Where a Pack of Smokes Is $13.25

Back to article

Comments

a pack of smokes in WA has been well over $6 for a few years now.

mr. herriman on February 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM

They're $45 a carton here. Come to Colorado and stock up.

Fifty-Two-Eighty on February 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Days like this I miss Canada and the strong GDP, strong jobs, and strong taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, and rich wastrels.

Will in Seattle on February 15, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Nice to see you call out the dynamic scoring (price elasticity) effect. Keep it up!

Given the closeness of indian reservations to population centers in Washington, I suspect that effect will be large. Granting right off the bat that I am pulling numbers out of my ass, I wouldn't be surprised to see the effect reduce your projected revenues by more than 50%.

David Wright on February 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM

My concern is about the growing black market. You shouldn't tax it so much that it drives lots of illegal sales. Otherwise, tax the shit out of it.

Cascadian on February 15, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Fuck the poor.

I'm 85 Years Old on February 15, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Shit, son, as pointed out, well above $6/pack. Last I checked (quitting is awesome!), Marlboro lights were $8.50 at my local mini-mart, and closer to $10 at most mini marts on the Hill.

michaelp on February 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM

We have an estimated 1,000,000 million smokers in this state.

O RLY?

mayor on February 15, 2011 at 5:08 PM

BJ's in Fife, about $7/pack for American Spirits (tribal tax).

mayor on February 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM

The same could be accomplished by merely doubling the number of smokers. Cut funding to anti-smoking programs, reduce legislated restrictions on public tobacco use, and so forth. This has the advantage of being scalable, as increasing taxes is likely to drive people to quit, restrict their usage, or go to other markets for their tobacco use, which just deprives the state of money. A basic indifference curve shows that increased prices can often reduce profit, as people will merely adjust their buying behavior to avoid increased expense by instead spending that money on something else. People might smoke less and, say, drink more. So, in order for this plan to work, we'd have to also tax alternatives to smoking.

Of course, we already highly tax our alcohol compared to other states. We have some of the highest taxes on gas and cigarettes. But, we still have a budget shortfall. I'm not sure increased taxation that can be avoided by different buying behavior is going to be the solution.

on February 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM

YEAH! LET'S TAX THE SHIT OUT OF ALCOHOL TOO!!!

*crickets*

UNPAID COMMENTER on February 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Name brand cigarettes in Seattle range from $8 to $11 depending on what kind and where you buy them.

veo_ on February 15, 2011 at 5:23 PM

If you've got 1 trillion smokers in your state, you've got bigger problems than a budget deficit.

MassTheDutchie on February 15, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Why stop at cigarettes? Raise the sales taxes on everything until it costs as much as everything in Manhattan. Wait... Manhattan, hell, lets make everything costs what it does in Tokyo. What could go wrong?

The Wretched Harmony on February 15, 2011 at 5:30 PM

@11

psbirch on February 15, 2011 at 5:43 PM

The Laffer Curve would like to have a talk with you Dominic.

Also, if cigarettes get taxed, tax booze, fast food, candy and bacon.

on February 15, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Has anyone considered that disproportionately taxing cigarettes to cover a general budget shortfall might be unethical? Taxes on smoking should cover the relative social costs of smoking, but if you gouge smokers you're no different than big tobacco: "lets take advantage of people who are addicted to a commodity". Smokers often don't do so by choice, they're addicted. Sure some folks quit for good, but its extremely difficult. Not to mention, smokers are disproportionally poor and from minority groups. Don't be an asshole.

-Not a smoker

wireysnows on February 15, 2011 at 5:57 PM

If you tax sin to death, very few will sin. Then all that money the state relies on will be gone.

benjammin509 on February 15, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Cigarettes should be $20 a pack. The extra money taken in should be spent on subsidizing health care and enforcing contraband import regulations.

Sea J on February 15, 2011 at 5:58 PM

@5 - And that is exactly what will happen. Canada's been struggling with finding that sweet spot between taxation and bolstering the black market for decades.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-…

Dougsf on February 15, 2011 at 5:59 PM

You guys must listen to a lot of Alanis Morissette in that office...first, on the day after FatterGate, you post a Philly cheese steak review. Then you do a post on taxing cigarettes, because, you know, they're so bad for your health, and people who smoke won't live as long, and it's totally okay to write a post about that...huh.

Canuck on February 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM

@Canuck, I was thinking the same thing minus Alanis Morissette.

e. ebullient on February 15, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Tax the fuck out of it. As a participant in America's silent markets I welcome potential economic growth.

Man is a an animal that will always use the available components of his environment to enrich himself.

At some point laws no longer do anything but create opportunity for people with the gumption to break them. It's been a couple decades since I sold trunks full of untaxed tobacco on paydays at construction sites but I did it and I did it under far smaller profit margins.

Don't kid yourself. There is a shit ton of untaxed tobacco from the south peddled on the island at great profit. Open up a new outpost in Seattle, why don't you? Make it cost effective to bring some $32 a carton inventory from Kentucky. This way the state gets it's tax money from the squares and the rest of us get over.

on February 15, 2011 at 6:42 PM

@22 Isn't it ironic? (heh.)

