Q How much money did Kansas receive in 2008 from taxes on tobacco?
A In Fiscal Year 2008, the state of Kansas collected $112,704,560 in cigarette taxes and another $5,547,754 from tobacco products tax, according to Steven Brunkan, office of policy and research for the Kansas Department of Revenue.
The state received another $229,194 in licensing and registration fees, for a total of $118,481,508 in funds deriving from cigarettes and tobacco products.
Q How much money did Lyon County receive in 2008 from taxes on tobacco?
A Nothing. “All of the funds are deposited into the state general fund,” Brunkan said. “None of the tax is distributed back to cities or companies.”
Q How much money did Kansas receive in 2008 from taxes on alcohol/beer?
A The state imposes three types of liquor taxes: gallonage, enforcement and excise tax, Brunkan said.
The excise tax is 10 percent. The enforcement tax is 8 percent, which is levied on liquor store sales. The gallonage tax varies on liquor brought into the state or manufactured in Kansas, he said.
In FY 2008, liquor excise tax was $35,613,659; enforcement tax was $49,982,534; and gallonage tax was $20,702,473, for a total of $106,298,666 in liquor-related taxes.
Q How much money did Lyon County receive in 2008 from taxes on alcohol/beer?
A Lyon County received nothing from the gallonage and enforcement tax collections, which are deposited into the state’s general fund, Brunkan said.
“Only the liquor excise tax is distributed back to the city and/or county where the sales occurred, and then only part of the receipts are distributed back to cities and counties.”
Liquor excise is divided in this way: 25 percent for the state general fund, 5 percent into the Community Alcoholism and Intoxication Programs Fund, and the remaining 70 percent for distribution to cities and counties.
“If an establishment is located in a city with a population of 6,000 or more, the city gets all 70 percent,” he said.
If the establishment is in a city with less than 6,000 population, the city receives two-thirds and the county receives one-third.
The county receives the entire 70 percent if the establishment is outside city limits.
According to records from Lyon County Treasurer Dora Hartig, distributions from liquor excise taxes in FY 2008 in this area were:
F Lyon County, $5,032.41
F Americus, $3,578.52
F Emporia, $266,672.09
F Olpe, $6,488.26
The total receipts for Lyon County’s share of liquor monies was $281,771.28.
“As you see, most the cigarette, tobacco and liquor taxes are deposited into the state general fund, which funds the operations of state government,” Brunkan said.
“As you are aware, a large part of the state’s budget is funding education and social welfare programs. So, although the funds are not directly distributed back to the cities and counties, some of the money is spent on programs and services within a city or county.”
Readers with questions on topics of local interest may send them to Because You Asked, in care of The Emporia Gazette, Drawer C, Emporia KS 66801. Questions need to be signed, but names will not be used. Anonymous questions will not be answered.
madpoet (anonymous) says...
It's not hard to see where the questioner is driving with this. If bars close down, Emporia will lose tax dollars along with the money to venders and payroll etc. Smart move.
March 21, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Now the next question:
Where did the city of Emporia spend that $266,672.09?
I want actual dollar amounts for each program or fund.
Steve Corbin
A concerned taxpayer
March 21, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Wonder where they will try and recover those tax $'s when and if they get their wish to banish smoking? Emporia has lost my business on tobacco sales. I'm sick of the unfair taxation on tobacco products, and of BS claims/agenda of the CAE. When I get a list of the CAE supporters, I plan to boycott their individual businesses as well. One of the first publicized public meetings they held was at a locally owned pizza restaurant, won't spend another dime in there again if the ban goes thru.
March 21, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
http://emporiansfordrugawareness.com/...
I didn't see a lot of business owners on there, though. At least not that I recognized anyways.
March 22, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
CAE should be proud to come forward with a listing of their members/contributors/supporters.
March 22, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
admireed:
It's CHE, committee for a healthier Emporia now. I know it's confusing, but when you get all that tax-free money and grants your orginization can't campaign directly, so Clean Air Emporia started CHE. Pretty soon & they will have used up the whole darn alphabet.
March 22, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
You forgot to include the $50,000,000.00 Kansas received from the Master Settlement. This money goes into the general fund. If we outlaw smoking the settlement disappears- POOF.
March 23, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mypoint (anonymous) says...
The only business owner I saw was the insurance guy. The rest look like city and county employees...
