California Prop 56 - Hidden Vape Tax

[Haktuspit]

Well let's not give up hope yet. The article I read said that we've downvoted taxes on cigarettes in this state plenty of times, and from what I've seen the anti and for 56 funding are about equal since Philip Morris got involved. Not having a TV is going to make this hard to follow, I think there's going to be a good amount of commercials closer to November.

 

[Rossum]

Indeed, if the California government (and populace) actually applied logic to their voting, this would very much make sense. This is especially true if you raise cigarette taxes yet keep vapor products tax-free.

However, this logic hasn't worked with the FDA or liberals at the Federal level, and certainly won't work in California, because....

Tobacco taxes were originally sold to the population as a way to dissuade smoking by making it more expensive to smoke. The truth is, state governments rely on these tobacco taxes in their state budgets. vaping has put a huge damper on that, hence, we need to increase cigarette taxes (less people are smoking or vaping) and add a vaping tax (to capture those, like me, who switched from smoking to vaping) in order to keep that revenue flowing in.

Not just taxes, but hundreds of millions of dollars in MSA revenues per year -- money that California already spent in advance when they "securitized" the anticipated revenue...

 

[Endor]

Not just taxes, but hundreds of millions of dollars in MSA revenues per year -- money that California already spent in advance when they "securitized" the anticipated revenue...

Yep, there is some serious money at stake. To a politician, money is more addictive than nicotine. Perhaps the FDA should deem money under their regulatory control... save the children from lifelong money addiction... hmmm...

 

[plumeguy]

Prop 56 is a measure up for a public vote. The public may care vastly more about being
complicit in the deaths of over 200,000 Californians over the next 10 years than

Indeed, if the California government (and populace) actually applied logic to their voting, this would very much make sense. This is especially true if you raise cigarette taxes yet keep vapor products tax-free.

However, this logic hasn't worked with the FDA or liberals at the Federal level, and certainly won't work in California, because....

Tobacco taxes were originally sold to the population as a way to dissuade smoking by making it more expensive to smoke. The truth is, state governments rely on these tobacco taxes in their state budgets. Vaping has put a huge damper on that, hence, we need to increase cigarette taxes (less people are smoking or vaping) and add a vaping tax (to capture those, like me, who switched from smoking to vaping) in order to keep that revenue flowing in.

Unfortunately, most people don't see it for what it is. They still think it's to dissuade smoking, or to "save the poor children from lifelong nicotine addiction", or to provide anti-tobacco education.

Nonsmokers may not mind raising tobacco taxes. They may mind helping to kill
over 200,000 adult Californians over the next 10 years. Nonsmokers may also
mind that they are and will be personally paying billions of dollars a year extra in health insurance premiums to help cover smokers who would have vaped instead.

"If you would persuade ..." Ben Franklin

 

[salemgold]

You guys probably have all of this info but, I have seen it passed around different FB groups and thought I would post it here just in case it was useful at all.

MARK THESE IMPORTANT DATES IN YOUR SCHEDULE

On November 8th, when Californians vote for the next President, you will also vote on Proposition 56, which increases the tax on cigarettes ***AND*** vapor products. This could result in a new tax of 62-69% (or more) on vapor products.

This ballot proposition is not what it appears; government and multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical interests lose money as smoking rates decline. This November, they want to make up the difference by taxing vapor products just like cigarettes, at the cost of Californians’ lives.

The supporters of this initiative are very quick to tell you that the money collected from this tax will ONLY be used to fund anti-smoking programs, healthcare, cancer treatment, and research. The only reason they can get away with saying this is because they are betting on the fact that most voters won’t bother to read the actual initiative text. If you do read it, you’ll find that there are plenty of loopholes allowing that money to be used for completely unrelated things. For example, paying $36 million per year to Attorney General Kamala Harris’s own office to use however she likes. But the worst loophole of all is the one that says if this additional tax results in a decrease in tobacco sales (that’s the goal) and that decrease results in a decrease in sales tax and other money the state gets, like MSA payments, (which it will) then the funds can be used to supplement those losses. Which means the majority of this money will go into the general fund. This shouldn’t come as a surprise though. If you look at California’s past uses of smoking-related tax money, (also supposed to be used for smoking prevention) only 4.3% of it actually goes towards smoking prevention activities and education. The rest goes to the general fund. The California government is addicted to tobacco money, and if and when that money goes away, they’ll sacrifice whatever – or whoever – they have to in order to replace it.

