Going into the L'il Peach (now Tedeschi's) to buy a newspaper for the train/bus rides into Watertown, I literally have to go around groups of kids waiting to go into the Rogers. If I'm lucky, I'm able to purchase my paper (and a lottery ticket or two) before they can slam all of their sugar-laden junk onto the counter.
Here is my bit of friendly advice to Ray Considine, who is the head of the Medical Foundation in Boston. A lot of those kids come to Hyde Park from other parts of the city - mainly the inner city, like Roxbury and Dorchester. Their families likely cannot afford organic/vegan/super healthy things to begin with, so the kids don't get a healthy, nourishing breakfast. So they either (a) wait until they get into school, where the breakfast they serve is so bad even the rats refuse to eat it, or (b) they purchase quick cheap energy, like L'il Hugs, Doritos, and Little Debbies. Not many of them would be patient enough to buy a banana or buy a little cup of Milk and Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
Unless you want a full-bore black market on junk food - to which many kids will gladly profit from and mark up the price to willing demand - forget the snack tax. It's a tax that will not fund health programs or anything remotely resembling health. (Notice I'm using the word "health" and not the diaphanously ambiguous and Orwellian "wellness.") They will be boomerang taxes, going from the poor to the government to fill their rainy day fund.
"But it will only add up to pennies!" you proclaim.
Horse hockey. For every dollar these kids spend, it's 5 pennies to the state. Five percent sales tax. Add that to a $1.50 bottle of soda, plus a five cent deposit, and it's a sneaky/stealth/backdoor 8% sales tax. A kid with two bottles of soda at $1.50 each, plus two hostess at a dollar, and a bag of Doritos at $0.75, is looking at a 7% tax. (The good thing is that they're not buying cigarettes at a national/state take of 50-60%, which I learned isn't going anywhere near smoking prevention programs, but to...wait for it...the rainy day fund.)
What are the efforts to control our smoking and eating habits anyway? I call these efforts health eugenics - the efforts of a government to conform the citizens into a perfect, docile, asexual, compliant group of Stepford people. Utopia ain't here and never will be. Trying to manipulate life and people for the promotion of utopia has violent, even deadly, results.
4/06/2009
Some ideas on tobacco
I am a non-smoker. I have smoked maybe once or twice, but never took up the habit. My mother is an 18-year non-smoker, quitting in 1991. My brother quit in 2000. I do not have a problem with smokers, however - if they choose to take up the habit, I'm not going to stop them.
I have always stood by the notion that the taxation system we have in our country is circular. The government slaps taxes on the rich, and the government gives money to the poor. The poor think they're on easy street - until they have to fork over fees, taxes and other items, making them even poorer. And of course, all these taxes fliter right back to the government.
I think the state has just as much of an addiction to sin taxes as smokers do to cigarettes. I would bet most of that tax money doesn't quite make it to children's health care, or smoking cessation programs, or the like. Rather, it makes up for budget shortfalls and pork - so even though the thin veil is "for the children," it's really "for the government who can't control their spending and rely on the people to fund their shortfalls." The Carrie Nations of tobacco - the finger waving nags and lobby-funded nannies who seem to have no problem with being "control freaks" - until the revenue dries up when smokers finally quit or the state bans tobacco entirely. Then they need a huge nicotine-style patch to get over their money cravings.
I offer four ideas that may or may not assist in the fight between government and smokers.
1. Rather than banning cigarettes outright, put them under state monopoly - liquor and lottery tickets too.
Taking tobacco products off the shelves of convenience stores and liquor stores in a Carrie Nation-style fervor shifts the tobacco sales underground. Taking them off the shelves and making the state responsible for pricing and distributing these items is a much better alternative, as it puts the full onus of monitoring and sales on the Commonwealth, not on mom-and-pop stores. If it includes State Police monitoring IDs, all the better, as mom-and-pop stores shell out punitive fines for catching underage smokers.
In fact, tobacco and liquor should be put under state monopoly. If the state of New Hampshire can be successful in having State Liquor Stores, so can the Commonwealth. Let the convenience and liquor store lobby seethe - many have done a lax job in monitoring anyway and have the fines and multiple-day sales prohibitions to show for it. The Commonwealth will no longer have to shell out commissions or fees, and can be in direct competition with New Hampshire. It will also force the Commonwealth to defend itself against critics - "If smoking is so dangerous, why is the state being a enabler? Must be for the taxes, correct?"
