Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.3 Tobacco Surtax CITY CLERK File # 0660-40 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 1, 2000 SUBJECT: ConsideratiOn of Proposition 28, Repeal Initiative of Proposition 10 Tobacco Surtax Prepared by: Jason Behrmann, Management Assistant ATTACHMENTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) Text of Proposition 28 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Argument in Favor of Proposition 28 Argument Against Proposition 28 RECOMMENDATION: 1) 3) Receive Report Discuss Proposition 28 Provide Direction to Staff FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Proposition 28 could have a limited financial impact on the City. It is estimated that local governments could experience an annual combined loss of $6 million due to decreased sales tax revenue resulting from lower tobacco prices. DESCRIPTION: At the January 18, 2000 Council Meeting, Councilmember McCormick requested that Proposition 28 be brought before the Council for discussion. Proposition 28- Repeal Initiative of Proposition 10 Tobacco Surtax, is a ballot measure that will appear on the March 7, 2000 California Primary Election Ballot. The California Attorney General states that Proposition 28 does the following: · Repeals additional $.50 per pack tax on cigarettes and equivalent increase in state tax on tobacco products previously enacted by Proposition 10 at November 3, 1998, election. Provides for elimination of funding for Proposition 10 early childhood development and smoking prevention programs. Prohibits imposition of additional surtaxes on the distribution of cigarettes or tobacco products unless enacted by the state legislature. H/cc-forms/agdastmt.doc COPIES TO: ITEM NO. Provides that all additional tobacco taxes previously collected under Proposition 10 shall be appropriated and expended at which time the California Children and Families First Trust Fund shall terminate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council receive the Report and discuss whether to take a public stance on Proposition 28. If the Council determines to publicly support or oppose the Proposition, Staff recommends that the Council direct Staff to draft a resolution for consideration at the next Council Meeting. CA Secretary of State - Primary Election 2000 - Text of Proposition 28, Page 1 of 2 Proposition 28 I Vote 2000 Home I Ballot Pamphlet Home I Next - Prop 29 I Secretary of State Home Repeal of Proposition 10 Tobacco Surtax. Initiative Statute. Text of Proposition 28 This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. This initiative measure adds a section to the Health and Safety Code, and amends a section of the Revenue and Taxation Code; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in BOLDED/UNDERLINED type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. Declaration of Findings and Purposes (a) In November, 1998, Californians adopted Proposition 10 which, among others things, imposed more than a 135% increase in the tax on tobacco products. (b) Funds derived from the increased tax are distributed to a new state commission and 58 county commissions creating an enormous bureaucracy made up of unelected political appointees. This new bureaucracy is unnecessary because existing law provides mechanisms for local governments to fund children's programs, including a "Childreffs Trust Fund" which distributes both federal and state funds to counties for child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs. (c) After the election, the office of the independent Legislative Analyst pointed out that neither the state Legislature nor the newly created state commission has any oversight or control over the expenditure of the nearly $700 million annually raised by the tax. Not only is there no accountability for the expenditure of taxpayer funds, but Proposition 10 does not identify existing and successful programs to be implemented or expanded. (d) The tax increase is extremely punitive and leveled against users of tobacco products, those least able to afford the massive tax increase. Yet, none of the funds raised by the tobacco tax are specifically dedicated to tobacco related education, prevention or research. (e) The most critical problem facing our children is our failing public education system. Yet, not one penny of the $700 million in taxes collected each http://www, ss.ca, gov/vote2000/VoterGuide/Propositions/28text.htm ATTACHMENT 1 CA Secretary of State - Primary Election 2000 - Text of Proposition 28, Page 2 of 2 year from Proposition 10 will go to public schools. In fact, Proposition 10 prohibits any of the new tax revenue to be used for schools. (f) Therefore, the voters of the state of California hereby repeal the tax increase imposed by Proposition 10 and the creation of an enormous new bureaucracy. At the same time, the voters encourage the Legislature to identify and fund effective programs that promote early childhood development from the prenatal stage to five years of age. SECTION 2. Repeal of Proposition 10 Tobacco Tax Section 30131.