Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

September 07, 2010, 08:45:38 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News:
Headline News



+  gopbriefingroom.com
|-+  General Category
| |-+  Economy/Business
| | |-+  Plummeting cigarette sales cut California tax revenues
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Plummeting cigarette sales cut California tax revenues  (Read 18 times)
Rapunzel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3326



« on: July 28, 2010, 04:02:51 PM »

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/28/2919217/plummeting-cigarette-sales-cut.html

Plummeting cigarette sales cut California tax revenues
 
By Bobby Caina Calvan
bcalvan@sacbee.com
 
Last Modified: Wednesday, Jul. 28, 2010 - 12:08 am

Cigarette sales in California plunged to their lowest level in a decade last year as smokers were squeezed by new taxes and restrictions on where they could light up.

While tobacco use has been steadily declining, the 8.1 percent sales drop was the largest year-over-year decline since 2000, according to the state Board of Equalization.

The number of cigarette packs sold in the state fell to 972 million – down from from 2.8 billion in 1980.

State officials said higher taxes drove more people to kick the habit. Last year, the federal government increased the per-pack tax on cigarettes by 62 cents, bringing the levy to $1.01 a pack.

In California, a pack of smokes now costs an average of $5.09.

"As smokers go to the checkout counter and pay that higher price, they've reduced their smoking," said Anita Gore, a spokeswoman for the state Board of Equalization.

Certainly, the drop is good news for public health. Smoking is tied to a number of deadly ailments, including heart disease, cancer and emphysema.

According to state studies, the lifetime health cost for a smoker is $16,000 more than a nonsmoker.

But for the state, the decline in smoking also means $74 million in tax revenues have disappeared like a puff of smoke, leaving health programs that rely on cigarette taxes to look for other ways to pay for services.

In all, the state collected $839 million in cigarette tax revenues during the just-completed fiscal year, compared with $913 million the year before.

"It's definitely a bit of good news and bad news for us," said Diane Levin, chief deputy director of First 5 California, which gets most of its funding from state cigarette taxes to pay for anti-smoking education services and other programs that promote healthy living among Californians with young children.

"Declining revenue isn't a new issue for us. We've been expecting it, and we've been planning for it," she said. "We're having to strategize to do more with less, to concentrate our focus in these tough times."

Still, it's a "double slap" – a decline in tax revenue and a state budget that is struggling to fund health services, said Robert Phillips, director of health and human services for the California Endowment, a private health advocacy foundation.

While cigarette sales have declined, "there's still a lot of work to do" to vanquish cigarettes from the state, Phillips said.

The availability of cheaper generic cigarettes at discount retailers and lower online prices continue to feed the appetite of those who can't kick their habit.

At Joe's Discount Cigarettes in south Sacramento, fewer customers are buying expensive name-brand cigarettes, instead opting for generic ones, said the shop's owner, Joe Ilagan.

"If you don't have the money, you can always buy generics," which cost up to $2 less a pack. "But if you're a die-hard fan of Marlboros, you're still going to buy 'em," Ilagan said.

The figures released by the Board of Equalization did not include Internet sales from out-of-state cigarette vendors.

By law, sellers are supposed to inform the state of cigarettes purchased online so state officials can collect taxes on the sales.

Tax revenues from online sales have also declined in recent years, Gore said. In 2007, the state collected $2.2 million in tax revenue from Internet sales. A year later, that amount fell to $960,000. In 2009, the tally further dropped, to $785,000.

While it wasn't included in the analysis released Tuesday, "the decline in (online) revenues indicates a potential decline in consumption" of cigarettes, said Gore, the Board of Equalization spokeswoman.

Over the years, the number of smokers in California has fallen dramatically, as taxes increased and communities placed greater restrictions on where people can smoke.

The state now bans smoking in workplaces, restaurants, bars and other indoor places, while an increasing number of communities ban smoking in outdoor spaces such as parks and beaches.

The result, state officials said, is a healthier California.

Last year, just 13 percent of the state's population smoked – down from nearly 23 percent two decades earlier, according to the California Department of Public Health. Only Utah has a smaller percentage of smokers.
 
Logged
Rapunzel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3326



« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2010, 04:04:25 PM »

Why is it only liberals who are shocked when they raise taxes on something to modify behavior that it does, infact, modify said behavior and in the process reduce tax revenue to the state or the government?
Logged
Rapunzel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3326



« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2010, 04:05:43 PM »

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/michigan_lottery_sales_taxes_o.html

Michigan Lottery sales, taxes on cigarettes and casino gambling plummet; Gov. Jennifer Granholm says revenue decline is 'breathtaking'
Published: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 6:54 PM     Updated: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 6:32 AM
The Grand Rapids Press The Grand Rapids Press

LANSING -- Michigan residents bought fewer Michigan lottery tickets, cigarettes, clothes, restaurant meals and household goods, as they saw the stock market plummet and the economic outlook darken.

