Levies an additional state excise tax on cigarettes (OR +$52,600,000 GF RV See Note)
The introduction of this additional tax on cigarettes is expected to have significant implications for public health, as it aligns with broader efforts to discourage smoking through increased financial barriers. The additional funds generated are likely to be allocated towards health initiatives, potentially benefiting state health programs. The requirement for wholesale and retail dealers to file an inventory of cigarettes on hand prior to the tax implementation date also introduces new regulatory responsibilities for businesses in the tobacco market.
House Bill 118, introduced by Representative Hoffmann, proposes an additional tax on cigarettes that would increase the total tax per pack of 20 cigarettes from $1.08 to $1.30. This legislation is part of an effort to boost state revenue, with the expected increase of approximately $52.6 million from this tax adjustment. The bill aims to impose this tax on all cigarette products purchased by both retail and wholesale dealers, taking effect on July 1, 2017. However, it includes provisions that the new tax will not apply to stamped products or unused tax stamps held by dealers prior to this date.
The sentiment towards HB 118 appears to be somewhat mixed among lawmakers and advocacy groups. Supporters of the bill argue that increasing the cigarette tax is a necessary step towards reducing smoking rates, thereby improving overall public health outcomes. On the other hand, opponents express concerns that the tax may disproportionately impact low-income individuals and potential small tobacco business owners, raising issues of equity and access.
Notable contention surrounding House Bill 118 includes debates over the effectiveness of increased taxes as a deterrent against smoking versus its impact on different socioeconomic groups. Additionally, some lawmakers are concerned about the administrative burden placed on retail and wholesale dealers in complying with new inventory regulations. The discussions indicate a broader context of ongoing public health policy initiatives and the balancing act of raising revenue while addressing public health objectives.