Talk:Cigarette taxes in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I updated (and cited) IL tax increase, but...[edit]

The graphic on the right still needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.220.164 (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Put requests on my Wikipedia talk page ;D Travürsa (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the contents of the article misplaced?[edit]

I was led to this article using the keywords PACT Act. However, the article is about the history of taxing cigarettes. This contents of this article is misplaced, since the article isn't specifically about the PACT Act and its implementation. The article as written should be renamed something that refers to taxation of cigarettes. →Lwalt ♦ talk 21:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Although some[who?] believe that taxes constitute a disproportionate percentage of the retail price of cigarettes, data show that while the price of cigarettes has continuously increased since 1965, the percentage of that price going towards taxes is now half of what it was then.[14] While tobacco companies complain about the $1.01 cigarette tax, Phillip Morris, Reynolds American, and Lorillard have all increased their prices by almost $1.00 per pack on their own.[16] Phillip Morris currently lists all taxes, including federal, state, local, and sales taxes, as 56.6% of the total cost of a pack of cigarettes[17]" This section is clearly contains inconsistent information. If all taxes represent 56.6% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes, how can data show that the percentage of the price going towards taxes is half of what it was in 1965? I'm not a math whiz, but that would imply that in 1965, 113.2% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes was taxes...seems hard to believe that tobacco companies lost money on every pack sold in 1965. I attempted to find to find the half as much fact in the WHO cite, but I couldn't locate that information on the linked page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.141.105 (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Even though this bill taxed smokers in order to fund a children’s health program, President Barack Obama received both criticism and support for signing this act." Is this really a non-partisan statement? 64.138.221.193 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words[edit]

I've gone through and removed what I believe to be all of the major instances of unsubstantiated claims and weasel words. The box is still in the beginning of the article, however, because I don't know if this statement in the article's introduction: "Overall, public health officials are in favor of the tax hike because it ultimately leads to decreased smoking rates. Tobacco companies criticize the increase when in actuality they have been steadily increasing prices independent of taxes" constitutes weasel wording. This claim is not immediately backed up by evidence, but it is supported adequately throughout the article. Thoughts and help are appreciated. Fred.Pendleton (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand the logic behind noting "Tobacco companies criticize the increase when in actuality they have been steadily increasing prices independent of taxes." Whether or not they increase their prices (as many companies do), why would they not complain when sources they don't control makes their product more costly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.233.64 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Study on the effect of the taxes[edit]

I have a self-citation COI in that I support RTI International, a non-profit research organization that publishes many studies in peer-reviewed journals that are reliable. They published a peer-reviewed study on the effects of cigarette taxes on low-income families that was also discussed in the media. The study seems like it would be immensely useful in this article.

I would propose something like the following:

In 2012, RTI International conducted an analysis of data from the 2010-2011 New York and national Adult Tobacco Surveys to assess the financial burden cigarette taxes place on low-income families for the New York State Department of Health. According to ABC News, the study found that "higher cigarette taxes may be financially hurting low-income smokers rather than making them more likely to quit." Among the 13,000 surveyed in New York State, lower income smokers spent 23.6 percent of their income on cigarettes, compared to two percent by higher income New York residents and an average of 14 percent among lower-income smokers nationally.

Sources

  • Salahi, Lara (September 20, 2012). "Cigarette Tax Burdens Low-Income, Doesn't Deter Smoking". ABC News. Retrieved July 19, 2013.
  • Farrelly, Matthew (September 20, 2012), "The Consequences of High Cigarette Excise Taxes for Low-Income Smokers", PLoS ONE, retrieved July 19, 2013 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

RTI is not a partisan or advocacy-type organization and I'm not sure if there is really a very significant COI. Interested in any feedback generally on how to handle these where they publish research that is useful for Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 21:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's no question that the source is reliable. The only issue I could possibly see is if the study is being given undue weight in the article and I don't see that being the case unless you were going to put it in the lead of the article but I'm sure that's not the case. I support this proposal and I feel comfortable with you making the change. OlYeller21Talktome 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have made the edit. Thanks! I just wrote it like I would normally, but wasn't sure of the boundaries RE undue emphasis on the source. I'll probably continue editing cautiously for a while for this project, and get a little bolder over time assuming edits of this nature are supported. CorporateM (Talk) 19:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me. In general, I'm of the opinion that WP:UNDUE is the most likely issue to pop up with self-citing but it could be argued that you're not even doing that since you didn't participate in administering the study (unless I'm mistaken). Your potential COI is more likely to lead to promotion and citing a study done by a company you have a connection to seems like a convoluted way to promote a subject, as I'm sure you're aware. If RTI was a less known entity, some might think you were attempting to spur coverage to prove notability but I don't see how others could suggest that, either.
In short, I think unless you're just throwing RTI studies around like crazy, in places they don't belong, I don't see the connection being an issue with regards to citing.
If you ever need an outside eye to check for you, just let me know. OlYeller21Talktome 20:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cigarette taxes in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cigarette taxes in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico[edit]

Puerto Rico currently has a tax of $25.50 per 100 cigrettes which is over $5 per pack of 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.224.172 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking table sorting[edit]

When you include a link reference in the data table, be sure to enclose it in REF tags, otherwise you will break column sorting and make me grumpy. Endeavoring now to fix three such. Simplulo (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update map[edit]

Oregon and New Mexico have taxes above $1.99. They have to be changed to purple on the map. Needforspeed888 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_States&oldid=1200911843"