Brownback’s Cigarette Tax Plan

First, I want to say that I have never smoked a cigarette, and I am in favor of everyone quitting. However, as a Kansas resident, I was shocked by Governor Brownback’s attempt to get rid of budget shortfalls by asking the legislature to almost triple the cigarette tax from 79 cents to $2.29 for a pack. It seems unfair that cigarette smokers have to make up for the budget hole the governor and legislature have dug for Kansas. The rationale for raising a tax on cigarettes is that people who don’t want to pay the tax can stop smoking.

People can just stop smoking? Does the governor really think that will happen in large numbers? Absolutely not, or he wouldn’t be banking on a cigarette tax as the way to decrease the state’s deficit.  But people do have other options that do not involve quitting. Some of those options may not be a boon for Kansas businesses.

A run for the border

Those who live near a Kansas state line may cross over for lower prices. As of January 1, 2014, all four states bordering Kansas had a lower cigarette tax. Missouri’s tax on cigarettes, 17 cents per pack, is the lowest in the nation. Nebraska (64 cents), Colorado (84 cents), and even Oklahoma ($1.04) are all significantly lower than the $2.29 proposed by Brownback.

Other spending choices

In the news article I read, one person worried that people might choose purchasing cigarettes over filling prescriptions for needed medication. Not all smokers are taking medicine, but they all have spending choices. Some may choose to smoke instead of taking their families out to eat, attending a local sporting event or concert, visiting a museum, purchasing a new wardrobe, or even buying a new car. The unintended consequences of this tax could, in the long run, hurt the businesses Brownback is always saying he wants to help.

So what do you think? Is a higher cigarette tax the way to solve the Kansas budget crisis?

This entry was posted in Kansas and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Brownback’s Cigarette Tax Plan

  1. Tom Heeren says:

    No, maybe we should eliminate the Secretary of State position and salary to save money. Move the elections to a new position called the Elections department with a goal: to guarantee fair and honest election laws for all Kansans regardless of race and disability. The Secretary of State job is ineffective because the current Secretary of State abused the position with dishonesty and no respect for people living in Kansas and their right to vote without peeking eyes of the Secretary of State.

    Do you agree with my suggestion?

    • Hazel says:

      The goals you mentioned for an elections department are ones the Secretary of State is supposed to be fulfilling now. Sadly for those who believe he is not doing the job, the current Secretary of State was just reelected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s