CALIFORNIA VAPERS: Things are getting ugly...

[Katya]

"This bill would, on or after the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 90 days on or after the effective date of the bill, impose an additional tax on..."

 

[FlamingoTutu]

"This bill would, on or after the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 90 days on or after the effective date of the bill, impose an additional tax on..."

Off the top of your head, is that just for the last two or all of them?

ETA - And I mean off the top of your head. No need for any of to go look right now and get more depressed. How would they issue all those licenses in 90 days?

 

[nicnik]

I don't even remember who the California Wellness Foundation is, but their poll findings don't surprise me and it's not hard to see what the agenda was there.

Mission, Goals & Philosophy

The foundation's grantmaking is grounded in the social determinants of health research that states that where people live and work, their race and ethnicity, and their income can impact their health and wellness
.............

Social, economic and environmental factors all play a role in ensuring the wellness of communities throughout California.

Cal Wellness believes that every individual is personally responsible for adopting healthy habits. Widespread agreement exists about the dangers of smoking and substance abuse, the importance of physical and emotional fitness, and the effectiveness of good nutrition.
...................
Our Guiding Principles

Guided by our mission, we pursue the following goals through our grantmaking:

to address the particular health needs of traditionally underserved populations, including low-income individuals, people of color, youth and residents of rural areas

It's an EXTREMELY regressive tax.

 

[zoiDman]

Off the top of your head, is that just for the last two or all of them?

Yes. What I posted was taken from the Text of SB-13 and AB-16.

Bill Text - ABX2-16 Public health: cigarette and tobacco products: electronic cigarettes: taxes: California Health Care, Research, and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2015.

Bill Text - SBX2-13 Public health: cigarette and tobacco products: electronic cigarettes: taxes: California Health Care, Research, and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2015.

BTW - Do a Text search for "90"

 

[stevegmu]

It isn't going to pass. BT now gives a lot of money to California Democrats. They don't want that gravy train to end. They will consider it to appeal to the 'progressive' residents of California, but there will be a reason it doesn't pass...

 

[Katya]

We're so screwed...

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a very Happy New Year to all CA vapers.

 

[zoiDman]

BTW - ABX2-16 and SBX2-13 are "Parallel Bills. Right?

Meaning it is the Same Bill, just introduced in Both Houses to Fast-Tract it so it is Passed within a Legislative Session.

 

[nicnik]

I sent a message to my state senator that I opposed the bill in general, though an amendment to remove e-cigs would be better than nothing, and included the article.

That's a very good way to state your views to legislators.

 

[zoiDman]

We're so screwed...

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a very Happy New Year to all CA vapers.

Buck Up Kid-O. It aint Over just Yet.

Kicking Vapers around is One Thing. Poking Smokers and BT with a Sharp Stick is Another.

And I hope people are Writing down How Did What when it comes to Yeh or Ney Time. I'm a Firm Believer that Re-Elections can be Paybacks also.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Yes. What I posted was taken from the Text of SB-13 and AB-16.

Bill Text - ABX2-16 Public health: cigarette and tobacco products: electronic cigarettes: taxes: California Health Care, Research, and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2015.

Bill Text - SBX2-13 Public health: cigarette and tobacco products: electronic cigarettes: taxes: California Health Care, Research, and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2015.

BTW - Do a Text search for "90"

Thanks. I posted the ETA too late for you to see it. I don't think I could stand to do the search right now. Though I do have a spanking new bottle of vodka handy.

BTW - ABX2-16 and SBX2-13 are "Parallel Bills. Right?

Meaning it is the Same Bill, just introduced in Both Houses to Fast-Tract it so it is Passed within a Legislative Session.

Correct, to my understanding. And I haven't hit the vodka yet.

It isn't going to pass. BT now gives a lot of money to California Democrats. They don't want that gravy train to end. They will consider it to appeal to the 'progressive' residents of California, but there will be a reason it doesn't pass...

Guess you missed the part where the repubs get BT money too. They won't pass it, right up until they do.

 

[Katya]

It isn't going to pass. BT now gives a lot of money to California Democrats. They don't want that gravy train to end. They will consider it to appeal to the 'progressive' residents of California, but there will be a reason it doesn't pass...

Buck Up Kid-O. It aint Over just Yet.

Kicking Vapers around is One Thing. Poking Smokers and BT with a Sharp Stick is Another.

And I hope people are Writing down How Did What when it comes to Yeh or Ney Time. I'm a Firm Believer that Re-Elections can be Paybacks also.

I know.

But I'm worried.

Somebody please tell me what to do next. We need a new CTA.

 

[stevegmu]

Republicans in California? They don't control anything in the state; well, maybe some small obscure towns...
What do politicians like more than being cheered for saving children or increasing the state's coffers? Money for their campaigns...

Who defeated SB-648?

 

[FlamingoTutu]

We're so screwed...

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a very Happy New Year to all CA vapers.

You forgot Halloween.

But they can't get the tax in there before that.

Republicans in California? They don't control anything in the state; well, maybe some small obscure towns...
What do politicians like more than being cheered for saving children or increasing the state's coffers? Money for their campaigns...

You forgot perks for themselves.

 

[zoiDman]

...

What do politicians like more than being cheered for saving children or increasing the state's coffers? Money for their campaigns...

Duh....

Why do you think Much of this Garbage is being Proposed.

 

[stevegmu]

Duh....

