Motivations for tax

A legislative task force will study raising the tobacco tax as one option to increase revenue. Guest writer Michael Keck further advocates raising the tax to $1.50 per pack to reduce cigarette use and improve the health of our citizenry.

Having spent more than two decades as a cancer researcher, I certainly agree that reducing smoking would have both health and economic benefits. The health benefits of this tax would be more meaningful if the revenue generated was used for health-related programs or, heaven forbid, expanded health-care coverage for our most vulnerable citizens. Unfortunately, it appears the motivation for this tax is to generate revenue to offset a proposed reduction in the tax rate for individuals in the top income bracket. Since the percentage of smokers with incomes less than $25,000 is four times higher than those with incomes exceeding $75,000, as proposed the poorest among us will be taxed more for the benefit of the wealthiest. If improved health is really the desired outcome, why not spend the revenue where it would do the most good for those that need it most?

Similarly, efforts are underway to reduce eligibility in the state’s Medicaid expansion program from 138 percent of poverty level down to 100 percent to “save” money for further tax cuts. It is estimated that 60,000 Arkansans would lose their health-care coverage if this were implemented. If enacted, taxpayers may “save” 6 percent in insurance premiums for these individuals, but your health-care costs will increase to cover 100 percent of the care for these now uninsured.

The mantra of cutting taxes from people seeking office may be good politics, but the consequences of these policies are often detrimental to the citizens they are supposed to represent. RANDY HAUN Little Rock