5 ms·
Tobacco is also subsidized, so the government is effectively paying Americans to smoke.
by Alex3917 9y ago
Tobacco is also subsidized, so the government is effectively paying Americans to smoke.
- teej 9y agoExcept for the $5+ tax per pack. What a ridiculous assertion.
- throwawayjava 9y agoA more accurate statement might be that the government is paying people to produce cigarettes.
- Alex3917 9y agoIf buying a pack of cigarettes costs less than it would without the subsidies, then you're effectively getting free money every time you smoke.
- Clubber 9y agoIt's not even close. If the government didn't do any subsidizing or taxing, cigarettes would be much cheaper. The magnitude would vary depending on state or country.
- bmmayer1 9y agoSo, let me get this straight. The government pays people to produce them, then charges people to smoke them?
- throwawayjava 9y agoBasically, yes. But it's not quite that clear cut. Tobacco growers receive farm subsidies [1], which isn't a tobacco-specific subsidy, but also isn't a "whoops didn't mean those farms" accident [2]. Tobacco products are then (heavily) taxed. Also, it's actually that the federal government pays people to grow tobacco and the state governments tax people to consume tobacco. And the federal subsidies are much lower than the state taxes. It's still a weird situation, and subsidies probably shouldn't be paid to farms producing tobacco. But the sort of corruption that makes this nonsense possible is totally legal in America, so. [1] https://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco https://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=toba... [2] http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/301645-senate-rejects-amendment-to-end-tobacco-farm-subsidies http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/301645-senate-r...
- Bromskloss 9y agoCould you tell us how?
- Barrin92 9y agohttp://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/301645-senate-rejects-amendment-to-end-tobacco-farm-subsidies http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/301645-senate-r... farm subsidies apply to tobacco companies
- Bromskloss 9y agoOh, so it wasn't specifically for tobacco. In that case, I think we might as well count schools, roads, and anything that is subsidised.
- krrrh 9y agoThose programs are infrastructure, or a nearly universal benefit. Corporate welfare to a specific sector of the economy is totally different. There’s also no reason a farm subsidy couldn’t exclude tobacco.
- throwawayjava 9y agoApparently the reason is "[tobacco growers] contribute a lot to this country" [1]. You know, as opposed to all of the non-federally-subsidized occupations that contribute literally-anything-other-than-lung-cancer to the country... I'm assuming the $1.1 million Tobacco spent keeping Richard Burr in office helps him not think too hard about such things [2]. [1] http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/301645-senate-rejects-amendment-to-end-tobacco-farm-subsidies http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/301645-senate-r... [2] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article132029294.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article1...