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read: 30131.2. (a) Except for In addition to the taxes imposed upon the distribution of cigarettes and tobacco products by Article 1 (commencing with Section 30101) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 30121) and any other taxes in this chapter, there shall be no additional surtax on the distribution of cigarettes or tobacco products unless adopted by a statute passed by the Legislature. there shall be imposed an additional surtax upon every distributor of cigarettes at the rate of twenty-five mills ($.025) for each cigarettes distributed. #strikeout#(b) In addition to the taxes imposed upon the distribution of tobacco products by Article 1 (commencing with Section 30101) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 30121), and any other taxes in this chapter, there shall be imposed an additional tax upon every distributor of tobacco products, based on the wholesale cost of these products, at a tax rate, as determined annually by the State Board of Equalization, which is equivalent to the rate of tax imposed on cigarette by subdivision (a). (b) All moneys collected pursuant to the taxes imposed by former Section 30131.2, as it existed on January 1, 1999, and in the California Children and Families First Trust Fund shall be appropriated pursuant to Section 30131.4 until all such monies are depleted, at which point the California Children and Families First Trust Fund shall be terminated. SECTION 3. Repeal of New Bureaucracy Created by Proposition 10 Section 130105.1 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 130105.1. After all monies collected pursuant to Section 30131.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and appropriated pursuant to Section 130105 are depleted, the California Children and Families First Trust Fund shall be terminated SECTION 4. Severability If any provision of this act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. Proposition 28 I Vote 2000 Home I Ballot Pamphlet Home I Next - Prop 29 I Secretary of State Home I http://www.ss.ca, gov/vote2000/VoterGuide/Propositions/28text.htm 01/27/2000 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst BACKGROUND T. his. measure repeals the excise tax imposed on cigarettes and other tobacco products by Proposition 10, adopte~t by the voters in November 1998. The measure also indirectly affects other programs funded by existing tobacco taxes--specifically, pro_grams funded by Proposition 99 of 1988. Proposition 10 created the California Children and Families First Program, in order to fund early childhood development programs and related activities. The program is funded by revenues generated by an increase in tl4e excise taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco Rroducts. Proposition 10 increased the excise tax on cigarette, s by 50. cents per pack beginning January 1, 1999, bringing the total state excise tax on this pr. oduct to 87 cents pe.r pack: The measure also increased the excise tax on other tobacco products, such as cigars, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, and snuff, in two ways: · I.t imposed ~a new excise tax on the~se, products ~equivalent {in terms of the wholesale costs of these items) to the 50 cents per pack tax on cigarettes, effective January 1, 1999. · It increased the preexisting excise t.ax on these prgducts by the equivalent of a 50 cents per pack increase in the tax on cigarettes, effective July 1, I999. Th. us, Be measure ultim.ately, increased the total excise tax on other tobacc, o products by the equivalent of a $1 per pack increase in the tax on cigarettes.. . Proposition 10 required that the. rev. enues generated by t.he new excise taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products be placed in a new special fundNthe California Cfiildren and Families First Trust Fund. These revenues primarily fund early childhoo.cl development progr.ams. In addition, small amounts ar.e used to offset revenue losses to Proposition 99 health education and research programs and Breast Cancer Fund resulting from the Proposftion 19 excise tax. . The revenues generated by the increase in.the prqexisti.ng e_x. cise tax on other tobacco products are directed to the Uigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund (for Proposition 99programs). Propos. ition 