Ellington

I took a creative writing class in college recently that was small and intimate and we actually discussed interesting things. Usually we'd go over poems and plays; but recently we began to discuss Mississippi, and what we like about it, and what we don't like about it, and how we could change it. So I offered up the question of how my classmates felt about the controversy about the cigarette tax proposals that were recently brought up, and defeated, in the Mississippi Legislature. Most had no idea what I was talking about, and being passionate about the topic, I began to explain.

Some lawmakers pushed House Bill 607 during the session that just ended. This bill would increase the cigarette tax from the 18 cents a pack—which by the way, hasn't been changed since 1985—to 50 cents a pack. This would add an extra $73.1 million to the current $55.4 million tax revenue from cigarettes.

This 32-cents-a-pack could have solved the state's budget problems. But the bill was defeated. Then along came along another proposal, similar to the old 607 bill, except that now instead of 50 cents a pack to fund schools and health care, this would be an increase of 23 cents a pack to improve the many inadequately staffed mental health centers that have been built with tax money, yet are so far unoccupied because of lack of funding.

This bill made it a bit further in the House, but, alas, our governor declared, while it was still being voted on, that he would veto it if it passed.

That's the gist: The tobacco tax sounds good to a majority of Mississippians who understand what it could do—in fact, a Stennis Institute of Government poll in 2003 found that 70 percent of Mississippians, Republicans and Democrats, would support raising taxes to pay for health-care needs. Nearly 72 percent said they would either strongly support or support the 50-cent-a-pack tobacco tax.

So, here's where the bill gets sticky. Only 23.5 percent of Mississippians currently smoke. This tax would seem a bit unfair to that small population. On top of that, Barbour's election platform last fall was "no new taxes." He says now that the tobacco tax would violate his vow to Mississippians. I applaud Barbour's resolve to stay true to his platform. There is something to be said about a man with integrity. But personally, I think our lawmakers need to stop putting their agendas in front of this state's well-being.

Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the country. Everyone knows this. Mississippi doesn't have enough money to fund public schools. Teachers are leaving our state because of the fear of losing their jobs. Even budgeted money is being used for other things, and Mississippi's most valuable resource, our children, are getting the raw end of the deal. Medicaid is $53 million over budget, our hospitals are understaffed, and classrooms aren't getting the supplies they need.

It seems to me that lawmakers are more concerned with keeping the polls in their favor, rather then admitting that this state needs more taxes. This state needs to tax unnecessary luxury items, such as cigarettes and alcohol. Yes, this will bring a burden to smokers and some businesses, but what is more burdensome than inadequate public schools giving diplomas to children who shouldn't be getting one?

It's as if people fail to see how this affects our state. If any one of you plans to live in this state for the next couple of decades, you must look at the bigger picture. This money is needed. Even if we increased the cigarette tax by 50 cents, it would still be below the national average for tobacco taxes. This increase could also decrease the smoking rate 6 percent in one year. A little known fact is that $206 million in taxpayer dollars are spent on tobacco-related diseases each year through Medicaid, which means that all Mississippians foot the bill, smoker or non. We need to decrease the smoking rate. We need to decrease health-care costs. An increase in taxes would help do this. This would give us money for schools and health care. We need this.

To make our state better, we have got to realize that sacrifices need to be made. Right now the sacrifices are being made in the areas that need the least sacrifices, our health care and our schools. Does this really make sense? Who is going to run our state in 20 years? It scares me to think that I might look at this state then and see no real changes in the policy of budgeting and smart taxes.

This isn't about being liberal or conservative. It should have nothing to do with party lines or election polls. Sadly, this matter is being divided along party lines. It shouldn't be like that. I'm sick of being compared to the lowest end of the census poll. How are we ever going to dig our way out of the stereotype of Mississippi being an uneducated, poor state, if we don't begin to take big steps in advancing ourselves?

Taxes are necessary to fund a state's needs. Our state isn't adequately funded. It's so simple that I'm shocked it's so hard to see. This state needs money. Taxes raise money. It's as simple as that.

Jessica Mizell is a founder of The Collective: The Art of Community and is a marketing intern at the Jackson Free Press. She is a student at Belhaven College.

Previous Comments

ID

69326

Comment

Well, that was indeed creative, Jessica. Not to be extremely rude about it, but perhaps you should wait until you are actually out in the world working and paying almost half of your salary in taxes and struggling to pay your rent and car payment before you immediately jump to the "let's pay more taxes" argument. Also, although you neglected to mention it, it needs to be said that there are thousands of less-fortunate than you who smoke. They already struggle to get by and now you seek to take more of there money or force them to quit smoking. Um, when did you become the voice of the poor and downtrodden, my dear? Was it at some point during your career as a student at a private college? Just curious. I have another revenue suggestion for you. Why don't we increase, say, triple, the fines levied for bars caught patronizing those who are not yet of legal drinking age? Oh, bad idea? Perhaps it is a bad idea because it directly impacts you. I'm sorry but all I saw here was a thinly veiled attempt to push a no-smoking agenda...one that, to me, was not researched all that thoroughly. You completely neglected any other alternatives and did not provide a single, repeat, not a one, negative that this proposal may incur. The crux of a good argument or position is to understand not just your own position but that of the opposing side as well. Keep up the creativity though.

Author

Diz

Date

2004-06-04T19:48:46-06:00

ID

69327

Comment

Not to be extremely rude about it, but perhaps you should wait until you are actually out in the world working and paying almost half of your salary in taxes and struggling to pay your rent and car payment before you immediately jump to the "let's pay more taxes" argument. Diz, way to condescend to the messenger, my dear! ;-) Seriously, many Mississippians who are "older and pay more taxes" (to quote the Kathy Bates chick in "Fried Green Tomatoes" just before she rammed the pretty young things' car) argue exactly as Jessica does here. See the December 2003 Stennis Institute poll results: "Taking the Pulse of Mississippi: A Public Opinion Poll on Health Care Policy The crux of a good argument or position is to understand not just your own position but that of the opposing side as well. You're not demonstrating an understanding of the opposing argument as you so dismissively suggest that Jessica should. And your logic is flawed: You are reducing a very specific point that Jessica is making, with research to back her point, agree with it or not, to attributing an amorphous, generalized "let's pay more taxes" argument to her that's she's not making. She is arguing for a very specific tax here, and I don't believe even brought up the income taxes that it sounds like you're in a bracket high enough to take half your income. That's a bit bait-and-switch, don't you think? And it sounds like you could be coming, too, from a rather weak place to argue on behalf of the "poor and downtrodden," regardless of your age. The fact is, there a very solid argument to make on behalf of higher tobacco taxes--like the ability to fully fund Medicaid and decrease expensive health-care costs for the poor that we all absorb by making it more expensive to smoke. And I don't really think there's any shame these days in the idea that the public should do what it can to discourage smoking, so it doesn't have to turn around and pay for the health-care costs that result. In fact, that's a pretty creative argument, I'd posit. Likewise, there may well be some convincing arguments against raising tobacco taxes. You should give us one of them. You would be much more convincing if you'd put aside your apparent disdain for other people disagreeing with you, and present an argument on its merits that everyone could discuss and consider. I'm sorry to be prickly about your reaction to Jessica, Diz, but I really despise condescension of younger opinions. With reactions like these when they speak up about their opinions, it is no wonder why so many young minds tune out of the system, don't get involved civicly and stay home from the polls. Some of the most creative ideas out there come from young minds--before they get jaded and obsessed with their pocketbooks. I personally think the world right now needs some fresh creativity.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-06-04T20:28:25-06:00

ID

69328

Comment

Diz, sounds like jealousy or some sort of personal issue with Ms. Mizell. As a non-smoker and Mississippi tax payer, I already put money into the states health-care system to cover illness due to smoking. It is refreshing to hear that some young people would like to have smokers help pick up the bill on their own health related issues. I'm no expert on this, but the dollars spent in Mississippi alone due to smoking and health-care cost are staggering. Taxing cigarettes is not hurting poor citizens of this state. Promise. Let's continue having our education system at the bottom and see what that does for the less-fortunate.

