Your numbers do not include local taxes and sales taxes earned on retaxing the taxes. I did do an in depth study some 5 to 10 years ago (and posted the results in a thread,) and came up with around $100 billion in total tax revenue from tobacco products. Yes the present revenue is declining due to fewer users. Healthcare costs were also much less 13 years ago. So I stand by my story.
Apparently I posted it 11 years ago referring to numbers I found some 2 years earlier. And that predates your earlier reference of 2014 to date.
Point taken about my numbers not including local sales taxes. (I don't understand what you mean by "sales taxes earned on relaxing the taxes"). However, I'm still skeptical that all taxes on tobacco in the US amount to $100 billion/year.
Your post of 11 years ago apparently misread some data points. You stated
" The NYC city tax (on top the federal tax) is $5.85 per pack. In Chicago, its $6.16."
But the page you linked to in your old post states
"Not shown here are local cigarette taxes, which can be substantial. In Chicago, Illinois, the combined state, county, and municipal taxes total to $6.16, while in New York City, smokers pay $5.85 per pack."
So...
At first glance, those local taxes might boost the total tax revenue to your $100 billion calculation (which unfortunately you didn't include in your 11 year-old post). BUT the Tax Foundation provides another page to show that states with high cigarette taxes see a lot of cigarettes smuggled in from other, lower-tax states. And a lot of cigarettes are avoiding taxation through smuggling.
California, for instance, is #1 in smuggled cigarettes entering the state—according to the tax foundation, about 52% of cigarettes are smuggled. That translates to $1, 474, 971, 856 in lost revenue. Massachusetts has 37.9% cigarettes smuggled in but loses far less tax revenue—$208,653,275.
So a calculation of tax revenue based on total cigs consumed x tax rate does not take into account all the smuggling done to avoid taxes. The numbers shown by the Tax Foundation are a far ways from $100 billion/yr.
Still, you likely have a point about tax revenue being diverted to purposes not at all related to the source of the tax revenue. But AFAICT that's municipalities have the right to do that for the most part.
As usual, the full quote ages even worse that you remember....
âI have concepts of a plan. Iâm not president right now. But if we come up with something, I would only change it if we come up with something thatâs better and less expensive. And there are concepts and options we have to do that. And youâll be hearing about it in the not too distant future." - September 10, 2024
Last night, his never before seen anything like it plan is to tell everyone "get your own". If obvious that individuals are much better negotiators than large groups. The art of the deal.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Dec 18, 2025 - 12:17pm
rgio wrote:
I don't care which party you support (if any), or how you get your healthcare... Nobody has done anything to address/manage the healthcare issue since the ACA was enacted. Love it or hate it... it was an attempt that has provided a lot of benefit to a lot of Americans. Cutting it off now... is a massive political mistake.
I don't care which party you support (if any), or how you get your healthcare... Nobody has done anything to address/manage the healthcare issue since the ACA was enacted. Love it or hate it... it was an attempt that has provided a lot of benefit to a lot of Americans. Cutting it off now... is a massive political mistake.
Yes indeed. The primary point that I was trying to make is that these taxes almost never benefit those who pay the taxes.
It was a simple example (relatively speaking) of a much more complicated healthcare problem. The sin tax conversation is the easy side of the ethics debates,
but has nicely illustrated why nothing ever gets done.
All of that is meaningless if he's not getting laughs. Seriously, maybe by 2028 we won't be winning elections by social media shares, but if he's not funny and charming enough to make people notice his Reels and share them a lot, he's a nonstarter. You can rationalize it all you want but he's got to be more of a beer-drinkin' pal or something that has zero to do with running a country.
Democrats need to find a way to communicate with the working class again.
I'm not sure a guy like Newsom has those skills. He's got a lot of the right ingredients being intelligent, charismatic, maybe even practical in the sense he seems willing to learn/change, essentially an elite...but the working class seem to think that's not what is needed.
The democrats are loosing frequently, but they are loosing by a tiny margin, and I'm not sure if you re-run the election today that holds. No one is saying the Republicans need to re-tool to avoid a razor thin margin. What happens when trump dies (after the party and all)? Vance can't hold the coalition together, the power they have is all behind the curtain, there is no leader in the party other than trump, and he wants to pass the baton to his kids, how is that going to work?
Both parties need big shakeups. The electorate is the entity that really should be forcing the issue with a 3rd (and fourth/fifth) party(ies), but they are too locked into the marketing cycle.
All of that is meaningless if he's not getting laughs. Seriously, maybe by 2028 we won't be winning elections by social media shares, but if he's not funny and charming enough to make people notice his Reels and share them a lot, he's a nonstarter. You can rationalize it all you want but he's got to be more of a beer-drinkin' pal or something that has zero to do with running a country.