10 programs are carried out by state and county commissions. PROPOSAL This measure.eliminates certain provisions of Proposition 10. Specifically, it eliminates the Califdrnia Children. and Famil.ies ~_'lrst Trust Fund, once all previously collected taxes und. er P. roposition 10 are appropria, ted and expended. It also. eliminates the 50 cents pe.r pack excise tax on cigarettes and t_he equivalent tax on other tobacco products imposed by Proposition 10, which were effective January 1, 19.99. Finally, the.measure would have the effect qf eliminating the increase in the preexistin~ excise tax imposed on other tobacco products which took effect July. 1, 1-999. T.he measure does not specifically eliminate the state and county commissi, ons authorizedby. Proposition 10, although it does eliminate their source of funding. FISCAL EFFECT By repealing the provisions of Proposition 10, this proposition will elimina, te the cigarette and other tobacco product excise taxes used to fund the California Children and Families First Program. The measure may also lead ,to changes in revenues for Proposition 99 programs, the state s General Fund, and local governments. Below, we discuss these fiscal effects. Effect on California Children and Families First Trust Fund. We estimate that Proposition 10 will raise revenues of approximately $680 million in 1999-00, and declining amounts. thereafter, to fund early childhood development programs and activities. Thus, assuming this measure repealing Proposition 10 becomes effective the day following it_s passage, it would result in an estimated revenue reduction of approximately $215 million for 1999-00 (a partial-year effect). The estimated revenue reduction for 2000-01 is approximately $670 million, with declining annual amounts thereafter. There. is some uncertainty surroUndingAthese estimates, due to the difficulty of predicting the effects of recent increases in excise taxes, price increases f6r cigarettes, and the excise tax reduction being proposed. Effect on Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund Revenues. Th1% measure would have the overall effect of increasing revenues for Proposition 99 programs.by a few million dollars annually. This revenue effect is due to an increase in the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products caused by the price reduction in these products. Effect on Breast Cancer Fund Revenues. This measure would not lead to any change in revenues going to the Breast Cancer Fund. This is because the revenue-increase generated by increased consumpti.on stemming from the declYne in th.e price.of cigarettes andother tobacco prqducts is approximately e_qual to the offset amounts estimated to be pro. vided under Proposition 10, which will no longer occur under this measure. Effect on the State General Fund and Local Tax Revenues. This measure would result in a state General Fund revenue loss of approximately. $3 million in 1999-00 (partial year) and annual ldsses thereafter of about $7 million. For local governments, the estimated sales tax revenue reductions are estimated to be $2 million in 1999-00 (partial year).and approximately $6 .million an. nually thereafter. In general, the,s,e reductions occur because the increase in the General Fund s excise tax revenues (due to the increased sale of tobacco products) is not sufficient to compensate for the decline in sales tax revenue (due to the decline in the price of tobacco products). Other Potential Fiscal Effects. We identified two types of otential unknown long:term savi.ngs..from the passage of ropo. sition 10. Fi.rst, to the extent t_hat Proposition 10 results in a decrease in the consumption of toba. cco products, .it will probably reduce state and local health care costs by an unknown amount over the long term. Second, the additional expenditures on early childhood! development programs could result in state and local savings, over the long run, of unknown amounts in programs such as special education. Thus: this m. easure to repeal Proposition 10 would result in not realizing these potential savings. For text of Proposition 28 see page 145 P2ooo ATTACHMENT 2 Repeal of Proposition 10 Tobacco Surtax. Initiative Statute. Argument in Favor of Proposition 28 Whats best for children. Thats the essence of Prop 28. . Prop 28 repgals Prop 10. It. stops a $700,,O, O0, O00per year bureaucracy [,hat is supposed to work on 'early childhood deve. lopment. Prop 28 cuts taxes on citizens who smoke. It sends the issues to the Legislature. When can $700,000,000 per year be bad for children? 