haves - they have enough write-offs and loop holes now.