Why do you think Much of this Garbage is being Proposed.

To appeal to the 'progressives.' In the end, BT money and njoy money will prevail...

 

[Katdarling]

We're so screwed...

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a very Happy New Year to all CA vapers.

You forgot Halloween.

But they can't get the tax in there before that.


You forgot perks for themselves.

Ya took the words right off of my keyboard, Tutu.

Here's my costume, but don't you worry..... I'll be wearing a bullet proof vest underneath.

 

[skoony]

BTW, behind the counter, is right above the eye line of the candy products at the counter. IJS

here in Minnesota i have seen these,(mostly the gum i believe) displayed at the checkout counter
either next to the register or, in the open displays under the counter.
i will make it a point to be more observant when i go shopping to
determine the extent this is happening.

CA just introduced two new bills to the special sessions that would 1. increase the cigarette wholesale tax by $2 per pack, and 2. Tax e-cigarettes at an equivalent rate(whatever is equivalent to $2.87 per pack?)

when i switched in July of 2013 i was using cigalikes. when i used the net to research purchases
and general info on e-cigs most of the cigalike makers made claims as to equivalence of consumption
of juice as compared to cigarettes. many claimed to have determined these using various
scientific methods. claims of 1 to 2 packs equivalence per carto were not uncommon.
refill instructions varied from 16 to 22 drops per carto. whether or not these were accurate
comparisons i don't know. i smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day and, when i quit i used
about one and a half to two cartridges per day.
if they use this to determine tax rates it works out to roughly 1 to 1.5 ml a pack.
regards
mike

 

[Lessifer]

here in Minnesota i have seen these,(mostly the gum i believe) displayed at the checkout counter
either next to the register or, in the open displays under the counter.
i will make it a point to be more observant when i go shopping to
determine the extent this is happening.

when i switched in July of 2013 i was using cigalikes. when i used the net to research purchases
and general info on e-cigs most of the cigalike makers made claims as to equivalence of consumption
of juice as compared to cigarettes. many claimed to have determined these using various
scientific methods. claims of 1 to 2 packs equivalence per carto were not uncommon.
refill instructions varied from 16 to 22 drops per carto. whether or not these were accurate
comparisons i don't know. i smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day and, when i quit i used
about one and a half to two cartridges per day.
if they use this to determine tax rates it works out to roughly 1 to 1.5 ml a pack.
regards
mike

After some thought, rereading the bill, and a discussion on facebook, I think the tax will work like this:
Cigarettes are about $3 wholesale(I think), and the new tax will be $2.87, which is roughly 95%
So, vapor products, will be taxed at about 95% of wholesale. No fancy math about what actually equals a pack of cigarettes.

If a B&M pays $10 for a bottle of liquid right now, it will soon cost them $19.50. You can bet that cost increase will be passed along to us.

ETA: it is also unclear what this tax would actually apply to. They seem to want to include hardware, 0mg, and anything that can be used to make e-liquid in the definition of tobacco product. So will VG at wallymart have an increased tax? Batteries?

 

[zoiDman]

After some thought, rereading the bill, and a discussion on facebook, I think the tax will work like this:
Cigarettes are about $3 wholesale(I think), and the new tax will be $2.87, which is roughly 95%
So, vapor products, will be taxed at about 95% of wholesale. No fancy math about what actually equals a pack of cigarettes.

If a B&M pays $10 for a bottle of liquid right now, it will soon cost them $19.50. You can bet that cost increase will be passed along to us.

ETA: it is also unclear what this tax would actually apply to. They seem to want to include hardware, 0mg, and anything that can be used to make e-liquid in the definition of tobacco product. So will VG at wallymart have an increased tax? Batteries?

It could be.

The People I have talked with who have Some Knowledge in this area seem to think that a Tax on e-Liquids would be Pegged to the PAD Concept.

So what would happen in a Perfect Tax World would be Anyone who Vapes would be Coughing up $2.87 cents to Calfornia. And eventually $1.01 to the Feds. This would "Balance the Books" so to speak for a Smoker or a Vaper. Because Most Smokers (on average) are PAD Smokers.

The Problem of course is how to Achieve a $2.87/day for a Vaper?

Hard to do it via ml/day. It would seem More Equitable to Tax each mg of Nicotine Purchased. Use more mg's, pay more Tax. Use Less mg's, pay less Tax. Use No mg, pay No Tax.

But No One said Taxes are Always Equitable. And I have a Feeling that this current set of Tax Bill(s) will prove this Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt.

 

[Lessifer]

It could be.

The People I have talked with who have Some Knowledge in this area seem to think that a Tax on e-Liquids would be Pegged to the PAD Concept.

So what would happen in a Perfect Tax World would be Anyone who Vapes would be Coughing up $2.87 cents to Calfornia. And eventually $1.01 to the Feds. This would "Balance the Books" so to speak for a Smoker or a Vaper. Because Most Smokers (on average) are PAD Smokers.

The Problem of course is how to Achieve a $2.87/day for a Vaper?

Hard to do it via ml/day. It would seem More Equitable to Tax each mg of Nicotine Purchased. Use more mg's, pay more Tax. Use Less mg's, pay less Tax. Use No mg, pay No Tax.

But No One said Taxes are Always Equitable. And I have a Feeling that this current set of Tax Bill(s) will prove this Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt.

If taxes were equitable, vapers wouldn't be paying an excise tax for non-existent health risks.