Big tobacco company rallying Kansas smokers
Originally published 12:58 p.m., February 25, 2008
Updated 05:30 p.m., February 25, 2008
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, which makes one out of every three cigarettes sold in the United States, is working to snuff out a proposed 50-cent per pack tax increase in Kansas.
The nation’s second-largest tobacco company sent an email to smokers, encouraging them to attend an anti-tax rally at the Statehouse next month, in protest of the proposed cigarette tax increase, a part of the health-care reform proposed by the Kansas Health Police Authority and supported by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
“It seems they still want more of your hard-earned money. It’s time to tell Governor Sebelius and other politicians that enough is enough!” the email says.
House Bill 2737
A downloadable PDF version of the bill proposing the increase in cigarette taxes is available here.
Some Kansas smokers are opposed to the increase.
“I think it’s a heavy-handed way to raise money,” said Chris Tantillo, Topeka. “It’s an unfair way to raise money.”
“We’ve been taxed enough,” said Jim Banks, Osage City. “Tax something else for a change.”
Right now, smokers in Kansas are taxed 79 cents for every pack of cigarettes. With the tax increase, they’d pay $1.29 per pack in tax.
Estimates show the 50-cent per pack tax hike and increases in taxes on other tobacco products in Kansas would raise $61.5 million in fiscal year 2009. As the bill is written now, the cigarette tax hike wouldn't stop at 50 cents. It would increase by an additional four cents each year.
The money generated from the increase would be used to pay for other health initiatives laid out in the health plan.According to Americans for Prosperity, a national organization that works to limit government, smokers in the states that border Kansas pay the following taxes on every pack of cigarettes:
- Missouri – 17 cents
- Oklahoma – 60.75 cents
- Nebraska – 64 cents
- Colorado – 84 cents
With nearly 42 percent of Kansans living in border counties, Americans for Prosperity estimates cigarette sales in Kansas would go down nearly 20 percent.
The Kansas Health Policy Authority said the tax increase is primarily intended to discourage smoking. Some smokers say it would work.
“I think it’s a hell of an incentive to quit, because I already spend a lot of money on cigarettes,” said Michal Enloe, Topeka.
The tax increase doesn’t seem to be getting very far. Hearings were held in the house taxation committee earlier this month, but the bill isn’t scheduled to be worked anytime soon, according to the committee’s secretary. The senate assessment and taxation committee hasn’t even touched the bill.
Another portion of the healthcare reform may also be in limbo. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed its scheduled vote on a smoking ban, which would ban smoking in many public areas, subject to a Nov. 4 vote in each county. Committee members will vote on the measure Wednesday, said committee chairman John Vratil, R-Overland Park. If passed, it would go to the full House. The measure's future was cast into doubt last week when the committee exempted bars and casinos from the bill.
Comments
Note: ktka.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor vouch for the factual claims made therein. Nor do we review every post.
Feb. 25, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)williiam (anonymous)
polls like this are silly, at best. this question goes deeper than this poll can show. a buisness owner , such as an bar owner should be able to allow smoking if he chooses. if a customer chooses not to go in to a smoking allowed establishment, that is his or her right. if people choose not to trade with a smoking establishment, that bar will not stay open. a law that would force a bar to post a sign, stating that they are a smoking alowed bar, would do the trick. that bar owner should also indecate on all applications for employment that he allows smoking. that would allow the applicant to choose to work there or not. many bars are choosing, allready, to not alow smoking. this is great. i do not smoke.thanks
Feb. 25, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)meadowlark (anonymous)
"The money generated from the increase would be used to pay for other health initiatives laid out in the health plan." That's a crock that someone in the Governor's Office came up with. It's a wonder they haven't encouraged everyone to take up smoking to "balance the budget", afterall, this is just another "tax'em revenue" idea - if smoking is such a health problem, then drinking has to be too, so tax that and then start on fat people.
Feb. 25, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)robwelcher (Rob Welcher)
Okay here's the deal. I'm not a smoker, however I live with one. Do I like the smell of smoke? No, but it's not my business to tell someone to stop it. If you ban smoking in an establishment, then you're hurting the economy. Ruby Tuesday's banned smoking and half the regular customers walked out. Restaurants that don't allow smoking are sealing their fates. As far as the tax, that's just stupid. If you raise taxes on each pack it will anger smokers but trust me, they will pay it. It's just like gas being over $3 a gallon...we don't like it, but we'll pay it.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)