2. Illustrate the total price -including wholesale, distribution and marketing fees, federal, state, and sales taxes - for a pack of cigarettes.
People are already angry that their cigarettes are pushing $9 a pack. $3.52 of that is federal and state tax, plus an additional 20-40 cents in sales tax. On the really cheap cigarettes - which last year were $4 and now are $6 - the wholesale prices really shock the dickens out of smokers, i.e. "They buy for this cheap and they sell it for this outrageous price?"
E.g. $4.00 wholesale per pack of premium cigarettes + $1.01 federal tax + $2.51 state tax + $0.38 sales tax = $7.91 per pack. Total tax take based on price - 50%.
E.g. $2.50 wholesale per pack of budget cigarettes + $1.01 federal tax + $2.51 state tax + $0.30 sales tax = $6.33 per pack. Total tax take based on price - 61%.
These taxes are far higher and easier to collect than the income tax of 35% - and everyone pays it. They are definitely regressive - meaning the poor, who pay little or no income taxes, will see themselves forking over almost 61% in tobacco taxes instead - hence the circular function of taxation in our country, from rich to the government in taxes, the government to the poor in entitlements, and then the poor back to the government in sin taxes and fees.
Another interesting thing to consider: when minimum wages in the 1970s were $1.25 per hour, a pack of cigarettes cost around 40 cents, so a MW earner could buy about 2 packs of cigarettes. Today, the state mimimum wage is $7.50, and now a pack of cigarettes costs $8 and effectively prices a MW worker out of a pack of cigarettes by 50 cents, yet it also removes one potential revenue source. The government loses out on tax revenue when a MW worker cannot afford to buy the premium cigarettes at $8 a pack.
3. For those who wish to quit, the lure of free money is always the best incentive.
The Commonwealth should institute a program that encourages people to quit. Take a sliver of all that tax money collected from smokers and offer them a deal - go into a smoking cessation program (with patches, chewing gum, pills and the like) and if they successfully complete a six month program, you can take $2,500 off your taxes. After that, all that money in taxes you spent on cigarettes is yours to keep and save - and invest wisely.
4. For once and for all, investigate the effects of tobacco, free of politics and lobbyists - and then release the results to the public and take appropriate action.
If independent research - free from lobby groups, rigged numbers that trill of the tip of the tongue, and others - determine that tobacco is indeed dangerous and has caused deaths and health problems, then the people and the Commonwealth can come to an agreement on what the next step is. If a ban is appropriate, then so be it. If putting gross pictures of cancer victims will be an effective deterrent, even better.
Aside (in honor of Kate Jackson at Pointy Universe): When I watch those ads on TV with the young college kids demonstrating all the icky things that happen when you smoke, or all that statistical mumbo-jumbo, I think to myself, "What do they do afterwards? I know...they pull out a big fat joint and take a hefty drag on it." (Yes, Kate - this proves I do read your blog!)
But giving the responsibility of research to the tobacco or anti-tobacco lobby invites trouble, as the statistics can be skewed one way or the other to their favor.
Not all of you will agree with my proposals. They are ideas worth considering, however.
I have always stood by the notion that the taxation system we have in our country is circular. The government slaps taxes on the rich, and the government gives money to the poor. The poor think they're on easy street - until they have to fork over fees, taxes and other items, making them even poorer. And of course, all these taxes fliter right back to the government.
I think the state has just as much of an addiction to sin taxes as smokers do to cigarettes. I would bet most of that tax money doesn't quite make it to children's health care, or smoking cessation programs, or the like. Rather, it makes up for budget shortfalls and pork - so even though the thin veil is "for the children," it's really "for the government who can't control their spending and rely on the people to fund their shortfalls." The Carrie Nations of tobacco - the finger waving nags and lobby-funded nannies who seem to have no problem with being "control freaks" - until the revenue dries up when smokers finally quit or the state bans tobacco entirely. Then they need a huge nicotine-style patch to get over their money cravings.
I offer four ideas that may or may not assist in the fight between government and smokers.
1. Rather than banning cigarettes outright, put them under state monopoly - liquor and lottery tickets too.
Taking tobacco products off the shelves of convenience stores and liquor stores in a Carrie Nation-style fervor shifts the tobacco sales underground. Taking them off the shelves and making the state responsible for pricing and distributing these items is a much better alternative, as it puts the full onus of monitoring and sales on the Commonwealth, not on mom-and-pop stores. If it includes State Police monitoring IDs, all the better, as mom-and-pop stores shell out punitive fines for catching underage smokers.
