UC Berkeley | Institute of Governmental Studies Library
|
|
Hot Topics 2006 | Proposition 86 | Tobacco Tax Act of 2006 UC Berkeley | Institute of Governmental Studies Library |
|
|
|
|
Election Results Update [8 November 2006] For updated results on all propositions, see the Secretary of State website.
Background Cigarettes in California are subject to the California Cigarette Tax and the Tobacco Products Surtax as mandated by Proposition 10 (1998). Currently, that amounts to a tax of 87 cents per pack. Other tobacco projects are taxed at around the same rate. Proposition 10 was passed by voters in 1998 and was created to provide funding for community health care programs, child care and education programs for young children and families, early childhood development programs, and programs to educate the public about the negative effects of smoking. Excise taxes on tobacco products raise approximately $1.1 billion a year in California.   Of the 87 cents spent on each pack of cigarettes:
Tobacco products are taxed by the Tobacco Products Surtax which is currently 46.7% of the cost of the product. Tobacco products include cigars, unrolled tobacco, snuff, chewing tobacco, and any other product which contains 50 percent tobacco or more. The California State Board of Equalization determines the annual surtax rate. Proposition 86 would amend the state constitution by raising the tax on cigarettes in California an additional $2.64 per pack above the current cost of about $4.00 a pack, effectively raising the cost of a pack of cigarettes to close to $7.00. The Board of Equalization is required by state law to increase taxes on other tobacco products in an amount equivalent to any increase in the tax on cigarettes. Prop. 86, therefore, would increase the excise tax on other tobacco products. Proposition 86 would likely increase excise tax revenues for about $2.1 billion annually in 2007-08. Revenues from the tax increase would go into a new fund called the Tobacco Tax of 2006 Trust Fund. An as-yet-undetermined amount of the additional tax revenues would be used to fund Proposition 10 programs which would lose likely lose money with the passage of Proposition 86. As Proposition 86 adds a large amount to cigarettes and tobacco products, a reduction in sales is expected. The amount needed to backfill the Proposition 10 programs would be determined by the State Board of Equalization. 52.75% of the money left after funding Proposition 10 programs would go to a Health Treatment and Services Account to pay for hospitals emergency services that serve poor patients. Some funds would be used for non profit clinics in impoverished areas and for health care for uninsured persons. The account would also pay into nursing education programs provided by the University of California, the California State University, California community colleges, and private nursing programs. After the Proposition 10 money has been allocated, 42.25 percent of the funds left would allocated to a new Health Maintenance and Disease Prevention Account. The money would be allocated as followed:
Proportion 86 would require the state to continue to reimburse physicians who treat uninsured persons who are poor as mandated by Proposition 99 (1988). It would prevent the funds allocated from being appropriated by the annual state budget act which is passed by the legislature and the governor. In effect, neither the governor nor the legislature would be unable to change the amount appropriated. Proposition 86 mandates that the revenues raised by the initiative would be used specifically for the amounts detailed in the measure. Hospitals which receive Proposition 86 funds would have to limit what they charge for certain emergency and trauma care services for poor families. Some funding would go to hospitals to coordinate certain medical services with other hospitals. Finally, the proposition requires the Department of Health Services to issue an annual report describing all programs that received additional cigarette tax funding with descriptions of how the funding was used. Campaign Finance Browse our webpage listing major contributors to all of the campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures here. Other notes:
Proponents of Proposition 86 come from the health industry, health education groups and the anti-smoking community. They believe that the measure would save hundreds of thousands of lives, prevent smoking habits in the young, and would compel more than a half a million smokers to quit. They say that billions would be saved in health care costs and that the programs implemented by the measure would increase state revenues by $2.2 billion a year. Proponents contend that the funds created by the proposition would be subject to careful fiscal analysis to prevent allocation to other areas of the budget. They believe that the programs initiated by Proposition 86 are vital public health needs that target portions of the population not presently served. Opponents believe that Proposition 86 is not written to encourage Californians to stop smoking but rather is designed to net millions of dollars for large hospital corporations. They say that the proposition does not guarantee where the funds will go and that any governmental oversight is inadequate. Critics believe that the initiative will increase California's debt over time as revenues from cigarette sales will decline. Some believe that the increased cost of cigarettes and other tobacco products will cause an increase in stolen or smuggled tobacco goods. Finally, opponents disagree with amending the constitution for the purposes mandated by Proposition 86 as it becomes un-alterable by the governor or legislature. Opponents of the initiative come from anti-tax groups, law enforcement groups, small business coalitions and members of the tobacco industry.
