Honesty in political ads

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

In California we have a proposition on the ballot to raise tax on tobacco a dollar.
Interestingly enough a lot of groups on both sides of the political spectrum are against this, albeit for different reasons, which I won't get into. I heard my first pro 29 ad today which ended something like this: "remember if you don't smoke you won't pay the tax".

Putting aside that "sin" taxes are usually dis-proportionally regressive to the poor; the way I understand this proposition is that if it passes the budget and administration will be set by projected income from the tax. What this means is that any shortfall in revenue will have to be made up by the general fund, which of course is supported by ALL tax-payers.

Questions and opinion behind the cut.



Is this really any different than claiming a new property tax will be paid for ONLY by property owners? I mean people who lease property don't include the taxes in their rent???
My point is, while on the surface statements like "remember if you don't smoke you won't pay the tax" may appear to be honest, are misleading. Since far too many people seem to only vote what appears to be in their best interests, should we push for greater watch dogging in ads or make it more difficult for people to vote?

Since the general consensus of this forum (based on recent posts) is that we need to make it easier for people to vote; my suggestion is that all political ads should come with disclaimers somewhat like product ads.

Comments

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

Is this really any different than claiming a new property tax will be paid for ONLY by property owners? I mean people who lease property don't include the taxes in their rent???

Or pushing an increase in income tax by reminding half of Americans that they don't pay it anyway...

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I had heard that nearly 50% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes. I haven't actually seen the stats.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Or pushing an increase in income tax by reminding half of Americans that they don't pay it anyway...

It's a crock of shit, as the Tax Policy Center had repeatedly shown time and time again, especially when it was their report that's cited by conservative and libertarian think tanks as a source.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Lies the system of truth that words work towards.
Honesty in ads should be mandatory.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Do you mean honesty as in who funded the ad, versus some vague "Foundation for Freedom and Liberty" ?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

lies destroy the system*

...damn fingers quicker than brain

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

I don't know why they are trying to deter people from smoking....what would the medical community be without patients/smokers to treat?? people can't be too healthy gosh.

but on a more serious note, yes, the addition of a disclaimer seems like a long overdue no-brainer :/
The only problem, I foresee, with such disclaimers is that I bet they might get rather wordy/lengthy and might be subjected to further political debate ah

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

There is truth in that, but as a friend said:

"Of course political ads for candidates already come with something that should be considered the same as such a disclaimer:

"I'm So&So and I approve this message." "

That goes along with the old saw, how do you know when a politician is lying....when his lips move.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This is one of the reasons why regressive taxation is horrible policy. If the point is to reduce the consumption of the thing that's being taxed, then whatever you're funding with the tax will lose revenue. So then what happens? The shortfall gets made up by other funds, or it doesn't and the program is under-funded and the people who are under the program suffer. It's lose-lose, unless you count less people smoking as a win in terms of government budgeting.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Sure has had an impact in New York:



It's an old report (from 2004) (http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/tobacco_control/reports/docs/nytcp_eval_report_final_11-19-04.pdf), but the impact of the tax increase was very dramatic in the first year alone.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I feel morally obligated to continue smoking otherwise kids won't have new textbooks in their schools.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'I heard my first pro 29 ad today which ended something like this: "remember if you don't smoke you won't pay the tax".'

That's always infuriated me. Whenever I hear a political argument that essentially gangs up on another group just because they can.

It's not an issue of honesty as it's an issue of the base desire to vote for something that helps you but directly hurts others.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I've considered starting to smoke again just for the sake of political solidarity.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

the base desire to vote for something that helps you but directly hurts others.

It's OK, though because smokers, like fat people, are bad and need to be punished by the healthy and brought around to a proper, organic and sustainable life-style. For their own good, of course.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

A friend put this on my lj and I thought it was too good not to share:

"Of course political ads for candidates already come with something that should be considered the same as such a disclaimer:

"I'm So&So and I approve this message." "

[theplanfailed.livejournal.com]

They should make it so that non-smoker's aren't paying the tax.
Actually, if you read the Constitution, there are only TWO taxes the American citizen has to pay. Everything else is technically not allowed by the original laws.

Anyway. It seems to me that politician's like to try and control industries by upping the taxes on something in order to control that industry and the people who buy the product. Smoker's all ready pay high taxes to be able to smoke. In New York someone was proposing a ban on bigger sized soda drinks. Even though the soda industry say's there is a decline thanks to healthier lifestyles, energy drinks and sports drinks. So there doesn't need to be a ban. Is it too much to ask politician's to keep their noses, and hand out of the pocket's of the American people? I mean. This is just silly. There are plenty of smoker's willing to pay the tax - well, maybe not willing but they will to get their fix - that can give the state plenty of revenue. They don't have a right to impose the tax on none-smoker's as well.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Actually, if you read the Constitution, there are only TWO taxes the American citizen has to pay. Everything else is technically not allowed by the original laws.

That's only for federal. States can tax however they want to.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Heinlein said it best.

"Never appeal to a man's better nature; he may not have one. Appealing to his self-interest give you more leverage."

When a majority of Californians don't actively smoke, it makes sense to appeal to their self-interest. It's kinda shitty, but it works.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Lazarus Long, my favorite philosopher :D

[houndofloki.livejournal.com]

Smokers are something of a captive audience for sin taxes. There aren't enough of them to have any real political pull, but there are enough that the government can pull in some good extra cash from their habit. And because the majority of people don't smoke, they look at sin taxes as a great way of collecting money because it feeds the government machine without effecting them directly. It's not "nice", but it's true - people think primarily in their own self-interest.

I don't think protecting anyone's lungs has a damn thing to do with it from any end, tbh.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Since as far as I can determine all the money that goes into the actual stop smoking clinics comes from the tobacco companies rather than all the cigarette taxes, you may have a point.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

Also, cigarette companies are not against the sin taxes. They use them to disguise price hikes, if the tax goes up a dollar the sale price goes up a buck fifty.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I like sin taxes, it's a way of offsetting the cost our vices have on society. I drink, smoke and eat sugar and they don't bother me. We have the highest tobacco taxes in the world, paying for one of the best healthcare systems in the world and not to mention the lowest rates of smoking.

For me it's a trade off of keeping these things legal.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Our sin taxes don't go for paying for health care so it's kind of a push.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

the budget and administration will be set by projected income from the tax.

I didn't see that. That's even worse.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

the budget and administration will be set by projected income from the tax.

I just looked over it again. I don't see that in there.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Ok, that was extrapolation on my part.
It does state the projected revenue, (I think it was on the actual ballot itself, cuz I know I read that and I turned my ballot in, and it's not on any of the other papers) and it doesn't sound like they will wait until the actual revenue comes in before setting the program in motion.
Given how we (read the state legislature) usually set up programs, the budget set, with no seeming regard to whether the same money is there the next year, but the budget is the same , or higher.