March 23, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Cracky is one of the grant recipients, I'll bet ya! I guess you socialists are not about greed. The health and well being of the general public are in THEIR OWN HANDS. Do you think that people want you dictating everything they do? I don't think you are all that awesome, to think that YOU are qualified to tell free Americans what they can and can't do. Oh you powerful Wizard of OZ. Open the curtain and we'll find a small person making alot of noise! And your buddies on the broomsticks are getting annoying!
March 23, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
In our fragile economy the tax issue is something that needs to be seriously considered. We currently have a government that thinks "when in debt spend spend spend". They get this money from taxes so it is logical to consider the affect this ban will have on taxes.
Under the current pre-ban laws shs is very easily avoidable and people can easliy avoid it themselves if they choose to. Individuals taking responsibility for were they take themselves is without a doubt the most reasonable solution to this problem.
The current pre-ban laws and the free market are doing a great job of containing shs to a very limited number of places. I very rarely encounter shs. This ban is unnecessary. Please vote NO. Thank you.
March 23, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Oh good grief, crack, so now you're a legislator? You must be that "someone" who has to tell "free Americans" what to do. Well, well, well, you finally showed your hand. You see, this is part of that slippery slope we keep referring to. Now we can see that you're really in it for the power of telling everybody what to do.
March 23, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I really am a bit confused---who said, "It's always been this way.....?"
I keep seeing this quote and for the life of me, I didn't ever see an anti-ban person say that. If you are referring to our need for individual freedom "always being this way," then I would agree. If you are stating that the desire for some to control others has, "always been this way," I would agree with that too. I would even agree that it "has always been this way," in regards to the need to pass laws to protect citizens from being victims of otherwise unavoidable harms/damages. But if you are using,"it has always been this way," concerning the defense of smoking allowed establishments, I can't back you up there because anti-ban never claimed that as a relevant argument. The argument here, however, is that an additional law to protect citizens from something they can easily protect themselves from if they wish to, is a completely unnecessary and even discriminatory law. That has nothing to do at all with "it's always been this way."
March 23, 2009 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Cracky, I'm glad George Washington and the other writer's of our Constitution did not believe that obeying current laws was the way to go. Guess they would have just meekly gone along with the British and WE WOULD NOT be the great country that we are today.
March 23, 2009 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
In all actuality, crack, the anti-ban people DO think that tobacco use should be regulated. We don't think it should be regulated MORE than it currently is, but we think it shouldn't be regulated less than it currently is, either. You have assumed that they THINK that "it has always been this way." If you go back to the 1990's, though, you'll see that an additional law was passed at that time, changing the way "it had always been." No one has claimed that that regulation should never have been made, so, once again, your assumption is based on your mind-set, not ours.
As for the actual anti-ban argument, which I addressed above, not being logical, we can't really argue yours against mine and either one of us lay claim to the absolute high ground. Each person's logic is flawed and as logic dictates, subject to change because logic in and of itself is not absolute. I firmly believe that the logic I see is based on more absolutes than yours and, therefore, I believe it is more right than yours. I also believe that you refuse to see ANY logic in my logic, but I know that I can see some in yours. I understand that logic if the starting point is where you believe it to be, but I believe it to be elsewhere. That is why it was important for this issue to be voted on--so that many logical angles can be assimilated and determined. If this ban passes, I will be disappointed at our collective snobbery and ill-founded logic, but at least the people will have made the decision about what they will or won't change, which keeps the power of the law in our hands.
March 23, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
It's time to re-call our Senator barnette. He has slipped the smoking ban into house bill 2221 , The Death Penalty bill. Call his office demand his resignation.
Call Don Hills office demand his nay vote.
Call peggy masts office demand her nay vote.
It's time to get rid of these agenda driven hucksters.
Steve
March 23, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Cracky, do you clock out from the Health Department to lobby? I hope so. If the County Commissioners find out you have all this free time, you are liable to get laid off. Good luck to all in Emporia. Hope you replaced all your signs that were stolen? The ban crowd is loud and well paid, but they are very small in number. Too bad that we small business people and those who smoke, will be far less able, and much less willing, to help out with charity causes in our community, should a ban pass. With the new tobacco taxes I'll have to cut back on all donations to the police and firemen's charlties, veteran's causes, MDA, bowling and bingo charities, NO more Kansas Lottery tickets, (those fund schools) MUCH less eating out, and most all activities I have always participated in. I guess they don't want our money anyway, probably smells like smoke. Too bad these groups did not try and fight back with us.
March 23, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I was waiting for cracky to get back:
My business, (open to the public, except you), is regulated now.
At least once a year I am inspected on:
BUILDING CODES: electrical, machanical, structural.
FIRE CODES: exits, emergency lighting, fire extinguishers, and occupancy limits.
HEALTH CODES: food preperation, safe food handeling, rodent/pest control, temperature controls, employee hygine,
restroom cleanliness, hell we even have to have self-closing trash dumpsters outside to protect the health of our customers.
MY INSURANCE COMPANY: all of the above:
Why then, do none of these include an air quality test for second hand smoke?
Could it be the government doesn't really consider shs a health risk.
Take your greedy and smoke it!
Steve Corbin
Owner Town Royal
The bar you are not welcome in.
March 23, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Uh-uh. Apples and oranges ALERT!!!! Unsound buildings and contaminated food are difficult to detect without some kind of thorough investigation--something that isn't practical for each prospective patron to determine BEFORE or immediately upon entering a building. Even with the proper education, it wouldn't be feasible. And, by the way, I've never met anyone who "aren't concerned with structurally unsound buildings or contaminated food."
Most people do know the consequences and do care, but can't properly inspect these things. Posting a sign would suffice if the owners would 'fess up, but they can't be trusted to do that--they wouldn't have any business.
Now, compare to SHS which CAN and is getting education attention and IS easily detected BEFORE or upon entering a building. But how about that business owner? Will they willingly post a sign that would let the prospective patron know it's there? Why, yes. Yes, they would! See? Not the same at all.
March 23, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
1st it because of health
now it's because of legality.
NO AMOUNT of arguing with crack will show her that shs is not dangerous in my bar and I think we should all just ban crack.
Steve
March 23, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof;
Do you notice how many things ole cracky is afraid of?
Could it be
March 23, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
crack--
I have to ask.....why do you bother? I know you are fighting the good fight, but I really doubt rbow, oh4, meth, mrwho, seriously, bj et al are going to ever have that magical light bulb click on and realize that the ban is a good thing. I personally stand firm in my vote and I am sure you do as well. I just wonder why you continue to argue with them? Occasionally I jump in there to, mostly for entertainment value or out of pure frustration but I can only take so much and eventually just sit back and let them try to impose their will on you. I like your passion. I like your posts. I think we both stand on the correct side, but I have to wonder why you continue to try and change unchangeable minds?
March 23, 2009 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
"but I can only take so much and eventually just sit back and let them try to impose their will on you. "
Talk about entertainment.
Read your own words slvr, and tell us all that they don't sound like paracrack?
March 23, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Just one more and then I promise I'm done with replying to crack for a few days Steve.
crack:
IF the owners could be trusted to post these signs, there would be absolutely NO need for the laws. The problem is not with the substance, it is with the disclosure. Those laws got made because of people who really are out to hurt others or did not care if they poisoned others. SHS has not been proven to be a poison, and yet, the business owners are ready and willing to post that it is present for those who may feel harmed or are just offended by it. It is that willing disclosure of the owners that makes this ban completely unnecessary. The federal government has decided that it will suffice to place warning labels on things you buy or activities you can engage in that could harm or kill you. As long as those warnings are disclosed by those who would profit from them, there is not a need for a law. SHS is the same with the exception of being proven unsafe. The ones who would profit are perfectly willing to post a warning/sign, rendering a law unnecessary.
March 23, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Yes, rbow, I did notice all that fear. I also noticed that the answer wasn't to my statements per se. It seems from the answer that I asked about inspections or something--I am confused. I don't recall asking "why no inspections?" Crack must have been answering the voices instead. I'd advise against that magical light bulb that slvrnblk mentioned having in common with crack---I think that's what causes the voices.............................
YY4U:
I love your posts----keep them up. I love things that are hilarious because they are true.
March 23, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
In our fragile economy the tax issue is something that needs to be seriously considered. We currently have a government that thinks "when in debt spend spend spend". They get this money from taxes so it is logical to consider the affect this ban will have on taxes.
Under the current pre-ban laws shs is very easily avoidable and people can easliy avoid it themselves if they choose to. Individuals taking responsibility for were they take themselves is without a doubt the most reasonable solution to this problem.
The current pre-ban laws and the free market are doing a great job of containing shs to a very limited number of places. I very rarely encounter shs. This ban is unnecessary. Please vote NO. Thank you.
March 23, 2009 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
"SHS has not been proven to be a poison..."
Talk about entertaining, Stevie. That's one of the funniest things you've posted yet. What World are you hiding in? The World of Denial? Time for a reality check, my friend.
