The Student Voice of MU Since 1955
Friday, September 19, 2014

Column: Missouri chooses smokers over students, again

Nov. 7, 2012

The opinions expressed by The Maneater columnists do not represent the opinions of The Maneater editorial board.

“Tax” is a pretty dirty word — especially when it is preceded by its dirty partner in crime, “sin.”

Being the fiscally conservative, government-fearing and arguably delusional Libertarian that I am, you might guess I was thrilled at the failing of Proposition B, and its potential increase in tobacco product taxes last night. Well, guess again.

For a long time, I was a pretty extreme libertarian: not willing to compromise “across the aisle” (as if Libertarians have a place on either side of the aisle), but instead urging a dissolution of social welfare programs and a chopping of budgets and power on the federal level. But somewhere down the road I became more of a “lesser of two evils” voter, which is where I find myself today.

Although I’m socially liberal, the current economic climate is of chief concern to me, and ya boy Mitt, by merely claiming to cut more federal spending than President Obama, captured my ballot this year. But where things got tricky for me at the polls yesterday was in the box marked “Missouri State Proposition B,” or the tobacco products tax increase.

As I said, I’m a proponent of a federal government that provides for the common defense modestly, enforces our laws and protects our property. And although, at the state level, I am a firm believer in the power of government(s) to deal with things as they may, at the heart of my overall political ideology is a fundamental belief that a limited government is an effective and fair government.

At the risk of abandoning the topic at hand and shooting off into a column endorsing limited government, I’ll cut to the chase — I hate sin taxes. A previous version of myself would probably tell you Proposition B is a gross abuse of taxation, which limits my freedom to smoke tobacco products (if that was an activity I took part in). My current self begs to differ, though.

My current self will tell you that sometimes you have to vote on issues rather than your overarching political ideology. This was a lesson I had to learn this election season. It is hard for a libertarian like myself to even consider affirming a sin tax, let alone preach Prop B’s sermon to the student body and urge others to do the same. But the facts are hard to get past.

The average state cigarette tax is $1.49, compared to Missouri’s $0.17, which, by the way, is the lowest in the nation. The contentious Proposition B would have bumped our rate up to $0.89 a pack, an increase of $0.72, or 424 percent — a pretty powerful figure that you’ve likely heard or seen in one of the many “Vote No on B” signs or 30-second spots around the state.

But it wasn’t that we had the lowest tax in the country that pushed me into the “yes” camp. In fact, a low tax is generally something I would boast about. It was the health risk and the associated taxpayer burden via Medicaid, as well as the new revenue allocations, that influenced my vote. Those new allocations would have sent 20 percent of revenue to prevention and cessation programs for smokers, 50 percent to primary and secondary education and, what captures most of my and likely your attention, 30 percent to Missouri’s colleges and universities.

Higher education institutions in Missouri desperately need the revenue that Proposition B would have provided, an estimated $238 million annually.

We, the people of Boone County, did the right thing and passed Prop B with nearly 60 percent of the vote, but our friends (ex-friends, now) north and south of I-70 let us down. I don’t like to think of myself as an issues voter, nor a proponent of goods taxation. But I couldn’t be more upset that we failed to put our political differences aside and make the right choice for Missouri health and higher education this November. Bummer.

Share: Facebook / Twitter / Google+

Article comments

Nov. 7, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.

MITT: "WOW THIS IS GREAT" - YA BOY MITT

Nov. 8, 2012 at 4:57 p.m.

Michele: Hi Mr. Hickox, While your article seems eloquently written and well thought out, it seems you lack an understanding of "why" this proposition was again defeated. If you read the many comments under the articles regarding it, you will see many posts that explain why a lot of people (including non-smokers) voted it down a third time. It has nothing to do with allowing smokers to continue to purchase cigarettes at a lower price than the rest of country and continue smoking. It has everything to do with issues of strictly targeting groups of individuals that purchase particular items, although admittingly unhealthy, to bear a tax burden for what is, or should be a community or even state concern, like education. If the schools are lacking, everyone is responsible for bringing them up to par...not just people who smoke. I'm sure you would understand (or maybe not) how this can open the doors for other things that are deemed unhealthy....fast food, soda, sweets, alchohol etc... to be heavily taxed by their purchasers. It could get out of hand very quickly. By your reasoning, the smoker has a high potential of putting heavy burdens on the Healthcare system. I agree. But if you look at it this way, you also have to look at other unhealthy habits people have that contribute to that burden as well. For instance, obesity related illness is considered just as much a burden on the system as smoking is now. Yet people will still gobble down fast food, sweets and carbs like there's no tomorrow...but that's okay. Alcohol is socially acceptable too, even though it's effects in excess are also very unhealthy....so no problem there either. If you don't know about the casino/lottery fiasco in Missouri, then read up on that also. That money was suppose to go for education. It didn't. So there are many reasons not to vote for such a tax.

Post a comment
Start a discussion

Concurrence or rebuttal, if you have a strong opinion, let's hear it. The Maneater Forum seeks to publish a diversity of opinions and foster meaningful decision. Readers are encouraged to actively contribute to and develop new discussions. Add to ours, or make your own point.

Send a letter Send a tweet