In fact, tobacco and liquor should be put under state monopoly. If the state of New Hampshire can be successful in having State Liquor Stores, so can the Commonwealth. Let the convenience and liquor store lobby seethe - many have done a lax job in monitoring anyway and have the fines and multiple-day sales prohibitions to show for it. The Commonwealth will no longer have to shell out commissions or fees, and can be in direct competition with New Hampshire. It will also force the Commonwealth to defend itself against critics - "If smoking is so dangerous, why is the state being a enabler? Must be for the taxes, correct?"
2. Illustrate the total price -including wholesale, distribution and marketing fees, federal, state, and sales taxes - for a pack of cigarettes.
People are already angry that their cigarettes are pushing $9 a pack. $3.52 of that is federal and state tax, plus an additional 20-40 cents in sales tax. On the really cheap cigarettes - which last year were $4 and now are $6 - the wholesale prices really shock the dickens out of smokers, i.e. "They buy for this cheap and they sell it for this outrageous price?"
E.g. $4.00 wholesale per pack of premium cigarettes + $1.01 federal tax + $2.51 state tax + $0.38 sales tax = $7.91 per pack. Total tax take based on price - 50%.
E.g. $2.50 wholesale per pack of budget cigarettes + $1.01 federal tax + $2.51 state tax + $0.30 sales tax = $6.33 per pack. Total tax take based on price - 61%.
These taxes are far higher and easier to collect than the income tax of 35% - and everyone pays it. They are definitely regressive - meaning the poor, who pay little or no income taxes, will see themselves forking over almost 61% in tobacco taxes instead - hence the circular function of taxation in our country, from rich to the government in taxes, the government to the poor in entitlements, and then the poor back to the government in sin taxes and fees.
Another interesting thing to consider: when minimum wages in the 1970s were $1.25 per hour, a pack of cigarettes cost around 40 cents, so a MW earner could buy about 2 packs of cigarettes. Today, the state mimimum wage is $7.50, and now a pack of cigarettes costs $8 and effectively prices a MW worker out of a pack of cigarettes by 50 cents, yet it also removes one potential revenue source. The government loses out on tax revenue when a MW worker cannot afford to buy the premium cigarettes at $8 a pack.
3. For those who wish to quit, the lure of free money is always the best incentive.
The Commonwealth should institute a program that encourages people to quit. Take a sliver of all that tax money collected from smokers and offer them a deal - go into a smoking cessation program (with patches, chewing gum, pills and the like) and if they successfully complete a six month program, you can take $2,500 off your taxes. After that, all that money in taxes you spent on cigarettes is yours to keep and save - and invest wisely.
4. For once and for all, investigate the effects of tobacco, free of politics and lobbyists - and then release the results to the public and take appropriate action.
If independent research - free from lobby groups, rigged numbers that trill of the tip of the tongue, and others - determine that tobacco is indeed dangerous and has caused deaths and health problems, then the people and the Commonwealth can come to an agreement on what the next step is. If a ban is appropriate, then so be it. If putting gross pictures of cancer victims will be an effective deterrent, even better.
Aside (in honor of Kate Jackson at Pointy Universe): When I watch those ads on TV with the young college kids demonstrating all the icky things that happen when you smoke, or all that statistical mumbo-jumbo, I think to myself, "What do they do afterwards? I know...they pull out a big fat joint and take a hefty drag on it." (Yes, Kate - this proves I do read your blog!)
But giving the responsibility of research to the tobacco or anti-tobacco lobby invites trouble, as the statistics can be skewed one way or the other to their favor.
Not all of you will agree with my proposals. They are ideas worth considering, however.
4/03/2009
Not quite a one newspaper town?
The New York Times is telling the unions at the Globe: give us $20 million in concessions, or the Globe will be no more.
And the Old Grey Lady isn't kidding.
I sometimes read the Globe and even though I don't agree with its editorial slant, I feel just a teeny bit smarter. The problem is that the Globe is geared to the upper-middle and upper classes of Boston; the Herald, while tabloidy and sensational, is for the more working-class of us.
The Metro? The bastard child of the Herald and the Globe that no one wants to admit is theirs. The Globe owns that too; maybe they should get an reasonably balanced editorial board and cut all the crap out of it.
And the Old Grey Lady isn't kidding.
I sometimes read the Globe and even though I don't agree with its editorial slant, I feel just a teeny bit smarter. The problem is that the Globe is geared to the upper-middle and upper classes of Boston; the Herald, while tabloidy and sensational, is for the more working-class of us.
