That tax on a liter of 100mg works out in their minds to be about equal to what it is for a pack of smokes. My wife and I take 14 months to go through 1 liter of 100mg, so at $2780+$45 that works out to about $100 a month each ($1,200/yr each)... if it were cigarettes, based on $50/carton (guessing at the price of generic, it has been 12 years so I am not sure) we would be spending over $300 a month each ($3,600+/yr each)... so it is still not that bad. But compared to the $1.46/month each ($17.52/year each) that we currently spend, it is a lot of money.That would make the cost of a bottle of eliquid so high no one would ever be able to afford vaping. So such a tax bill could never be passed because it would just basically put every eliquid manufacturer out of business due to a lack of a customer base. That would be counterproductive to the idea of taxation.
No customer base = no eliquid manufacturers = no tax to collect.
The govt doesn't want to really ban vaping, they want to make money from it. They only want to ban non-tobacco flavors to appease the "but the children" voter base. But the fact is, kids will vape dog sh|t if someone tells them it's cool, so they will get a hold of and vape tobacco flavors as well.
But no doubt nic base will be somehow made unable to be bought by consumers.
I'll vape 0mg juice before I think about going back to cigarettes or pay even $3 for a 10ml bottle of juice. I pay $0.65 per 10ml by buying 1L at a time at heartland.
EDIT: They were basing that tax on a juul pod's price being raised by about $1 and change. I am pretty confident that with the current climate around vaping that it (or similar/worse) will pass.
Last edited: