I've understood for a long time that a stepping stone to applying a "sin" tax is ensuring that the general public believes we need to "Protect The Children!" from it, whether that is true or not.
Are you starting to understand that?
Should the government parent your child?
- Thread starter Lessifer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I've understood for a long time that a stepping stone to applying a "sin" tax is ensuring that the general public believes we need to "Protect The Children!" from it, whether that is true or not.
Are you starting to understand that?
Really Doesn't Matter if you Call it a Sin Tax or Not. And it Really Doesn't Matter if the Tax is Supposed to "Save the Children" or Not.
e-liquids Will Be Tax.
e-liquids are already taxed, a sales tax, just like any other consumer good. What justification does anyone have to apply an additional tax?
Maybe they could call it the "California has 418 Billion Dollars of Debt and the Federal Government is 16 Trillions (That's Trillion with a "T") Dollars in the Hole and we don't want to Cut Spending if it Means Losing Votes" Tax?
Would that Work?
If it were applied to everyone, equally, yes. I don't have a problem with paying taxes in general, I know that in order to have a working government, it has to be funded, and that is done by taxing the people. I do have a problem with an unjustified tax on a subset of the population. Especially after 20 years of paying cigarette taxes, making a choice to try to be healthier, and then I'm supposed to be taxed for that choice as well? I don't get it, are you in favor of e-liquid having a special tax assessed? If so, why?
Yeah... I Forgot to Mention that.
It should have been...
Maybe they could call it the "California has 418 Billion Dollars of Debt and the Federal Government is 16 Trillions (That's Trillion with a "T") Dollars in the Hole and we don't want to Cut Spending if it Means Losing Votes so we are just going to Tax the People use e-Liquids because it only Ticks Off about 1% of the General Population" Tax?
Are you arguing for or against an e-liquid tax?
That they are going to try, I have no doubt, but I do what I can to inform those I have contact with about the absurdity of applying a tobacco tax to e-cigs. Taxing consumer goods almost always unfairly targets those with lower income, and the gains are short lived. Tax something out of affordability and people will stop buying it. In the case of e-cigs, for those that go back to smoking, that could be a win-win, but for those like myself who never intend to go back it is simply a loss.
Not Arguing either For or Against.
Only Stating what Should be Very Apparent to a Reasonably Educated Person.
e-Liquids Will Be Taxed.
I wish the government Would raise my children....
I've been trying for 25 years....It's still costing me a fortune. Matbe they would do a better job.
(And I could go sit on a beach.)
I've been trying for 25 years....It's still costing me a fortune. Matbe they would do a better job.
(And I could go sit on a beach.)
I would think any Reasonably Educated Person would be against Unjust Taxes.
Isn't that part of what we do here? Try to spread information, and when possible fight unjust legislation aimed at vaping?
Sure.
I guess then the Question Becomes what is a Fair Tax? Because it Is Going to be Taxed.
I don't think It can go under Sales Tax because it will be Deemed a Tobacco Product.
But I do Agree that Baseline of a given States Sales Tax Rate would seem to be Equitable.
If California wanted to Tax e-Liquids at an 8.5% per Final Sales Price, would you Appose such Taxation?
Would that be on top of or instead of the already collected sales tax?
If on top of, no, I don't believe any additional tax is warranted.
If instead of, I would have to ask why e-liquid would have its own tax classification. It may be deemed a tobacco product, I hope it isn't. I don't believe it should be. If it had its own classification for tax purposes, it would be too easy to raise arbitrarily at a later time, so really No. Just sales tax, like anything else you buy that isn't unprepared food.
Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free
Like I said, I don't Believe that Tobacco Products are Charged Sales Tax in California.
So the 8.5% would be the Only State Tax applied to an e-Liquid that Contain Nicotine.
Cigarettes are most definitely charged a sales tax in California, I'm not certain if it applies to only the product price, or if it includes the additional amount of the tobacco tax applied to each pack, it may exclude that, but yes State and Local sales tax apply to tobacco products.
OK.
Let's go with there will be Sales Tax on e-Liquids that contain Nicotine in California.
So are you saying that Any Additional Tax should Not be applied on the California State Level?
Yes, are you saying that there should be an additional tax applied?
Just saying that I see No Way that Some Additional California Tax will not be Placed on e-Liquids that contain Nicotine.
Because when I look at this Chart, seems like there is a Boat Load of Money that States are Not Getting when a Person Doesn't buy a Pack of Cigarettes.
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarette.pdf
Then, of course, there is the Feds. I think they get about a Buck a Pack.
I understand that, but those taxes are SUPPOSED to be because cigarettes are BAD for you. As there is no evidence that vaping is BAD for you, there is no reason for those or similar taxes to be applied. Unless of course you believe vaping IS inherently BAD for you, which supporting a minor sales ban implies.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
