This week the federal government raised the tax on cigarettes by 259%, from $0.39 to $1.01 a pack. The money raised by the tax will allegedly go to fund children’s healthcare programs. No doubt they’ll put the money in a lock box, just as they did with our Social Security “contributions.” CNN’s Roland Martin couldn’t be happier about the tax increase. He doesn’t like smoking. Smoking is bad for you. So as far as he’s concerned, the higher the tax the better. Explaining his position in a recent editorial, Martin states, “I don’t want poor, middle or rich folks smoking. I just think it’s disgusting.”
I’ve never met Roland Martin, of course, but from what I’ve seen on TV he looks like the kind of guy who might enjoy the occasional Twinkie (not that I’m one to cast stones). Personally, I don’t like Twinkies. They’re bad for you. I don’t want poor, middle or rich folks eating Twinkies. I just think they’re disgusting. Does that give me the right to help myself to some arbitrary percentage of Roland Martin’s Twinkie budget? What if I promise to put (some of) the money I take from Roland to good use? Maybe I could use the money to fund an anti-obesity program for cable news network talking heads. Would that make it right?
In other news this week, the Texas House of Representatives has moved to impose a tax on strip clubs. Referred to locally as the “pole tax,” the bill will take 10% of the admission fees charged by “gentleman’s clubs” and send that money to the state, rather than to the people who actually earned it. The new tax would take the place of the tax that was imposed last session, which levied a $5 per person fee on patrons of the burlesque arts. The adult industry supports the new bill, but that’s probably just because they realize that club owners can simply reduce their entrance fees or stop charging at the door altogether – an idea that apparently eluded our state representatives when they crafted the bill. The revenue from the stripper tax is supposed to fund health care for the poor and sexual assault services.
Although the federal tobacco tax and the state strip club tax are otherwise unrelated, they do have one thing in common – they both enjoy broad support from people with a knack for rationalizing stealing from others simply because those others happen to be engaged in activities of which they disapprove.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Tony’s doing something that just rubs Bob the wrong way. Bob could simply choose not to associate with Tony, but that would mean that Bob couldn’t push Tony around, and it wouldn’t do much to line Bob’s pockets either. So instead, Bob decides to take some of Tony’s money (and then not associate with Tony). Of course, Bob can’t be too honest about his motives. After all, no one wants to admit to being both a thief and a busybody. So Bob targets those who don’t get much sympathy from the general public, like smokers or guys who frequent strip clubs, and then Bob magnanimously offers to spend their money on a politically correct yet wildly unconstitutional cause, usually involving health care.
Although he may not realize it or even care, Bob is playing with fire. Once the precedent is set that it’s alright to use taxation merely as a punishment for engaging in unpopular yet legal activities, he may find out that there are people in the world who disapprove of some of his favorite activities, too. What defense will he have once he become’s the taxman’s next target? None.
But as long as they promise to fund health care…