The Metro? The bastard child of the Herald and the Globe that no one wants to admit is theirs. The Globe owns that too; maybe they should get an reasonably balanced editorial board and cut all the crap out of it.
3/27/2009
Grandma got run over by the DOR
I don't condone smoking, but I just noticed that cancer sticks, over the past decade or so, have more than doubled in price. You could get a generic brand of smokes for $2, and a name brand for $3. Today, a generic pack costs $5.50 and a name brand pack is $7.50. This is due to our $2.51 state tobacco tax and the new $1 or so tax to fund children's health care. Cross the border into New Hampshire, and the prices are slightly less.
One industrious lady went the route of getting generic cigarettes from an Native American Smoke shop. One carton of their brand goes for the rock-bottom price of $14.89 - which comes out to 79 cents a pack. Pretty good deal, right? And the Native Americans, since they operate from a sovereign nation (aka the reservation), don't charge taxes on what they sell. You can get name brand cigarettes for $35 a carton - a huge savings over Massachusetts' $150 per carton.
But the Native Americans, making sure they keep kosher with the states, report whoever buys their cigarettes to the tax rolls of each state. As a result of buying 5 cartons of Seneca unfiltered cigarettes, this woman now must pay an additional $91.58 to the state. And, she's refusing to pay, even if they levy penalties and interest.
Let's calculate what's going on here. $14.89 times five cartons is $74.45. In order to tack on $91.58 to her bill, the tax on each additional carton must be $18.316, making her actual purchase (in the eyes of the Commonwealth) $166.03 - or $33.21 a carton. Why would the state chase this woman over cheap generic cigarettes at $33.21 a carton when there are bigger fish to fry - the people who fork over $150 for name brand cigarettes? Maybe it's because the Native Americans have a much better handle on freedoms and what it means, versus the health neurotics who can't seem to keep their germophobic mitts out of other people's business - and if they had a chance, not only would they not hand over names, they'd tell the states what rabbit hole to go down to?
When cigarettes and tobacco are banned from the state, I can tell exactly who's going to need the bigger nicotine patch - the Mass DOR, as billions of tax dollars generated from cigarette and tobacco sales fund everything the desire, and you bet they'll have a jones worse than a heroin withdrawal once that tax money goes away.
One industrious lady went the route of getting generic cigarettes from an Native American Smoke shop. One carton of their brand goes for the rock-bottom price of $14.89 - which comes out to 79 cents a pack. Pretty good deal, right? And the Native Americans, since they operate from a sovereign nation (aka the reservation), don't charge taxes on what they sell. You can get name brand cigarettes for $35 a carton - a huge savings over Massachusetts' $150 per carton.
But the Native Americans, making sure they keep kosher with the states, report whoever buys their cigarettes to the tax rolls of each state. As a result of buying 5 cartons of Seneca unfiltered cigarettes, this woman now must pay an additional $91.58 to the state. And, she's refusing to pay, even if they levy penalties and interest.
Let's calculate what's going on here. $14.89 times five cartons is $74.45. In order to tack on $91.58 to her bill, the tax on each additional carton must be $18.316, making her actual purchase (in the eyes of the Commonwealth) $166.03 - or $33.21 a carton. Why would the state chase this woman over cheap generic cigarettes at $33.21 a carton when there are bigger fish to fry - the people who fork over $150 for name brand cigarettes? Maybe it's because the Native Americans have a much better handle on freedoms and what it means, versus the health neurotics who can't seem to keep their germophobic mitts out of other people's business - and if they had a chance, not only would they not hand over names, they'd tell the states what rabbit hole to go down to?
When cigarettes and tobacco are banned from the state, I can tell exactly who's going to need the bigger nicotine patch - the Mass DOR, as billions of tax dollars generated from cigarette and tobacco sales fund everything the desire, and you bet they'll have a jones worse than a heroin withdrawal once that tax money goes away.
2/23/2009
Kate Jackson's battle with cancer, served up with a wink and a slice of sass
Kate M. Jackson was a graduate of the Boston Latin Academy class of 1988, and is currently undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute.
Her blog, Pointy Universe, is a great blog that takes us on her journey with with interest, humor, and ruefulness about what happens when cancer occurs and how people deal with the hair falling out, the 15 hour sleep sessions, and the nausea.
Kate, should you read my blog between the sessions of red death and radiation, I graduated two years later in 1990...I'm the tall red headed guy with glasses. The DFCI people are fantastic and will help you through this journey...they helped my dad through his treatments until his final days. Ad aspera ad astra, and your hair will grow back!
Her blog, Pointy Universe, is a great blog that takes us on her journey with with interest, humor, and ruefulness about what happens when cancer occurs and how people deal with the hair falling out, the 15 hour sleep sessions, and the nausea.
Kate, should you read my blog between the sessions of red death and radiation, I graduated two years later in 1990...I'm the tall red headed guy with glasses. The DFCI people are fantastic and will help you through this journey...they helped my dad through his treatments until his final days. Ad aspera ad astra, and your hair will grow back!
2/03/2009
Memo to Globe: Grab Universal Hub NOW
Dan Kennedy from Media Nation has one demand: the Boston Globe, if it wants to shake itself out of its stodgy doldrums, must hence and forthwith acquire Universal Hub and Adam Gaffin.
First, I am a frequent blogger whose material frequently appears on Universal Hub, and whenever I see a post from my blog appear on Universal Hub, it gives me encouragement to post more here. I can comment there without having some obnoxious schmo (ahem, I mean, 'concerned citizen') try to convince the board that (insert wacky, obtuse pet theory or slogan here) and that I'm wrong for pointing out the error of their ways.
Second, if the Globe wants to get its credibility back (see: "g", the Mike Barnicle plagarism incident, supplying WTKK with most of its material), it should relentlessly seek Mr. Gaffin's talents. I like viewing his page because there is stuff for everyone. Real diversity there, all for the taking.
Finally, I know the Globe is hurtin' because no one's picking up the print anymore - or if they are, they're lining their birdcages with it. I'm not looking for the Globe to suddenly turn into the Phoenix (sans adult section - nothing spells embarassment than telling your seatmate on the train, 'I remember when I had a Rabbit - a 1981 diesel operated Rabbit that lasted me until 2002...') and be the beacon of fake hipster angst. But the Globe has to get out of its stodgy Beacon Hill/Blue Book doldrums, and Universal Hub is that grease that will spin that squeaky wheel on Morrissey Blvd.
First, I am a frequent blogger whose material frequently appears on Universal Hub, and whenever I see a post from my blog appear on Universal Hub, it gives me encouragement to post more here. I can comment there without having some obnoxious schmo (ahem, I mean, 'concerned citizen') try to convince the board that (insert wacky, obtuse pet theory or slogan here) and that I'm wrong for pointing out the error of their ways.
Second, if the Globe wants to get its credibility back (see: "g", the Mike Barnicle plagarism incident, supplying WTKK with most of its material), it should relentlessly seek Mr. Gaffin's talents. I like viewing his page because there is stuff for everyone. Real diversity there, all for the taking.
Finally, I know the Globe is hurtin' because no one's picking up the print anymore - or if they are, they're lining their birdcages with it. I'm not looking for the Globe to suddenly turn into the Phoenix (sans adult section - nothing spells embarassment than telling your seatmate on the train, 'I remember when I had a Rabbit - a 1981 diesel operated Rabbit that lasted me until 2002...') and be the beacon of fake hipster angst. But the Globe has to get out of its stodgy Beacon Hill/Blue Book doldrums, and Universal Hub is that grease that will spin that squeaky wheel on Morrissey Blvd.
1/30/2009
Class act Gil Santos silences his baritone voice for the final time
Gil Santos - long known as the voice of the New England Patriots and a fixture at WBZ-1030, said goodbye to his fans and listeners.
Gil Santos was a class act. Unlike sportscasters of today, who seem to scream over one another for attention, Santos knew how to grab his audience without turning them off. His excitement was genuine, not forced and followed by a plug for sketchy items like Cash4Gold or weight-loss scams. Like his news counterpart Gary LaPierre, who also retired not long ago, Santos was a fixture of the old style Boston news, one that told a story without flashy CGI graphics and teases for segments.
And, he doesn't have to get up at 3 in the morning anymore. That's a good thing.
Gil Santos was a class act. Unlike sportscasters of today, who seem to scream over one another for attention, Santos knew how to grab his audience without turning them off. His excitement was genuine, not forced and followed by a plug for sketchy items like Cash4Gold or weight-loss scams. Like his news counterpart Gary LaPierre, who also retired not long ago, Santos was a fixture of the old style Boston news, one that told a story without flashy CGI graphics and teases for segments.
And, he doesn't have to get up at 3 in the morning anymore. That's a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)