Democrats need to find a way to communicate with the working class again.
I'm not sure a guy like Newsom has those skills. He's got a lot of the right ingredients being intelligent, charismatic, maybe even practical in the sense he seems willing to learn/change, essentially an elite...but the working class seem to think that's not what is needed.
Also, "sin" taxes (for alcohol and tobacco products) vary by state and city. For cigarettes, Chicago has a combined state and city tax of over $7 per pack, NYC's combined state and city tax is over $6 per pack while Missouri is 17¢ and NC is 45¢.
Washington has a state excise tax of over $36 per gallon on distilled spirits, while Texas is $2.40, and Tennessee is over $1 per gallon for beer, while NYS is less than 15¢.
Yes indeed.
The primary point that I was trying to make is that these taxes almost never benefit those who pay the taxes.
Your numbers do not include local taxes and sales taxes earned on retaxing the taxes. I did do an in depth study some 5 to 10 years ago (and posted the results in a thread,) and came up with around $100 billion in total tax revenue from tobacco products. Yes the present revenue is declining due to fewer users. Healthcare costs were also much less 13 years ago. So I stand by my story.
Apparently I posted it 11 years ago referring to numbers I found some 2 years earlier. And that predates your earlier reference of 2014 to date.
Also, "sin" taxes (for alcohol and tobacco products) vary by state and city. For cigarettes, Chicago has a combined state and city tax of over $7 per pack, NYC's combined state and city tax is over $6 per pack while Missouri is 17¢ and NC is 45¢.
Washington has a state excise tax of over $36 per gallon on distilled spirits, while Texas is $2.40, and Tennessee is over $1 per gallon for beer, while NYS is less than 15¢.
All of that is meaningless if he's not getting laughs. Seriously, maybe by 2028 we won't be winning elections by social media shares, but if he's not funny and charming enough to make people notice his Reels and share them a lot, he's a nonstarter. You can rationalize it all you want but he's got to be more of a beer-drinkin' pal or something that has zero to do with running a country.
First... you didn't answer my question (I should have left the edit off).
I don't think Kelly can win the general. He's a good guy, but won't deliver enough energy to stand out in a crowded primary debate. I think Newsom gets the attention, but I'm not sure he doesn't have too many weaknesses from his CA days. If I had to pick one of the two to win... I'd go with Newsom.
Your claims don't match the evidence. The feds and the states collect far less tax revenue from tobacco than you claim,
Your numbers do not include local taxes and sales taxes earned on retaxing the taxes. I did do an in depth study some 5 to 10 years ago (and posted the results in a thread,) and came up with around $100 billion in total tax revenue from tobacco products. Yes the present revenue is declining due to fewer users. Healthcare costs were also much less 13 years ago. So I stand by my story.
Apparently I posted it 11 years ago referring to numbers I found some 2 years earlier. And that predates your earlier reference of 2014 to date.
We already do that for tobacco, but as usual, instead of taking the direct tobacco taxes and applying them to the healthcare of users, the money goes to all kinds of things totally unrelated.
In the past I've looked at these taxes hard and the amount of money raised would cover the healthcare expenses for users and still leave money on the table. Just for a round number, these tobacco taxes are roughly $100 billion per year on a national basis, if my memory serves me right.
They are called "sin taxes" when in reality they prey on the addicted. The real sin is that they do nothing to benefit the taxed.
Your claims don't match the evidence. The feds and the states collect far less tax revenue from tobacco than you claim, and the healthcare costs of US smokers is around $225 billion/year. Another $156 billion is lost per year due to decreased productivity.
In 2022, an estimated 62.9 million people (38.4 million males and 24.3 million females) aged 15 years and older were tobacco product users in the United States of America. This positions the country as the 4th globally and the 1st in the WHO Region of the Americas in terms of number of tobacco users.1,2"
"Over the last decade, federal revenues from tobacco excise taxes have dropped by more than 30%âfrom about $14 billion to $9 billion from fiscal years 2014 to 2024."
"In 2024, states will collect nearly $26 billion from tobacco taxes and the 1998 Tobacco Settlement. They will also be getting $1.1 billion from a lawsuit against Juul.6 The CDC recommends that states, in total, spend $3.3 billion on tobacco prevention."
From Global Action to End Smoking (same link as above):
" In 2021, tobacco use caused an estimated loss of 10.0 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), which was about 19.7% of total DALYs. Tobacco accounted for 1.9 million DALYs for IHD, 528.3 thousand DALYs for Stroke, 2.3 million DALYs for Lung Cancer, and 2.0 million DALYs for COPD.
Smoking-related illnesses in the United States cost more than USD 300 billion each year, where USD 225 billion are spent for direct medical care for adults; more than USD 156 billion arise in lost productivity, where USD 5.6 billion account for secondhand smoke exposure."