Author

anakin

Date

2004-06-05T11:09:18-06:00

ID

69329

Comment

Hey, one of my favorite mantras is Taxes, Taxes, yay Taxes. We got nothin' (as a society) if we don't have some sort of taxes. Taxes are not evil, by their nature. Only when misapplied, as they so often are. Tax cigarettes - fine by me. But, for my money, I think our 'sin tax' should be applied to soda and fast foods. I think they inflict as much, if not more, health damage on people than cigarettes. Especially kids who grow up on the stuff.

Author

kate

Date

2004-06-05T11:54:53-06:00

ID

69330

Comment

I'd personally rather see fast-food chains taxed as well as the foods they serve. As well, I would appreciate an increase in taxes on cell phones... They irriate me to no end -- more than second hand smoke, as a matter of fact. On a sarcastic note, I think if we need money as badly as we do, we should start taxing churches and Bibles. Can you imagine the amounts of moolah in the State's banks if a $.50 tax was placed on relgious goods? Let's not discuss the income of Six Flags Over Jesus downtown and the taxes both Jackson and Mississippi would enjoy! Anyway, I hardly doubt Christians would mind since Jesus urged his followers to give to the poor their own riches. You can't get much poorer than the state of Mississippi! ;-) See, I solved Mississippi's financial problems with a few simple taxes that should hurt no one since the tax would apply to such a giving community!

Author

kaust

Date

2004-06-07T15:17:17-06:00

ID

69331

Comment

Very true. I got caught being very condescending and downright rude and for that I do apologize. I felt like getting into a fight and perhaps should have rethought my tone and content. But I did not and that I can live with. Now as far as those that are indeed ìolder and pay more taxesî, I would disagree with them just as quickly and more than likely, with just such a tone. It is something I see as somewhat pervasive. When someone perceives a problem in society, the knee-jerk reaction is to increase taxes and throw money at it. I didnít see any thoughts of using our tax dollars in a more efficient, effective manner. I think much of the problem lies, as Jessica said, with politicians using this sort of proposal to garner votes rather than ìfixing the problemî. If we are already concerned with what our representatives are allocating our tax dollars for, are we really going to be better off by supplying them with even more money? It can easily, and correctly, be argued that higher cigarette prices would deter children from starting the habit and would indeed push some of the less-fortunate individuals toward kicking the habit. For some, however, it is indeed an addiction that they have tried to quit previously and have failed. Many will continue to pay the higher prices as they cannot find it within themselves, whether it be physically or mentally, to quit. One might say, ìwell thatís why we need to tax them, to pay for the health care costs they may incur later in life.î I think that there are numerous other ways this could be accomplished. I should state now that I am not in favor of increased socialization of medicine, but that is another debate for another day. In regards to the survey that you provided the link to, if I am reading it correctly, the survey consisted of 602 respondents and a +/- 4% margin for error. I may very well have misinterpreted the numbers but if they are correct, that would mean that a mere 0.02% of the population of the state contributed to the survey. Then, if one applies the percentage of those polled to that, the numbers get even smaller. I honestly do not feel that is representative of what could be considered a popular opinion but an almost insignificant sample size relative to the stateís population. As for my reducing or extrapolating Jessicaís point, that criticism of my post is well-taken. That was my own knee-jerk, gut reaction to the ìletís tax somethingî mentality that I see and hear others jump to when a problem is presented. As has been said before, Mississippi has budget problems yet some feel that increasing the pool from which representative can misappropriate funds is a legitimate solution? note: Reply was too long, continued below

Author

Diz

Date

2004-06-07T19:32:43-06:00

ID

69332

Comment

Cont'd. On a final note, as far as condescension of younger opinions goes, I donít believe that all opinions from those younger (even if only slightly) should be coddled. Someone in their early 20ís would, in my very humble opinion, be better off if they are challenged. Yes, being a condescending a** may not be the most effective way to do this but I can almost guarantee that at some point, it will happen again. I experienced this when I myself was in college and attempted to get my ideas across. I, unfortunately, had to fend for myself in such situations. That is perhaps why I do the same thing, the lack of a mentor or boss to help guide me along the more appropriate path. One is going to encounter every conceivable opinion and method of getting that opinion across. Regardless of whether the argument is cogent and well-thought out, people will express their ideas, sometimes vehemently. Maybe itís best not to shelter young minds from S.O.B.ís like me.

Author

Diz

Date

2004-06-07T19:33:17-06:00

ID

69333

Comment

Classy apology, Diz. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe in "coddling" anyone's opinion, whether they're a teenager or an old racist coot. I think we learn from challenging each other and the status quo. But there's quite a distant between coddling and silencing someone when they try to articulate their views. And young women, in particular (and especially in the South, but not only), experience this frequently. Of course, it just makes the condescender look like a jerk. That said, we can all get pissy and take discussion down a bad road, but it's cool to recognize it and apologize for it and rein it in. I've apologized a lot on this blog for getting too personal, and I'm sure I will again. Otherwise, I don't have time for a big tobacco tax discussion right now--brain cells sucked into deadline--but one point about your survey comments come to mind: Haley Barbour used a survey of, I believe, 600 Mississippians (containing push-poll questions, no less) last week to argue that the majority want tort reform, or to "end lawsuit abuse" (no one was asked about damage caps, incidentally). I don't know what the typical percentages are for statistical polling; maybe someone else can chime in. Hopefully, our Texas statistical expert, Philip, will pass through and fill our ear. I do know that both the Stennis Institute and Steve Shaffer's MSU polls are considered scientific, though. Later.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-06-07T23:28:14-06:00

ID

69334

Comment

Donna, Ye give me WAY too much credit by calling me an expert!!! I'm mainly good with initial reactions -- as in "know just enough to be a little dangerous" Anyway, I am almost certain that a survey of 602 people is potentially QUITE representative: providing the people were chosen at random!!!!! For instance, Since Mississippi is 36% Black, then the sample population, if chosen correctly, should have close to 217 Black respondants (602 X 0.36). Also, the 3-county Metro Jackson area has close to 1/6 of the state's population. So 1 of 6 people in the survey would be in Hinds, Madison and Rankin counties combined. Similar stories go for the survey representing income, education attainments and occupations. What I'd REALLY like to see are (1) if the survey were truly random (there are mathematical formulas to determine this) (2) if this survey TRULY IS random,whether or not this is a "normal distribution" (bell-shaped curve) (3) again, if this truly is a random survey, what the Standard Deviation is (the standard deviation basically tells you how closely the majority of the people sampled conform to the mathematical average -- the wider the standard deviation, the more variation in opinion there will be in the survey. (4) The Confidence Level, which I THINK (but not sure) is derived from the standard deviation. Basically this means with a 95% confidence level, the margin of error will fall within +/- 4% ninety-five percent of the time These pages offer more about margins of error mean. http://www.westgroupresearch.com/research/margin.html http://www.researchsolutions.co.nz/sample_sizes.htm

Author

Philip

Date

2004-06-09T20:36:15-06:00

ID

69335

Comment

I find it wonderfuly refreshing that people have comments on my articles that are articulate and well thought out. Personal attacks are never appropriate though. And I have to admitt that reading Dizz's initial comment was a bit un-nerving. But as a writer one must learn to take criticism.....and after reading your comment, Dizz, I do see your point. And people need to also realize that there is a thing called a word limit on these articles. I do understand the opposing side to the argument; but it would be taken into a more serious consideration to me if the argument wasn't littered with one particular personal attack. I can feel your pain though Dizz, me, being a college student that has to pay rent, and bills, and insurance. I actually went to community college my first two years as to save money to go to Belhaven. Then i received grants, loans, and scholarships that i worked hard for, to attend this college. I say this, not in my defense as much as a way of letting the readers of this board know that I do have to worry about taxes. I have three jobs. So I feel ya Dizz. I appriciate the comments and I will consider it. It's good to hear someone in this town has an opinion other than myself and the JFP staff.

Author

Jes

Date

2004-06-11T03:13:25-06:00