Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By MontanaTrace on 09-17-09
Having a smoke and a drink, while playing a poker/keno machine, will be a recreational way of life that will change. Incomes for those establishments as the tax base drops permanently as some of the gamblers will reduce or quit going to the casinos altogether.
The owners will collect less tax from the machines. The owners will pay less personal income tax. Cigarette taxes will reduce. Alcohol Tax will reduce. Less customers will require less employees and their income taxes.
People will live longer, taking more from SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
Sin taxes gone will mean new or higher taxes to fill in the gap. This will cost non-smokers a bunch.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Missedyourmark on 09-17-09
Non-smokers visit the casino’s too. Non-smokers that stayed away before will take the place of the socially shunned smokers. Smokers will continue to by their ciggies. No tax loss. They will continue to by their alcohol and drink it at home where they should anyway. No tax loss. Not sure why they will live longer. But they have every chance of actually keeping more of their money in the bank to pay for their ciggies and beer, maybe even the electric bill.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Missedyourmark on 09-17-09
Jeez, my “u” must not have been working. That should have read, “buy” of course!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By native on 09-18-09
MontanaTrace, do you seriously have no idea what taxpayers pay in Medicaid and Medicare claims for smokers??? and those receiving treatment for secondhand smoke??? You may want to do your homework. Compare the revenue lost for these casinos in the multiple other states that have gone through smoking bans; look at the savings in healthcare, etc.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By redhawk on 09-22-09
Um, native maybe YOU need to do some homework. Smokers who get smoking related illnesses usually die within five years. How much money has the tobacco companies paid to the state of Montana? How much of that money went into the general fund? Should pretty much cover expenses there, not to mention the incredibly high taxes on cigarettes in this state.
Now if you want to address the expensive health habits that cost all of us money, start taxing fat people who get diabetes, heart problems, cancers, etc. caused by their lifestyles. Tax junk food, or high calorie food, make them eat outside…
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By les on 09-22-09
redhawk: my numbers here may be slightly off because I haven’t looked up this info in approx a year, but MT spends $200 mil ever year in tobacco related expenses and has received approx $290-$300 mil from the MSA since 1998 (11 years ago). Obviously that doesn’t cover the expenses. Only 11% of MSA dollars goes to recover medical expenses so you’re looking at an even smaller number. I agree that there are other extremely expensive unhealthy habits, but I’m not sure what you mean by “make them eat outside…“. Did you just run out of logical arguments to make?
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By redhawk on 09-24-09
I just heard the news report on our healthy Montana forest fire contaminated air quality report. If burning plant matter bothers you so, you need to move!
The results of Helena’s early start on smoke free facilities spoke volumes. The businesses lost over half of their revenue. Several casinos here in Kalispell tried smoke free before the state mandated it, and went broke. A true study would allow smoke fee and smoking allowed businesses side by side. But hey, figures can lie and liars can figure. Sin taxes make people feel great, until they start taxing your own particular vice. Montana has been lumping asbestos and cigarette cancers together for years.
In 2007 Montana collected 25,600,000 from tobacco companies…and 111,180,000 from the $1.70 per pack tax on cigarettes. I didn’t have much luck finding newer figures, it’s not like the state is real open about where the money goes. MSA dollars were supposed to go to smoker’s health, but that sure didn’t happen did it?
A true compromise would have been to allow both facilities, well posted. People, and workers, would be able to choose. If we REALLY wanted to cut down on dangers and pollution we would ban automobiles.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
Celebrating the Centennial on Screen
For Valley’s Young Professionals, a Recovery in Fits and Starts
FEATURE PHOTO: Kalispell St. Patrick’s Day Parade
County Commission Race Gets Crowded
Ushering History Into the Digital Age
Comments on: Smokers Greet Imminent Ban with Sigh of Resignation
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By MontanaTrace on 09-17-09
Having a smoke and a drink, while playing a poker/keno machine, will be a recreational way of life that will change. Incomes for those establishments as the tax base drops permanently as some of the gamblers will reduce or quit going to the casinos altogether.
The owners will collect less tax from the machines. The owners will pay less personal income tax. Cigarette taxes will reduce. Alcohol Tax will reduce. Less customers will require less employees and their income taxes.
People will live longer, taking more from SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
Sin taxes gone will mean new or higher taxes to fill in the gap. This will cost non-smokers a bunch.
By Missedyourmark on 09-17-09
Non-smokers visit the casino’s too. Non-smokers that stayed away before will take the place of the socially shunned smokers. Smokers will continue to by their ciggies. No tax loss. They will continue to by their alcohol and drink it at home where they should anyway. No tax loss. Not sure why they will live longer. But they have every chance of actually keeping more of their money in the bank to pay for their ciggies and beer, maybe even the electric bill.
By Missedyourmark on 09-17-09
Jeez, my “u” must not have been working. That should have read, “buy” of course!
By native on 09-18-09
MontanaTrace, do you seriously have no idea what taxpayers pay in Medicaid and Medicare claims for smokers??? and those receiving treatment for secondhand smoke??? You may want to do your homework. Compare the revenue lost for these casinos in the multiple other states that have gone through smoking bans; look at the savings in healthcare, etc.
By redhawk on 09-22-09
Um, native maybe YOU need to do some homework. Smokers who get smoking related illnesses usually die within five years. How much money has the tobacco companies paid to the state of Montana? How much of that money went into the general fund? Should pretty much cover expenses there, not to mention the incredibly high taxes on cigarettes in this state.
Now if you want to address the expensive health habits that cost all of us money, start taxing fat people who get diabetes, heart problems, cancers, etc. caused by their lifestyles. Tax junk food, or high calorie food, make them eat outside…
By les on 09-22-09
redhawk: my numbers here may be slightly off because I haven’t looked up this info in approx a year, but MT spends $200 mil ever year in tobacco related expenses and has received approx $290-$300 mil from the MSA since 1998 (11 years ago). Obviously that doesn’t cover the expenses. Only 11% of MSA dollars goes to recover medical expenses so you’re looking at an even smaller number. I agree that there are other extremely expensive unhealthy habits, but I’m not sure what you mean by “make them eat outside…“. Did you just run out of logical arguments to make?
By redhawk on 09-24-09
I just heard the news report on our healthy Montana forest fire contaminated air quality report. If burning plant matter bothers you so, you need to move!
The results of Helena’s early start on smoke free facilities spoke volumes. The businesses lost over half of their revenue. Several casinos here in Kalispell tried smoke free before the state mandated it, and went broke. A true study would allow smoke fee and smoking allowed businesses side by side. But hey, figures can lie and liars can figure. Sin taxes make people feel great, until they start taxing your own particular vice. Montana has been lumping asbestos and cigarette cancers together for years.
In 2007 Montana collected 25,600,000 from tobacco companies…and 111,180,000 from the $1.70 per pack tax on cigarettes. I didn’t have much luck finding newer figures, it’s not like the state is real open about where the money goes. MSA dollars were supposed to go to smoker’s health, but that sure didn’t happen did it?
A true compromise would have been to allow both facilities, well posted. People, and workers, would be able to choose. If we REALLY wanted to cut down on dangers and pollution we would ban automobiles.