Some argue that state governments should not profit from residents’ vices. However, some states rely on these activities for a substantial proportion of their budget. In Nevada, “sin taxes” accounted for nearly 6% of the state’s revenue. Based on data from the Census Bureau and the American Gaming Association, 24/7 Wall St. identified the states where the largest percentage of revenue came in the form of proceeds from alcohol, tobacco and casino taxes, as well as the lottery and state-regulated liquor stores. These are the states profiting most from sin. Click here to see the states lining their pockets with sin dollars Excise taxes on tobacco are among the most politically charged and varied in the country. While Rhode Island charges $3.50 in taxes per pack of cigarettes, states like Virginia and Missouri charge less than $0.50. Frequently, consumption is higher in the states making the most from sin taxes. For example, many of the states that profit the most from sin rely heavily on tobacco revenue. While tobacco tax rates are relatively low in some of these states, sales are higher than the national average. In fact, the states with the highest taxes for alcohol and tobacco do not necessarily bring in the most money. Relative to some of the other sin-related sources of income, taxes on alcohol are not a big source of revenue. However, some state governments opt to control liquor sales, which can involve regulating stores and collecting commissions. In others, it can even mean warehousing and selling the liquor directly to consumers. In New Hampshire, state-controlled liquor sales accounted for 1% of the state’s income. While alcohol and tobacco are factors in some of the states that profit most from sin, gambling is almost always a much more significant source of income. In five states, casino tax revenue accounted for more than 2% of state revenue. In Nevada, not surprisingly, it was nearly 5% of revenue. Lotteries were also a major source of income. The Rhode Island, Delaware and West Virginia Lotteries all brought in well over 3% of state income. The reason for this, according to the American Gaming Association, is that these states operate and own all commercial casinos in the state not run by Native Americans. The moral question of whether states should be profiting from its residents’ bad habits is a difficult one. Some argue that states are attempting to encourage better life choices. The case might be made most strongly for cigarette taxes. In states like New York, which has a $4.35 cigarette tax, there are signs that residents are quitting smoking because it is becoming too expensive. Others, like the Tax Foundation’s Scott Drenkard, argue that some states are motivated by profit. Specifically, increasing state revenues through higher taxes. This is clear in the case of state casinos, which are being added quickly all over the country. Drenkard Added “A better discussion is ‘is this worthwhile for these communities’ rather than ‘is this the sort of thing we can squeeze money out of? Read more: States Profiting the Most from Sin - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/08/16/states-profiting-the-most-from-sin/#ixzz2d0IKedlf Can you imagine if prostitution would be legalized , how the profit would go up. The problem how would you tax the prostitutes ?
Of course they are! Every dollar that they get from cigarette taxes is a dollar they don't have to charge homeowners in property taxes or residents in sales taxes. That's a good thing IMO. You can avoid cigarette taxes - you can't avoid sales tax. (And most people can't avoid property tax, whether they own their own house or rent.) Sales tax, just like any other business. Or a per-visit tax like state hotel taxes.
"Can you imagine if prostitution would be legalized , how the profit would go up. The problem how would you tax the prostitutes ?" Prostitution is already legal, in many forms. Also, I think that just being a "prostitute" is taxing enough - look at how it affects politicians, actors, celebrities, rock/pop stars, rappers...
How about reducing the pension plans for politician and civil servants let us go all at the same level of taxation and pension plans . that will not need increases in taxation on home owners
Not very fair for a hardworking civil servant who labored his whole life and was promised a pension he could live on. What if the new pension does not allow him to afford his home, or his medications? I am all for reducing pensions BEFORE people retire. That way they can plan for retirement and make good decisions. It is not fair to them to promise them a pension, have them retire then tell them later "well, we changed our minds, too bad for you." (Of course, you then have to pay them more while they are working so they can contribute to 401k's and whatnot. There's no such thing as a free lunch.)
I worked for 42 years with several company , the last one I worked 22 years is were I get $ 978.oo the one were I worked 11 years I get $80. and of course the SSo .Now I see a plain fireman who worked for the tows his pension was $ 4000.oo/mont I am positive of that His retirement benefits much much better then mine . So were is the fairness. A policeman in central Illinois starting salary last year $ 4oooo.00 were is the fairness
Public workers usually make far less than the average wage for that job, the benefit is usually a guaranteed pension. It's the least we can do.
Why the pay should and benefits should be that high , that comes out of the real estate tax, and every year is highr because of percentage and all them get the raise among civilian is more on merit scale and not union pressure .
Beside public workers get a pension after 30 years work and military after 20 years service , then the come in with the double dipping .
If you spend the day running into burning buildings or chasing after folks who are shooting at you, then I will listen to you bitch. Till then, stuff it!
FedGov civil service can't "double dip". The military can, but again, spend your day putting your life on the line in s#!tty conditions...
In addition, while some state and local civil service employers do allow "double dipping", there are limitations. Many times it is without benefits (medical etc.)and at a lower pay rate. And if nothing else, the employer is no longer making payments to the pension plan on the employee's behalf. IOW, It usually costs the employer (and thus the tax payer) less to allow it than it would to hire someone new to replace them, and they get someone with experience to boot.
Please don't give me this sabb story , There is no fire every day nor every week , depending the district. They work only three days a week , you choose the job because you enjoy it . I have exposed to chemical on daily bases for 40 years so what, that was the job I chose.
As a kid you probably dreamed to be a fireman , so enjoy it , don't cry how dangerous it is . there are more causality in other jobs then among fireman.
The most dangerous job in the world is President of the United States. Nine percent of them (8 out of 44) have died on the job (i.e. during their term in office). This is a higher rate than spies, soldiers, police, firefighters, stunt pilots or human cannonballs. W. H. Harrison Taylor Lincoln Garfield McKinley Harding F. D. Roosevelt Kennedy Four were assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy. Probably the only "job" with a higher fatality rate is, by definition, suicide bomber. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I volunteer in my community on things like disaster relief, homeless shelter fundraisers etc. Why shouldn't I get more money than you? I'm helping people.
Good for you for been useful . I volunteer my time also with inmates in maximum detention prison, very dangerous job. So what, that is my choice