March 23, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Umm, HELLO!!! That was mine, irish---that's right, I said it. I stand by it too. Please, by all means prove me wrong. Start living a perfectly--and I mean PERFECTLY (we don't want to skew the results) healthy life: exercise, vitamins, fluids, diet, sleep, stress management, etc. Just burn cigarettes around you constantly and when you get sick from that and only that, I will give a public apology. Of course, you are going to have to have a complete physical including body scans and some more invasive screenings done first to make sure you are 100% healthy with no pre-existing conditions or predispositions......................and 24 hr. surveillance to ensure that you aren't compromising the deal. The burden of proof's on you, dude!
March 23, 2009 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"Not everyone is as "enlightened" as I am."
Well, aren't we just the narcissist?
March 23, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Here's a question to all the pro-ban people out there (other than where are our signs).
This is an honest question. Are you really pushing for this ban to protect the health of people you don't know, or are you pushing for this ban because you don't like smoky bars?
Serious question. I find it hard to believe (although it is impressive if you do) that you put this much thought, time, (taxpayer) money, and dedication to trying protecting the health of bar and restaurant employees and patrons, most of whom you probably have never or will never meet.
If you are really doing this for the employees and patron's health, don't you think that maybe you could have asked them their thoughts? Instead of slamming a new ordinance in front of the City Commission, and telling them that this is the only way that you will accept this ban, and that no changes can be made to it whatsoever. Maybe you could have asked the people that SHS (supposedly) affects the most their thoughts, or are you just hoping a "magical light bulb clicks on."
March 24, 2009 at 3:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Ok, I can't sleep, and now I'm getting P.O.'d. More rants.
Bobbi Sauder stood in front of the City Commission (I know she did, I was there), and said that she couldn't wait for The Noose to be non-smoking so she could go enjoy the live music they offer on Fridays. 3 weeks after The Noose went non-smoking, none of the CAE (or whatever they are calling themselves now) people have so much as glanced at the place.
Let's be realistic here. I know that they will not go in The Noose. You know they won't go in The Noose. They won't go in The Noose now anymore than they will go in Town Royal, Cole's, Mulligans, Sidetracks, The Purple Duck, J-Mo's, or any other bar after the ban. They might go to Bruff's, maybe. Do you honestly think they'll go to The Wagon Wheel, or S&S? Not very likely (unless they go there once for the sole reason they read this).
I honestly feel that, in Emporia, the people who would go to bars already do so, and the people that won't go to bars (ban or no ban), don't. I am not seeing this magical massive influx of new customers to bars in Emporia. I do feel, however, that the larger dance clubs will be less affected by the smoking ban than the small, neighborhood bars.
March 24, 2009 at 3:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Another complaint I have is this: Right now, in one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression, do you REALLY, HONESTLY think the City Government should have as a priority whether people smoke in bars?
Let's face the facts here guys and gals. The city is (at least) $50 million in debt. Right now, with the way the economy is, no new businesses are coming to Emporia with the exception of Hill's (maybe), anytime soon. Lowe's is a PRIME example of that. (Ohh YEAH, we can't WAIT to put a store in Empor.....Ohh, I guess we CAN wait.) So what do these geniuses do? They get the City Commission to pass a ban that, based on the owners of the businesses (some of whom have been doing that same business for 30+ years) best estimates, will cripple their businesses 20%-50% or more. These business owners were completely ignored by CAE, and told that regardless of how they felt about THEIR businesses, their revenue wouldn't drop off because it didn't drop off in Lawrence. Which it did, they just told the City Commission it didn't.
March 24, 2009 at 3:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Then, the City Commission decides to hold a public forum on the topic, and EASILY 85% of the people at the forum were strongly opposed to the ban, so what does the Commission do anyway? Yep, they vote it in! Way to represent guys! Let's not forget the little (for lack of a better term) BS meetings that happened between EOB and (at the time) CAE. These people were definitely NOT open for any discussion or compromises. To me, it seemed as though they were there because they had to be, just to go through the motions, rather than make any real attempt at actual dialogue.
What REALLY bothered me was the fact that at the first commission meeting, they flat out told the City Commission that they were adamantly opposed to this coming to a vote.
To me, this threw up a HUGE red flag.
Ok, I gotta quit this before I;
A) Get banned from here
B) Fall asleep on my keyboard
C) All of the above
March 24, 2009 at 4:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Moving to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
March 24, 2009 at 5:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )