Cigarette Tax for S C
It seems that our illustrious Legislators are once again contemplating a cigarette tax. Even with a recent National tax of 62 cents starting April 1 (to be used to expand children's health care) there is hope of passing this tax. Why, you ask? It seems that the new bill to raise the cigarette tax will go to relieve small businesses burden of providing health insurance to their employees.
If this tax went to help the failing state Medicaid program each $1 raised would bring an additional $3 from the federal government to help finance Medicaid. I have nothing against helping small business owners, but I don't see them bringing back $3 to our state budget for indigent medical care.
I realize that it would lower the overhead of the small businesses and perhaps allow them to hire an extra employee. They probably would not be hiring anyone presently on Medicaid.
Kevin Bryant is once again not commenting . Could it be because he campaigned against the cigarette tax or due to the conflict of having a business that profits from people that continue to smoke. I am not raising this question. Senator Bryant abstained on his vote last time due to the fact that he is an oxygen provider.
Make no mistake, I am for the cigarette tax to be raised in SC no matter how it is presented.
As soon as the economy stabilizes I am also for raising the gasoline tax, which has not been raised in many years. I would hope that this revenue would then go to the repair of our crumbling infrastructure. It would probably go for earmarks and bridges to nowhere so maybe
Kevin Bryant is once again not commenting . Could it be because he campaigned against the cigarette tax or due to the conflict of having a business that profits from people that continue to smoke. I am not raising this question. Senator Bryant abstained on his vote last time due to the fact that he is an oxygen provider.
-petunia1
RJR Reynolds contributed to his campaign in 2008. Is it any wonder he fails to comment? Too busy blogging from the back bench there, Kevin?
Puff, puff, pass ... on the comments it appears.
- SSHM
It seems that our illustrious Legislators are once again contemplating a cigarette tax. Even with a recent National tax of 62 cents starting April 1 (to be used to expand children's health care) there is hope of passing this tax. Why, you ask? It seems that the new bill to raise the cigarette tax will go to relieve small businesses burden of providing health insurance to their employees.If this tax went to help the failing state Medicaid program each $1 raised would bring an additional $3 from the federal government to help finance Medicaid. I have nothing against helping small business owners, but I don't see them bringing back $3 to our state budget for indigent medical care.I realize that it would lower the overhead of the small businesses and perhaps allow them to hire an extra employee. They probably would not be hiring anyone presently on Medicaid.Kevin Bryant is once again not commenting . Could it be because he campaigned against the cigarette tax or due to the conflict of having a business that profits from people that continue to smoke. I am not raising this question. Senator Bryant abstained on his vote last time due to the fact that he is an oxygen provider.Make no mistake, I am for the cigarette tax to be raised in SC no matter how it is presented.[image]As soon as the economy stabilizes I am also for raising the gasoline tax, which has not been raised in many years. I would hope that this revenue would then go to the repair of our crumbling infrastructure. It would probably go for earmarks and bridges to nowhere so maybe
-petunia1
Wouldn't have to raise the gas tax for infrastructure repair if we took some of those 18 Wheeler big rigs off the road.
The solution: RAIL. Yes guys and gals for every 1 ton of freight pulled by truck it travels 125 miles on 1 gallon of diesel fuel, while that same ton of freight pulled by train on that same 1 gallon of diesel fuel moves 423 miles. Every unit train of freight takes 400 Tractor Trailers off the road, slowing the wear and tear on our highways and reducing the cost of goods on the shelf. That 400 Tractor Trailers is the equivalent of 1200 cars, can anyone say clean air and the ability to stay within EPA compliance?
And every one of those 400 tractor-trailers you take off the highway removes about $12,000 or so of Federal and state fuel tax from the infrastructure fund, to be replaced by .. what?!?!?
As for that "clean air"/EPA compliance bit, have you noticed how many volcanoes are erupting worldwide as we speak? Do you realize that one of those volcanoes puts more pollutants and gases into the atmosphere in a day or two than every tractor/trailer in the United States does in a year?
I'm all for full utilization of our existing railway capacity and even for expanding that capacity. But let's be reasonable here. If God wanted us all to have absolutely pristine air, he wouldn't have invented volcanoes, forest fires, tobacco and $20-a-gallon "designer" perfumes.
... but but but ...
You're going to ruin a classic song!!!
The solution: RAIL. Yes guys and gals for every 1 ton of freight pulled by truck it travels 125 miles on 1 gallon of diesel fuel, while that same ton of freight pulled by train on that same 1 gallon of diesel fuel moves 423 miles. Every unit train of freight takes 400 Tractor Trailers off the road, slowing the wear and tear on our highways and reducing the cost of goods on the shelf. That 400 Tractor Trailers is the equivalent of 1200 cars, can anyone say clean air and the ability to stay within EPA compliance?-constituent
There is no bias or hidden financial gain evident in that post is it?
There is no bias or hidden financial gain evident in that post is it?
-non-sequitur
Who's hiding? Absolutely there is!
And every one of those 400 tractor-trailers you take off the highway removes about $12,000 or so of Federal and state fuel tax from the infrastructure fund, to be replaced by .. what?!?!? As for that "clean air"/EPA compliance bit, have you noticed how many volcanoes are erupting worldwide as we speak? Do you realize that one of those volcanoes puts more pollutants and gases into the atmosphere in a day or two than every tractor/trailer in the United States does in a year? I'm all for full utilization of our existing railway capacity and even for expanding that capacity. But let's be reasonable here. If God wanted us all to have absolutely pristine air, he wouldn't have invented volcanoes, forest fires, tobacco and $20-a-gallon "designer" perfumes. [image]
-jdtippett
First, I didn't make the EPA rules, I just have to follow them. If we do not do something to change the level of pollutants we put in the air here in Anderson we will become noncompliant by EPA standards and that affects the side of the world you are from too. So we can argue how much we disagree with EPA rules and Standards all we want to but it will not change the FACT that something has to change in order to keep us in compliance.
As far as state and federal fuel funding and taxes, guess what, the railroad has to pay them TOO! Further, the taxes you are referring to are use taxes. If the tractor trailer does not use the road then it doesn't need the repair as the result of taking those trucks off the road is the roads last longer and need much less repair.
Remove 400 trucks and you raise the employment rates by 400 drivers. Maybe more as some of the long haulers have two drivers.
Worry no about the roads, as it is my guess, that gasoline will hit five to seven dollars per gallon within the next 12 months and folks will REALLY curtail their driving. 
Remove 400 trucks and you raise the employment rates by 400 drivers. Maybe more as some of the long haulers have two drivers.Worry no about the roads, as it is my guess, that gasoline will hit five to seven dollars per gallon within the next 12 months and folks will REALLY curtail their driving. [image]
-ed-evans
I'm assuming you meant Unemployment Rates. If so that's not exactly true and here's why, the trucking industry already has approximately a 100% turn over rate yearly. Seems the long haul truckers are looking for short haul jobs so that they can be home with their families at night. By moving freight by rail those long hauls become short hauls from the rail yard to the retail industry. The concept is called multimodalism.
Besides the truck drivers can get jobs with the railroad as they will be hiring. Or with the intermodal yards or with the trucking companies that carry short hauls.
As far as your worry about gasoline prices, when prices hit $5 to $7 per gallon all of your shippers will be scrambling to go to rail for the sheer efficiency and cost effectiveness of rail. Oh and all those folks that have flex fuel vehicles will be so glad they do because as the price of gasoline rises the price spread between ethanol and petroleum widens making ethanol more and more attractive and not just as an oxygenate.
I say,drink less milk and eat less beef !
Do you realize how much methane those cows and steer put into the air ?
I'm assuming you meant Unemployment Rates. If so that's not exactly true and here's why, the trucking industry already has approximately a 100% turn over rate yearly. Seems the long haul truckers are looking for short haul jobs so that they can be home with their families at night. By moving freight by rail those long hauls become short hauls from the rail yard to the retail industry. The concept is called multimodalism.
Besides the truck drivers can get jobs with the railroad as they will be hiring. Or with the intermodal yards or with the trucking companies that carry short hauls.
As far as your worry about gasoline prices, when prices hit $5 to $7 per gallon all of your shippers will be scrambling to go to rail for the sheer efficiency and cost effectiveness of rail. Oh and all those folks that have flex fuel vehicles will be so glad they do because as the price of gasoline rises the price spread between ethanol and petroleum widens making ethanol more and more attractive and not just as an oxygenate.-constituent
AS TO CIG TAX: TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX it out of exsistance!!!!!
How many of yall hve actualy checked your cars mpg wiht 10% ethanol????????? (it sucks) Your car is not a fish it was not designed to run on water!!!!!!
There are 3 station in Anderson that still sell 100% gas Shell station near walmart on clemson blvd, shell station on 81 near ingle, and one on 24 or 28 not sure which one that is. Check for ourself, you will get 15% to 25% better gpm!!!!!!!
gpm ? ? better gallons per mile ? ? who'd want that ? ?
How many of yall hve actualy checked your cars mpg wiht 10% ethanol????????? (it sucks) Your car is not a fish it was not designed to run on water!!!!!!
There are 3 station in Anderson that still sell 100% gas Shell station near walmart on clemson blvd, shell station on 81 near ingle, and one on 24 or 28 not sure which one that is. Check for ourself, you will get 15% to 25% better gpm!!!!!!!-firestick
Lies, lies, and more lies . . .
Gasoline with MTBE (or as folks like yourself like to say, "ethanol-free") is going away. Just like the departure of leaded gasoline and the similar arguments of "bad for the car" and "bad on mpg," the Federal Government has stepped in and mandated that E10 will replace MTBE (more environmentally friendly).
Enjoy your "ethanol free" gas while it lasts . . . it, like leaded gas, is going the way of the dodo bird.
- SSHM
Lies, lies, and more lies . . .
Gasoline with MTBE (or as folks like yourself like to say, "ethanol-free") is going away. Just like the departure of leaded gasoline and the similar arguments of "bad for the car" and "bad on mpg," the Federal Government has stepped in and mandated that E10 will replace MTBE (more environmentally friendly).
Enjoy your "ethanol free" gas while it lasts . . . it, like leaded gas, is going the way of the dodo bird.
- SSHM
-sshm
Okay here is the truth as seen on News Chanel 4 (WYFF)
http://www.wyff4.com/automotive/17232691/detail.html
Read it and try to GET IT!!!!!!
We are all using more of the real stuff (pure gas) in order to consume more of the crap (ETHANOL)
$300 to make an 1000 mile trip on Ethanol
vs $264 to make the same trip with pure gas (no crap in it!)
Using 2.00/gal for ethanol
The trip took 150 galllons totat 300/2.00=150
150 galllons of 10% added
Thats 135 gallons of pure gas 150 x .90 = 135
Using 2.10/gal for pure gas
The trip tool 125 gallons total 264/2.10=125
That 125 gallons of pure fuel
I'm discouraged that we the poeple of USA do not get it!
In this example we consume 10 additional gallons of pure gas and spent an additional $36.00!!
Apparently you missed the part where MTBE is bad, m'kay?
Three oil firms lose MTBE suit: A jury holds them responsible for Lake Tahoe well pollution
By Chris Bowman – Sacramento Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Wednesday, April 17, 2002
Here are the pertinent blurbs from the story:
1.) South Lake Tahoe is one of about 50 California communities that have lost drinking-water supplies because of MTBE contamination, state health records show.
2.) State officials say an estimated 6,700 leaking storage tanks beneath gas stations are within a half-mile of active public drinking-water wells.
3.) Santa Monica lost more than half of its drinking-water supply because of MTBE contamination from leaking underground gasoline tanks.
So why again is there a movement away from MTBE ... oh yeah ...
I'm confused. I remember a time when it had to be listed on the pump the percentage of ethanol present. Most car manufacturers advised using only petroleum products in many cars. I also believe that ethanol was only used in high pollution areas under the clean air act. I know we have a pollution problem. If ethanol is in our gas, were we ordered to do so?
A smoking section in a restaurant is like having a urination section in a swimming pool.
There is really only one reason needed to justify raising the cigarette tax: Children should not smoke.
Cigarettes should be priced high enough to discourage children from smoking.
If you significantly reduce the number of children who grow up to become adult smokers, we could toss the cigarette tax money into a paper shredder and all be much better off in the future.
Since Smokers do not pay the full cost of the medical care, hospitalization, and cancer treatments they receive from smoking related diseases, who pays for it?
JK
