California ballot 2016 - Proposition 56
The big lie from the campaign to stop Prop 56 is contained in this commercial.
Proposition 56 will not cut school funding in any way. The claim by the tobacco companies who are behind the No on 56 campaign are trying to mislead voters into thinking that Prop 56 will steal money from education. Instead, this proposition was written to address health issues specifically, and to avoid having the new tax revenues it would create being added to the state's general fund where current law would mandate a big chunk of this tax on cigarette sales go directly to school funding.
Prop 56 seeks to boost the California excise tax on a pack of cigarettes from its current level of 87 cents per pack by an additional $2.00. That is an increase of nearly 330% in this tax, which is assessed on top of a federal tax of $1.01 per pack plus state and local sales taxes.
Where does California fall in terms of how other states tax the sale of a pack of cigarettes? The nation's high by state is New York where the total state tax is $4.35 per pack. The low is in Missouri, where the state tax per pack is only 17 cents. The nationwide average is $1.65 per pack.
This would be the first increase in the CA cigarette tax since Proposition 10 passed in 1998. The current tax is allocated as follows:
It should be noted that CHCI is spending heavily on another proposition, Prop 55 which is the attempt to extend the tax on California's highest income earners that was created by Prop 30. Here their interests are quite clear. The bulk of the funding created by Prop 56 will go to fund Medi-Cal programs. Some would go to programs to prevent/stop smoking and there is a tiny bit for research into diseases that are tobacco related.
The motives of the makers of cigarettes are obvious. They want to keep the price of their product low, to stop further reductions in sales in our nation's most populated state. In fact, California has the second lowest rate of smokers among its population, second only to Utah. But even with that low of a rate, the size of the state's population makes this an issue important enough to the manufacturers of cigarettes that they have given over $50 million to fund the No on 56 campaign.
You need to make up your own minds, but now you have more information. Me, I'll vote yes on Prop 56.
Proposition 56 will not cut school funding in any way. The claim by the tobacco companies who are behind the No on 56 campaign are trying to mislead voters into thinking that Prop 56 will steal money from education. Instead, this proposition was written to address health issues specifically, and to avoid having the new tax revenues it would create being added to the state's general fund where current law would mandate a big chunk of this tax on cigarette sales go directly to school funding.
Prop 56 seeks to boost the California excise tax on a pack of cigarettes from its current level of 87 cents per pack by an additional $2.00. That is an increase of nearly 330% in this tax, which is assessed on top of a federal tax of $1.01 per pack plus state and local sales taxes.
Where does California fall in terms of how other states tax the sale of a pack of cigarettes? The nation's high by state is New York where the total state tax is $4.35 per pack. The low is in Missouri, where the state tax per pack is only 17 cents. The nationwide average is $1.65 per pack.
This would be the first increase in the CA cigarette tax since Proposition 10 passed in 1998. The current tax is allocated as follows:
- 10 cents goes to the General Fund. About $84 million was raised for the fund in fiscal year 2015-2016 due to this allocation.
- 25 cents goes towards tobacco prevention, healthcare services for low-income persons, and environmental protection. Proposition 99 of 1988 created this portion of the tax. About $259 million was raised for these services in fiscal year 2015-2016.
- 2 cents goes towards breast cancer screenings and research. For fiscal year 2015-2016, $20 million was raised for these services.
- 50 cents goes towards early childhood development programs. Proposition 10 of 1998 created this portion of the tax. About $447 million was raised for these programs in fiscal year 2015-2016.
It should be noted that CHCI is spending heavily on another proposition, Prop 55 which is the attempt to extend the tax on California's highest income earners that was created by Prop 30. Here their interests are quite clear. The bulk of the funding created by Prop 56 will go to fund Medi-Cal programs. Some would go to programs to prevent/stop smoking and there is a tiny bit for research into diseases that are tobacco related.
The motives of the makers of cigarettes are obvious. They want to keep the price of their product low, to stop further reductions in sales in our nation's most populated state. In fact, California has the second lowest rate of smokers among its population, second only to Utah. But even with that low of a rate, the size of the state's population makes this an issue important enough to the manufacturers of cigarettes that they have given over $50 million to fund the No on 56 campaign.
You need to make up your own minds, but now you have more information. Me, I'll vote yes on Prop 56.
posted by me at 9:05 PM
<< Home