The sharp pullback in consumer spending sent sales tax receipts downward 18 percent in February, or more than $100 million. It will force Gov. Jennifer Granholm and lawmakers to cut the budget more, agree on tax increases or use more of the federal economic stimulus money to balance the state's books.
55
0
5Share

It was the steepest monthly decline in 25 years.

Overall revenue declines total $200 million from forecasts made just seven weeks ago.

Since income tax receipts from paycheck withholding were pretty flat in February, economists say concerned consumers may be putting away their credit cards and spending less.

"The big reason revenues are tanking is that consumers are negative and they're saving their money," Senate Fiscal Agency economist David Zin said Wednesday. "We thought consumers would ratchet up the savings and they've done so even more than we thought."

Also down were tax receipts on specific forms of discretionary spending, according to the agency's new revenue report. Tobacco tax receipts were down 6.7 percent and casino wagering taxes were down 7 percent. Michigan Lottery ticket sales dropped nearly 19 percent. One factor that explains some of the decline from a year ago was that February 2008 provided a 29th day of sales.

Tax collections from the sale of real estate are down 42 percent from a year ago. While the focus of the state's economic woe is the auto sector, sales tax receipts from car sales actually climbed 15 percent last month.

Monthly net income tax revenue declined for the first time since 1993 as larger-than-expected refunds outstripped collections from withholding, quarterly and annual payments. The state refunded $609 million last month, up from $494 million a year ago.

Taxpayers could be quicker this year to file their state income tax returns. The state also paid out some $43 million in refunds from the old Single Business Tax.

All told, tax collections for general state operations and public schools in January and February are down $200 million from the Jan. 16 revenue estimates on which Granholm's budget is based.

Granholm has proposed some $670 million in budget cuts and is recommending the use of about $800 million in federal stimulus money to keep the 2009 and 2010 budgets in balance. Wednesday, she said more of the stimulus money may have to be used.

Outside of road construction, the governor has yet to outline how she would spend some $6.7 billion in federal aid headed Michigan's way.

A big chunk of that will flow directly to schools through federal formula and could offset the impact of declining sales tax revenue earmarked for K-12 education. And there are hundreds of millions, if not billions available to avoid government layoffs, and maintain state aid to local governments, universities and health care providers.

"We've got a drop in revenue now that is breathtaking," Granholm said. "We also know that the stimulus is intended to respond to that cyclical drop in revenue."

How big that cyclical drop is, and the size of Michigan's budget hole, won't be officially reassessed until May. Senate Majority Leader Michael Bishop, R-Rochester, said no decisions on spending the stimulus should be made until then.

It will also be clear by then whether any of Granholm's budget cuts or tax hike proposals have a shot at passage. Lawmakers in both parties have been slow to embrace Granholm's cuts to universities, agricultural extension programs and state aid to local arts agencies.

Granholm was cool to Bishop's idea to target some of the stimulus money for Michigan Business Tax reduction because she says federal law doesn't permit it.

"Those tax cut battles were waged at the federal level. Forty percent or so of the (stimulus) is tax cuts," Granholm said. "We need to invest in specific areas we are required to invest in, job creation and infrastructure."
Logged
Oceander
Blue Bowler Industries
GBR Advisor
Hero Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 2170



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2010, 10:10:29 PM »

Why is it only liberals who are shocked when they raise taxes on something to modify behavior that it does, infact, modify said behavior and in the process reduce tax revenue to the state or the government?

Because they're stupid f*cking twits who have not even a nodding acquaintance with logical or rational thought processes, and disbelieve basic Econ 101 principles because they cannot see Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and therefore do not think it exists.
Logged

  
Rapunzel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3326



« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2010, 11:40:56 PM »

Because they're stupid f*cking twits who have not even a nodding acquaintance with logical or rational thought processes, and disbelieve basic Econ 101 principles because they cannot see Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and therefore do not think it exists.

Well, they just got a lesson in the Lafer curve...... (where's MAC when you have proof of Lafer's principles ~LOL~)
Logged
Oceander
Blue Bowler Industries
GBR Advisor
Hero Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 2170



WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2010, 09:40:51 AM »

Quote
In California, a pack of smokes now costs an average of $5.09.

Just noticed this one - if Kalifornians think that's bad, they ought to try cigs in NYC - on average, $10 a pack.  And the neo-fascists in Albany wonder why they have so many problems with non-Indians sneaking onto the reservations to buy smokes there.

Oh well, at least the Mob's been taken care of - high cigarette taxes might as well be called welfare for mobsters - cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting of tax stamps is at epic proportions.
Logged

  
Pages: [1] Go Up Send this topic Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!