Last week, Rep. Phil LaJoy introduced a bill that would decrease the state cigarette tax by 50 cents in hopes of generating revenue.
The Canton Republican didn't stop there. He then revealed his hope to decrease the tax on other tobacco products by 6 percent.
LaJoy feels the decrease in the tobacco tax would raise the state's revenue by persuading Michigan smokers not to cross the state's border into neighboring states to buy their cigarettes.
Although LaJoy said that smokers have been encouraged by higher taxes to make their tobacco purchases elsewhere, he never gives a number — leaving citizens to wonder how much money could actually be generated from the tax.
Michigan currently has the fourth-highest cigarette tax in the country at $2.
Lessening the tax is irresponsible for both economic and health concerns.
A lower tax encourages smoking, as it seems raising cigarette prices have helped reduce smoking more than publicized health risks have.
Granted, smoking is life-threatening and dangerous, but the real cancerous situation at hand would be the increase in health care costs to treat smoking-related problems. In the past, Michigan residents have seen employers ban workers from smoking because of the sky-high cost of insurance. A decrease in the tax could create an increase in smoking and drive up the costs for health insurance around the state.
Therefore, an increase in the cost of health care will ultimately affect the deficit again, and not in a good way.
The efforts made by educators to discourage young people from smoking would be lessened by a tax decrease. Former smokers who have since quit may be encouraged to drift back to their old habits. Essentially, anyone who is tempted to smoke would not have to worry as much about the high costs.
It's doubtful that a decrease in the smoking tax is truly going to reduce Michigan's $3 billion deficit. LaJoy needs to give smoker statistics along with the bill to help citizens truly understand the possible results of his intentions.
Smokers who do outsource cigarettes from other states with lower taxes aren't getting the better end of the deal either. It should also be noted that a lot of Michigan's population lives too far from the Michigan border to make it cost effective to drive down for cigarettes. If someone is concerned with paying $2 in taxes for a pack, then they're certainly going to be concerned with paying $2.82 for a gallon of gas. And shipping costs negate the monetary break, as well.
Down South where there are tobacco farms, measures like this might work. But here in Michigan, the amount of supposed revenue generated will not offset larger concerns.
