Missouri smoking tax opponents wary o...

Missouri smoking tax opponents wary of Prop B

There are 12 comments on the Springfield News-Leader story from Oct 14, 2012, titled Missouri smoking tax opponents wary of Prop B. In it, Springfield News-Leader reports that:

Opponents of a ballot measure seeking to raise the state's tobacco taxes are questioning whether the additional tax revenue will actually go toward helping Missourians stop smoking.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Springfield News-Leader.

OMG

Saint Louis, MO

#1 Oct 15, 2012
Have you ever noticed, they never want to increase taxes on booze?
bob

Bolivar, MO

#2 Oct 25, 2012
Prop B .. why to vote NO ...
simply put in layman terms -- the state gives schools 4 quarters for their budget. If Prop B passes it give schools another quarter.. so that means schools get 5 quarters and that's a good thing right?... NOT SO FAST ... the state says .. hey now we can cut school funding by 1 quarter...
That leaves schools with 4 quarters or what they had in the first place .. then if prop B revenues decrease for any reason school funding decreases as well...
That's what happened with the casino tax a few years back .. everyone thought that was great so the state cut school funding and then the recession cut casino revenue and schools took a big hit,,,, Don't fall for this again.
guest

United States

#3 Oct 26, 2012
Aren't we taxed enough already?
Need A Kight

Etobicoke, Canada

#4 Oct 28, 2012
guest wrote:
Aren't we taxed enough already?
More Tax will definately help the crime rateshere the proof

http://autos.ca.msn.com/video/...
guest

United States

#6 Oct 28, 2012
Need A Kight wrote:
More Tax will definately help the crime rateshere the proof
http://autos.ca.msn.com/video/...
The extra revenue generated from the proposed increase in tax doesn't have anything to do with crime. It's slated for education and smoking cessation programs.

If people want to smoke, what good will education and cessation programs do for them? They'll smoke until they're ready to quit. No need to charge them more for their habit just so government can grow larger and create more government jobs that aren't needed.

We need less government, not more.
Need A Light

Etobicoke, Canada

#7 Oct 28, 2012
Vaccines Maim Kill wrote:
<quoted text> Changing your name bozo?
Naw ... just testing to see what name you use to answer.
Need A Light

Etobicoke, Canada

#8 Oct 28, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The extra revenue generated from the proposed increase in tax doesn't have anything to do with crime. It's slated for education and smoking cessation programs.
If people want to smoke, what good will education and cessation programs do for them? They'll smoke until they're ready to quit. No need to charge them more for their habit just so government can grow larger and create more government jobs that aren't needed.
We need less government, not more.
"The extra revenue generated from the proposed increase in tax doesn't have anything to do with crime. It's slated for education and smoking cessation programs." Give me a break, you know it's for raises to support non smokers agenda's and goofed up elected incompetants budgets.
guest

United States

#9 Oct 28, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
"The extra revenue generated from the proposed increase in tax doesn't have anything to do with crime. It's slated for education and smoking cessation programs." Give me a break, you know it's for raises to support non smokers agenda's and goofed up elected incompetants budgets.
Earlier you said it would help the crime rate. If you'd read the proposal you'll find the new revenue is earmarked for education and smoking cessation programs.

Do your homework and stop making a fool of yourself.
Need A Light

Etobicoke, Canada

#10 Oct 28, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Earlier you said it would help the crime rate. If you'd read the proposal you'll find the new revenue is earmarked for education and smoking cessation programs.
Do your homework and stop making a fool of yourself.
Help the crime rate = increase the crime rate which it has done on an outrageous taxed legal product.Police expenditures also rise in cost all over a legal product,and take their time away from investigating illegal activity. This also increases insurance rates whereas all the consumers pay in the end. As the article states opponents are WARY and skeptical of that big word EARMARKED and have been taken to the cleaners before.
guest

United States

#11 Oct 29, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
Help the crime rate = increase the crime rate which it has done on an outrageous taxed legal product.
Helping the crime rate means reducing it, not increasing it. And as I have correctly pointed out to you twice already, the increased revenue from the proposed tax has nothing to do with crime whatsoever.
Police expenditures also rise in cost all over a legal product,and take their time away from investigating illegal activity.
Bullshit. Your claim is nothing but wild speculation that has no basis in fact. When the price of a gallon of milk rises, it doesn't cause the police to take time away from invesitigating crime. The same holds true for rising prices on anything. You're blasting out nothing but horse shit trying to find something to support your false claim.
This also increases insurance rates whereas all the consumers pay in the end.
More bullshit. An increase in tax on cigarettes makes them less affordable, and with the extra tax money slated for smoking cessation programs, the presumption is that the number of smokers (and along with it their health problems) will decrease, which in turn would reduce the number and amount of claims paid for by insurance companies. Those lower expenditures would tend to reduce insurance rates, not increae them.

Look, if you're against the tax, fine. I oppose it too. But spewing nonsensical and unfactual bullshit while trying to make your case is ridiculous.
Goes On Every Where

Etobicoke, Canada

#18 Oct 30, 2012
Goes On Every Where wrote:
<quoted text>Here you go police work costs the taxpayer nothing ??
Guest why is it the millions of $$$ paid to every state by the Master Tobacco Agreement gets forgotten in Missouri.You can bet your ass there is mass mismanagement of these $$$.
aur56

Monett, MO

#19 Oct 30, 2012
Voting yes on Prop B....and they can tax the crap out liquer too as far as I'm concerned. Yes on Prop B....tobacco is disgusting and it can kill you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Missouri Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Missouri's Jewish Governor At Center Of High St... Apr '17 Trumpenstien Poli... 3
News Blunt's aide haunted by nude photos on web (Mar '07) Feb '17 Anon 13
News Spike Lee premieres University of Missouri film... (Apr '16) Dec '16 zionist HLWD 2
News Missouri lawmaker abruptly resigns, cites rumors (Feb '16) Nov '16 Donald Trump 3
News Missouri Senate Hopeful Jason Kander One of Man... (Nov '16) Nov '16 El OxyCONtin 2
News Missouri Senate race not strange this time, jus... (Oct '16) Oct '16 Fundie Sniffling 1
News Women Open up About Abortion in a New HBO Docum... (Aug '16) Aug '16 Uber-Bro of the U... 3
More from around the web