colorado amendment 35
Colorado Amendment 35 seeks to increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes from $0.20 to $0.84, and doubles the tax on other tobacco products from 20 percent to 40 percent of the price. You can read about the current law here: FYI on Excise 15.
At first glance, I thought this amendment looked like a good idea, mostly because I’m not a smoker and wouldn’t be affected. What the hell, I thought — tax the hell out of the smokers.
However, after a quick glance at Article 10 of the Colorado constitution, which is the article that Amendment 35 proposes to change, nowhere is an actual tax rate specified for property taxes, income taxes, and the like. Article 10 follows the rule of thumb of “tell us how to make the laws, not what laws to make”. Amendment 35 fails this rule of thumb and actually specifies a specific tax rate for tobacco products in our state constitution.
This sort of thing belongs in the tax code, not the state constitution. After some intense googling, I was unable to determine how the tax code gets modified, but I’m pretty sure that our elected officials do it for us. That is, the critters in the state legislature are the ones who should (and normally do) make the tax laws. In other words, it is not normal for the people of Colorado to vote on a statewide tax.
So that’s one philosophical reason to oppose this amendment. The other principle I have in opposing this amendment is that it is a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority. While I hate smoking, I don’t think it’s right to single out a class of people and enact a special tax on them.
Perhaps this is an odd parallel to make, but many of our public lands require a usage fee. Larimer County parks are a notorious example of this — it costs $7 for a day pass to visit Horsetooth Mountain Park. That is an outrageous fee to be charging for what should be “free”. (I pay property tax to the county, so I claim I’ve already paid to use what belongs to me.) This practice is colloquially known as “pay for play”. That is, people who don’t use the park don’t have to pay for it, and a special tax (usage fee) has been enacted on the class of people who wish to recreate on lands they already own. In any case, I’m starting to rant now, as this is a pet peeve of mine, so I’ll cut it short.
The Denver Post supports Amendment 35, although they are annoyed that it must be a constitutional amendment. The reason they support it is related to TABOR, which is the Colorado Tax Payer’s Bill of Rights. TABOR is supposedly the reason why many local governments are having fiscal trouble, as it continually decreases the taxes that they can collect. I don’t understand TABOR well enough to have a real opinion on it, but the reason the Post gives is that only by making the cigarette tax a consitutional amendment will it have equal footing with TABOR. Perhaps so, but isn’t the real fix to amend TABOR rather than introduce more cruft into the constitution?
Given my principles above, I’m voting no for Amendment 35.
October 21st, 2004 at 8:29 am
Do you consider smokers to be a “class of people”? I feel like smoking cigarettes is a choice that people make (albeit a difficult one at times, I admit). If people choose to smoke, that’s their perogative. I think “sin taxes” are a great idea. I enjoy beer a lot but I say tax the hell out of alcohol too.
That said, I agree with you on your principle that this doesn’t belong in the constitution, but I’m definitely in favor of increased taxes on cigarettes.
October 21st, 2004 at 10:11 am
So I went hiking a few weeks ago, in Idyllwild. Not only should my car have had a special (fee) permit, once I was a mile up the hill I was accosted by a trio of rangers who demanded to see my (separate, but also fee-based of course) permit. Their intention was to send me back down to town. I pointed out that by the time I got back down to my car, drove into town, bought a permit, came back … I may as well give up & go home. I wished them a good day, headed on up the trail, and spent the next half hour trying to get the incident out of my head so I could actually enjoy my day.
Will my pack need its own permit next? My boots?
October 21st, 2004 at 10:34 am
Rash,
Yes, smokers are a class of people, defined by smoking. So too are drinkers. So too are climbers and hikers and boaters and snowmobilers and runners. Why should any one class get singled out for a special tax?
What if there was a park you liked to jog in every day? Assume all you used were the unimproved dirt trails. Then, the county moves in, paves a parking lot, adds bathrooms, and posts a ranger. And then you start getting charged $6 a day to use the park. The fee is necessary to maintain the “improvements” and pay for the ranger (who is there to prevent the bathroom from getting graffitied).
The fat asses who sit around and watch tv all day don’t care about this fee, since they don’t run. But you, who belong in the class of outdoor recreationalists, are now being singled out as a special tax base. You choose to be a runner, and now you are getting nailed for it.
This is no different from any “sin” tax. The government is collecting an extra tax from a group of people singled out by one of their activities. Of course, smokers get the short end of the stick because smoking is “bad” and they won’t get much sympathy from the public.
Julie, props on ignoring those rangers. We shouldn’t have to pay to use our own damn land!
October 21st, 2004 at 5:14 pm
I can agree with you on the hiking front, but there’s a reason that smoking, drinking, etc, are considered “bad”. I guess that’s what differentiates it in my mind — I would imagine that smoking kills a hell of a lot more people than hiking does. And then you get into the fact that more taxes are spent on health care for people with lung cancer, etc, etc.