1) When the money is wasted. . T. he Office of the Independent Legislative Analyst stated. that neither county nor state offici,a,!s oversee or control the spendin, g. The Analyst concluded it will be.a challenge to ensure that the funds will be spent effectively". .Not one penny .has yet b. een spent on cI!ildren. iN. pt one penny t?as yet qeen spent on education. Not one penny haft yet been spent on tobacco research or to prevent teen smoking. . . Prop 1.0 participants have been told that no idea is too expensive or too crazy. In Los Angeles County, agencies already spend $3.8 billion annually7 on over 200 programs for children and parents outside of Prop 10. 2) When the money is spent to subsidize the rich and  werful. e primary use for .Prop 10 funds has been to publicize Rob Reiner. A political intrastructu, re is being, built for .his use. Local pohticians fight over who gets to dispense this money. 3) _When the money is used to drive people out of business. l~rivate child care providers can t participate in Prop 10 deliberations. Socmlized child care--along with loss of choi. ce, more burea.ucracy and rules, ancFa decline in quality--appears to be the goal of Prop 10 participants. 4) When the money is used in w.ay,,s that do harm. ,, Prop 10 advocates talk about new brain research that enables bureaucrats to be better parents than parents. This Brave New World approach to raising children contradicts what loving parents know about babies. Babies need love and attention. Money can't buy love and attention. Babies are best when parents find ways to shower them with love and attention. Optimists believe Prop 10 money will be used to make $700,000,000 per year in suggestions. Suggestions soon b.eco .me rules. Do you want Holl ~yy~ood and 58 commissions to make the rules for how to raise children? The tax itself is also bad. · The Boston Tea Party said "taxation without representation is tyranny." · Tl~e United States Uonstitution was designed to prevent tyranny by the mgjority. . Prop 10 violated botti of those principles. F,,ewer than.one out of four California adu, lts smoke. They can t win an election. Their legislators didn t vote on this. Prop 10 passed because many voters thought the. y were taxing Big Tobacco. Actually, BigTobacco doesnt pay this tax. Calif~rnia citizens pay it ail. Prop 10 is a bad law. That's why over 705,000 Californians signed petitions to pi. ace this initiative on the ballot. Big Tobacco hash t helped the .e[fo, rt to repeal P_r. op 10. Who do you want to be your kids mom? You? Then vote YES! On Prop 28! NED ROSCOE President, Cigarettes Cheaper! stores Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition TOBACCO COMPANIES DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR CHILDREN. THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT THEIR PROFITS. Prop 28 would repeal Prop 10. The tobacco companies are sponsoring, supporting and paying for Prop 28 for one reason and_ one reason only--to protect their profits. . Once again, the tobacco industr, y is try.lng to m, islead the public. T~ey lied when they said that smoking isn t harmful. Now they re lying about Prop 10. The facts about,Prop 1 O: · Prop 10 hasn t wasted money. In fact, Prop 10 has already. generated more than $60Omillion for healthcare and education for children and families in every California county.. · Prop, 10. is fun.ding a $7.milli. on anti-smoking campaign. That s the real reason the tobacco interests want to l~ill Prop 10. The facts about P. rqp 28: · Prop 28 would slash $680 million a y.ear in vital programs for children and families, including healthcare and immunizations, preschool education, and efforts to help children from families with drug and alcohol problems. · Prop 28 would cut funding for anti-smoking efforts that will .help prevent smoking by pregnant women and help avoid thousands of premature births per year. · Prop 28 is strongly opposed by leading health, education and-community groups, including the hARP; the American Cancer Society California Division; the California School Boards Assocfation; and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. ON MARCH ?w, SAY NO TO TOBACCO. VOTE NO ON PROP 28. JACQUELINE ANTEE State President, AARP ROSALYN BIENENSTOCK, R.R.T., M.P.H. Chai~, American Lung Association of California MARY BERGAN President, CaliFornia Federation oF Teachers ?6 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for a, ATTACHMENT 3 Repeal of Proposition 10 Tobacco Surtax. Initiative Statute. Argument Against Proposition 28 THE MOST IMPORTANT THING VOTERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PROPOSITION 28 IS THAT IT'S SPONSORED AND SUPPORTED B Y TOBACCO COMPANIES. When it comes to the health and welfare of California families, can_you think of anyone you trust less? In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 