Tax on Cigarettes Individual Campaign Committees League of Women Voters of Education Fund non-partisan analysis
Coalition for a Healthy California No on Proposition 86
Analyzing the Vote for Selected Propositions, Los Angeles Times Exit Poll, Nov. 9, 2006. Exit poll: Complete poll data, Los Angeles Times Exit Poll, Nov. 9, 2006. Voters closely divided on Props. 87, 86 and 85 one week before the election. Field Poll, Release 2215, Nov. 2, 2006. Drop in support for Propositions 86 (Tax on Cigarettes) and 87 (Alternative Energy/Oil Tax). Field Poll, Release 2215, Oct. 4, 2006. Feinstein, Brown and Lockyer ahead, other statewide races close or tied; Support for infrastructure bonds and propositions 86 and 87 lukewarm. Big early leads for Prop. 86 (cigarette taxes), Prop. 87 (alternative energy/oil tax) and especially Prop. 83 (sex offenders).
What would Proposition 86 mean for California? Sacramento: California Budget Project, Sep. 2006. Cigarette and Tobacco Products Taxes. Sacramento: State Board of Equalization, June 2006. Alamar, Benjamin; Mahmoud, Leila; Glantz, Stanton A. State Cigarette Excise Tax Rates and Ranking. Washington D.C.: Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, July 5, 2006. Sweeney, James P.
The following citations include links to full-text articles online, when they are available. Some restrictions on use apply, due to licensing requirements. For more information, see Tips for Finding Full-Text Articles. Benson, Clea. Young, Samantha. [Opinion]. Geissinger, Steve. Benson, Clea.
"Measure Called Both Lifesaver, Tax Abuse: Backers say tobacco levy would cut smoking, boost services; foes say hospital industry would profit," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 25, 2006.
Access World News (UCB) Sweeney, James P. "Initiative would put the squeeze on smokers," San Diego Union-Tribune, Oct. 19, 2006. Access World News (UCB) Hoops, Stephanie. "A burning debate Proposition 86 would increase cigarette taxes $2.60 a pack," Ventura County Star, October 17, 2006. Access World News (UCB) Cobb, Nikki. Lum, Rebecca Rosen.
"Politics of pulpit pop up on left," West County Times (Richmond, CA), Oct. 16, 2006 Access World News (UCB) Saunders, Debra J. [Opinion]. "Designer prices, not designer government," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 8, 2006. San Francisco Chronicle DeArmond, Michelle. Gledhill, Lynda. Schultz, E.J. Johnson, Lauren A. [Opinion] Benson, Clea. Conaughton, Gig. Finnegan, Michael. [Opinion]. Benson, Clea [Opinion]. Benson, Clea. [Opinion]. [Opinion]. Hoops, Stephanie. "Two taxes top the November initiatives,"
Porterville Recorder, The,
Aug. 9, 2006. "Sides square off in fight to hike tax on tobacco Critics predict increase in crime, eventual drying up of revenue Cigarette smokers may have to shell out $2.60 more per pack," Ventura County Star, Aug. 7, 2006. Author: Stephanie Hoops Access World News (UCB) [Opinion]. Geissinger, Steve. Sanders, Jim. Hecht, Peter. Colliver, Victoria. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ©2006 Regents of the University of California | This page by Institute of Governmental Studies Library staff | Last updated 28 November 2006 |