Florida Cities Experience Decline In Tobacco Revenue
Smokers bought fewer cigarettes in Florida last year, decreasing
the cigarette tax revenue for the cities, according to an
article in the ST. PETERSBURG TIMES. The state cigarette tax is
34 cents a pack, of which nearly 13 cents is divided among the
cities. Figures show that Florida collected $468 million in
cigarette taxes in 1997-98, but that figure dropped to $439
million last year. The state expects a further decline to about
$404 million in the coming year.
Jim Lacross, a state budget analyst, believes a major factor in
the declining cigarette consumption has been the increase in
cigarette prices imposed by the tobacco companies. Other factors
could be state anti-smoking programs, changing tax rates in
neighboring states, and a shift in social attitudes towards
smoking. Department of Revenue spokesperson David Burns said,
"We don't know what the exact answer is. There's a number of
factors, but the state is seeing a decline in cigarette sales."
Source(s):
ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, (8/18/99) "Cigarette Tax Revenue Decreasing", Chase Squires, p. 1
Smokescreen Commentary, provided by Advocacy Institute
OH NO! PEOPLE AREN'T SMOKING ENOUGH! -- A Florida newspaper reports on local
government officials' complaints that state aid to cities is declining
because cigarette tax revenues are down (see News Summaries). Localities are
lamenting the budget cuts they'll have to make as a result. Similar
arguments are being heard at the state level from officials fearful that
declining consumption will reduce payments due the states from the Master
Settlement Agreement.
Here, if there ever was one, is a classic case of losing sight of the
objective. Reducing tobacco consumption should be a prime objective of
government, the first responsibility of which is to protect public health
and safety. Instead, many politicians and bureaucrats treat smokers as cash
cows who can smoke and pay taxes until they get sick and die, often at
public expense.
Apparently, it's up to health advocates to state the obvious: reducing
tobacco consumption is a good thing. Government should look not only to lost
revenue, but also to the costs it avoids when people don't get prematurely
sick and die. If government needs to replace revenue lost from declining
consumption, it has a simple solution -- raise the cigarette tax. Because
the percentage drop in consumption is lower than the percentage increase in
the tax, an excise tax increase will reliably generate substantial
additional revenue even though fewer people smoke.
Local advocates should respond quickly to articles like this by seeking
placement of an op-ed column or asking for an editorial board meeting, and
they should express themselves in the letters to the editor column, being
sure to coordinate the letters to make complementary arguments. In a broader
context, we should be mindful in all our communications to keep the debate
about tobacco control focused on public health. Advocates can send letters
directly to the ST. PETERSBURG TIMES at letters@sptimes.com.