10--T.he California Children and Families Initiative--which raised the tobacco ,tax to support a wide range of programs to protect children s heal.th and help young chiIdren enter school re.ady to Learn. The tobacco companies s. pent $30 million .to dele. at Fropositign 10, but failed. Now they are trying to thwart the wilr of the voters and repeal Proposition 10 by passing Proposition 28. . Time a. nd again, the tobacco giants have shown that they'll ~o anything to protect their profits--inclu.ding lying to Uongress, covering up the health facts about tobacco, marke.ting cigarettes t.o c,.hildren: and. usin. g false adv. ertising. The tobacco interests don t care that the tobacco tax they want [o eliminate with Prop 28 is already helping ensure a brighter tUture for our children. Prol?osition 28 will slash over $680 million a year from critical pro,rams that benefit our children, includ(n~ Healthcare for children including immunizations and boosters; · Preschool education opportun, ities and childcare; . · Smoking prevention aimed at pregnant women and parents of young children; · Helping children from families with drug and alcohol pro§lems; and · Helping mothers care for themselves and their babies during pregnancy and infancy. These programs prevent expensive and tragic health problems. For example, smoking during pregnancy causes thousands of babies to be born prematurely each year, and greatly increases the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. By cutting programs that prevent smoking by pregnant women., ?roposifion 28 will increase premature births and other health problems. Proposition 28 is strongly opposed by these leading health care, education, and community organizations: · AARP: · American Cancer SocietY' California Division; · American Heart Association of California; : American Lung Association of California; California Medical Association; · California Nurses Association; · California School Boards Association; · Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; · ChildCare Resource & Referral Network; · Para Los Nifios Child Development Center; and · Wu Yee Children's Services. Who do you think cares more about the health and well-being of our children--the tobacco companies or these nonprofit, independent groups asking you to V6te NO on Prdposition 28? The tobacco companies have millions of dollars on the line--since Proposition 10's passage, t. obacco sales in the state have been cut by 30 percent. That is why the tobacco companies will t, ry every trick in the bo,o,k to get you to vote for Prop 28. They lltry to scare you. They 11 try to change the su, b, ject. ~ome will even spend hundreds of millions of dollars on image ads to convince you that they care about the health and weIfare of your community. You know better. Say NO to the tobacco companies. VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 28. PAUL MURATA, M.D. President, American Cancer Socie(y, California Division WILLIAM D. NOVELLI President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids KAY McVAY, R.N. President, California Nurses Association Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition. ~.8 None of the,m, onqy co,,llected under Prop 10 has been spent. To say Prop 28 slashes'spending is deceitful. Prop 10hasn't heTped a single child. WillProp 1-0 ever help a child?. No! . Those who plan to rece. ive the Prop 10 money a.re shock, ed that we want to derail this gravy train before it leaves the station. Cigarettes Cheaper! started Prop 28 to stand up for our customers. Through Prop 28, we a~lvance a basic American principle: do good. Learn more at www. voteprop28, com or call us at 1-800-Cheaper! Prop 10 has been a bonanza for Cigarettes Cheaper! because more customers came to us for a cheaper price. Prop 10 produces more than $10,000 per week in extra profit for u.s. Financially, we may lose more from Prop 28 than some of .the grant-seeking .associations who oppose it. Still, Prop 28 is the bight th~ng to do. , -What's best for children? Its too simple to decide that smoking is bad so taxes are good. To repeal a fundamentally flawed program, to say parents must be responsible for raising ,t, heir own children, t.o, stop the seed money for a huge government knows best' program, VOTE YES on Prop 28. Yes, this will lift a heavy tax burden fro.m, our customers. More important than that, please decide whats best for children and taxpayers. Prop 10 must be repealed before millions of dollars are .wasted--and young lives are changed for the worse. Please study this carefulIy, then VOTE YES on Prop 28. NED ROSGOE President, Cigarettes Cheaper! stores ATTACHMENT 4 P2000 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked fo: