Should Smokers Pay More? Free Essay on Taxation

A look into the taxes imposed on tobacco presents extremely low rates of charges standing at 87 cents. Ideally, it takes over $4 billion to treat tobacco-related illnesses such as lung cancer and emphysema. In fact, comparing these tax rates to other states, it ranks at an all-time low of 32 across the whole nation. Any normal person would appreciate the fact that there should be a rise in the cost of tobacco so as to cover both the certain effects it presents and the uncertain ones. With this regard, rising of tobacco tax in California as a state comes out from the fact that the taxes currently imposed are too low. Even as smoking as a personal choice, any increase in tobacco tax should cater for the prolonged expenses incurred in treatment of tobacco-related illnesses.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The genuine motives behind the need for tax increment across California are due to the fact that the increased taxes would have to cater for expenses in various anti-smoking crusades across the state. In another instance, the raise of tobacco tax is worth supporting as it would also ensure that the expenses incurred during the treatment of illnesses related to tobacco are addressed. The use of anti-smoking ads through the media would therefore promote healthy living as such campaigns would target institutions and social gatherings. It would also be worth mentioning that the above move would come as a relief to non-smokers as their tax money would not go into funding the smokers illnesses. The move would also prove fair enough for individuals who would wish to persist in smoking even as they would have to cater for their own course of treatment. To add, increment of tobacco tax would also come as an encouraging factor for smokers to quit all together as they would have to incur a higher cost for them to smoke.

In a contrary argument, raising the amount of tax in tobacco would also come along with its set of negativities. Firstly, there would be an increase in the illegal sale of cigarettes and its immediate effect would be on the need for smokers to buy cheap cigarettes offered in the black market. In another negative aspect, the smokers may find it a lot discriminatory, when most smokers accounting for 20% of poor people who smoke. In this disturbing statistics where 7.5% of individuals with college degrees earning more than $50000 smoke, the tax idea simply becomes unfair.

From all the arguments above, my support for higher tax on tobacco becomes affirmed due to the health inconveniences it comes along with. It is also due to the fact that the tax appraisal in itself would be a relief to non-smokers when their other smoking partners would have to dig more in their pockets for cigarettes. It would also be worth appreciating that the increase in tobacco tax would help the state government generate revenue to support health-related projects that have come more costly over the years.

In a conclusive remark, the general feeling that any increment of tax on tobacco would be vital derives its importance from the fact that smoking is indeed a choice. Even with the dangers that the smokers expose themselves to, the collection of an additional tax from them would still require them to become more responsible over their health with total regard to the choice of smoking that they had made.