Canuck on February 15, 2011 at 6:57 PM

A couple of months of go, the stranger: "Hey guys, you know what we hate, regressive taxes. Only evil bastards support our regressive taxes in washington"

Now, The Stranger: "Hey guys, you know what we hate, smokers, lets tax the hell out of them even though this would be increasing the regressive taxes on the poor in the state. Don't worry, it's not the poor that smoking, right guys? Right? Poor people won't be hit by this at all. Everyone know only fat cats in their ivory towers smoke."

Ugh.

j2patter on February 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM

@11 we already do. WA voters just voted, overwhelmingly, to continue the state run monopoly on booze, which keeps the ridiculous markups that are basically the state taxing us twice for the same bottle.

on February 15, 2011 at 7:42 PM

21 and 25 hit it perfectly.

I can't believe The Stranger is promoting a regressive tax. You sound like the fucking republican teabag party.

If you raise the taxes that much, people who can afford to will simply order them out-of-state or drive somewhere where it's cheaper to get them (Manhattanites do it all the time). Those who CAN'T afford to, you know, the people you claim to be fighting for, will either resort to theft or will go dirt-fucking-broke paying for the one thing that gives them pleasure in their lives.

How about we tax the fuck fuck out of Mexican coca-cola and sushi? You guys would go apeshit if that happened.

Christ, Dominic, I seriously cannot believe you are in favor of a teabagger-esque: Let's-fuck-over-the-people-I-personally-find-distasteful tax like this.

Oh, and for the record, I'm NOT a smoker.

Urgutha Forka on February 15, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Yeah, fuck poor people addicted to nicotine.

Greg on February 15, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Beyond the regressiveness, this would mean tying state funding to the sale of a commodity whose sale the state is also deeply invested in reducing.

Fistique on February 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM

I'm surprised they haven't included 'dry anal rape' as part of the tax yet.

Spindles on February 15, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Hey, fuck it. To fund the debt on the corrupt Federal Reserve's funny money printing press let's raise taxes on everything 1000%.

Spindles on February 15, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Hey Washington...your state is fucking broke. Your state is on the verge on bankruptcy. Good thing there's already legislation on the cusp of passing both the house and senate that will make it legal for state's to declare bankruptcy. Time to pay the piper.

Spindles on February 15, 2011 at 11:28 PM

@26 You missed the point, which was that Dom finds it rather easy to increase taxes on tobacco smokers (since he isn't, and I suspect has never been one) but when the same regressive tax is turned on a vice that he actually participates in, he wouldn't dare to suggest such a thing.

Disclaimer: Former smoker, still a drinker.

UNPAID COMMENTER on February 15, 2011 at 11:38 PM

I would think that if you want to be taken seriously when writing about politics is might be wise to think before writing really stupid things.

Mugwumpt on February 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM

Agreed Mugwumpt. You're an idiot.

Spindles on February 16, 2011 at 1:09 AM

This is fucking stupid. In any other state I'd be all for it but we're already the state with the most regressive tax code. The poor are punished enough.

DeaconBlues on February 16, 2011 at 3:44 AM

embarassingly simple-minded proposal mr. holden

ib+ on February 16, 2011 at 6:30 AM

How the hell did this turn into a pity party for the poor? We're not talking about a tax on food staples, or raising bus fares, or a general sales tax increase--we're talking about cigarettes. Listening to some of you, you'd think the state needs a program to help people at the poverty line get their cigs.

TheRain on February 16, 2011 at 8:19 AM

@38 - However, in the years that I have lived here, a pack of smokes has gone from less than $2 to over $10 - when the price of your drink at the bar has gone up 400%, we can add some more taxes on the smokers. Until then, this idea is pure bullshit.

bpinsea on February 16, 2011 at 8:29 AM

@25 My thoughts exactly.

Is it better to cut the funding of programs that help low income folks, or "tax the fuck" out of low income folks?

Jenny from the Block on February 16, 2011 at 8:50 AM

It's pointless to even have this discussion if you're going to outright ignore the health aspect. Propping up state government on the backs of people who are addicted to a deadly substance is both stupid and immoral.

Hernandez on February 16, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Raising the price of cigarettes actually makes people QUIT smoking. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in King County. The poor are even more price sensitive/more likely to quit when prices go up...so wouldn't raising taxes on cigarettes actually disproportionally HELP the poor?

snapfin on February 16, 2011 at 10:34 AM

@38: Stripped of hyperbole, your post is useless. You should work on that.

DeaconBlues on February 16, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Sure, no problem. Just raise the tax on every bottle of booze and every 6-pack of beer to equal the tax on a pack of cigarettes. Because you drinkers need to be anally raped for exercising your choices too.

Holden you're quite the loose cannon. No doubt next week you'll change your stance on this, like you did on the tunnel. Or are you just trying to stir up trouble?

tunanator on February 16, 2011 at 3:15 PM

I was just going to type a two word response, but, I'd like to be civil. So let me just say, fuck you.

on February 16, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Where a Pack of Smokes Is $13.25

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

How to Reduce Random Acts of Violence in Seattle

Finding Humanity Alongside Druids, Demons, Tabaxi, and War Veterans

Everything You Need to Know About Monkeypox—and Not Just You Gays

Losing My Bearings with Cascade Orienteering Club

Belltown Bloom's Electrifying Pussy Power

Seattle's Graffiti Culture War

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!