ATTEND ONE OF THE MEETINGS IN THE ABOVE LOCATIONS TO LEARN HOW YOU WILL BE IMPACTED AND HOW YOU MAY HAVE A CHANCE IN PREVENTING PROP 56 FROM GAINING A MAJORITY OF YES VOTES.

If you are a resident in California who is allowed to vote but you are not registered to vote, REGISTER TO VOTE NOW! If you are a business in the vapor industry, ask ALL your customers the same thing! There are no excuses and to be perfectly honest the chances of a "vapor vote" making enough of a difference will DEPEND ENTIRELY ON YOU.

 

[Endor]

I know this thread has been quiet lately, but I've been hearing a lot of "No on 56" radio commercial over the past week or so. Yes, they are funded by BT along with the typical litany of token "public groups".

Their angle is exactly what is mentioned above, that only a small sliver of the money will actually go to anti-tobacco education, and that most will go to "special interests".

I haven't yet heard any "Yes on 56" commercials. I understand that Tom Steyer is involved, but he seems to be busy pushing his NextGen climate agenda crap. Gosh, I detest this man... he embodies everything I hate about this elitist wealthy socialist group that seems to run California politics (and who wants to run your life as well).

 

[Lessifer]

I know this thread has been quiet lately, but I've been hearing a lot of "No on 56" radio commercial over the past week or so. Yes, they are funded by BT along with the typical litany of token "public groups".

Their angle is exactly what is mentioned above, that only a small sliver of the money will actually go to anti-tobacco education, and that most will go to "special interests".

I haven't yet heard any "Yes on 56" commercials. I understand that Tom Steyer is involved, but he seems to be busy pushing his NextGen climate agenda crap. Gosh, I detest this man... he embodies everything I hate about this elitist wealthy socialist group that seems to run California politics (and who wants to run your life as well).

Yeah, he(Steyer) seems to be focusing on his other campaigns, for now. I'm not even sure how much the Yes group would need to campaign on this one. It's an uphill battle. Think about what people will see when they go in the voting booth, they'll see the title of the prop
Proposition 56 - Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement.
and for most voters who don't really care, that will be enough.

 

[Lessifer]

I don't mean to be negative, just trying to be a realist. I know the group funded by BT is spending something like $35M on the No campaign, and it looks like collectively the other side is spending about $20M. I'm just not sure what a good strategy would be. How do we convince the voters who won't be reading any of the supporting information? Where can I get a yard sign?

 

[Endor]

Think about what people will see when they go in the voting booth, they'll see the title of the prop
Proposition 56 - Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement.

Indeed... even developing the titles for these propositions has become political. Who doesn't want to fund healthcare, or law enforcement?

Kamala Harris, the CA DA whose office writes these, has been accused of taking creative license in the past, specifically around a proposed 2012 pension reform initiative where the summary was "talking points taken straight from a public employee union boss' campaign handbook" according to the Modesto Bee. Other conservative commentators, such as Greenhut, claimed that she outright lied in the summary by claiming that it would reduce pensions (which it wouldn't have). The goal was to kill the signature gathering process by tainting it from the get-go, allegedly because she personally disagreed with the initiative.

Henceforth I read all these titles and summaries with salt shaker firmly in hand, then turn to the actual proposed law and read that (most are actually quite short and easy reads). Unfortunately, most people assume fairness and just take the titles and summaries at face value, never read the bill, and just vote their heart.... so yes, unfortunately this proposition is likely to pass.

 

[Endor]

I don't mean to be negative, just trying to be a realist. I know the group funded by BT is spending something like $35M on the No campaign, and it looks like collectively the other side is spending about $20M. I'm just not sure what a good strategy would be. How do we convince the voters who won't be reading any of the supporting information? Where can I get a yard sign?

The problem is that BT is funding the NO campaign. All the YES campaign has to say:

"Big Tobacco is telling you to vote no on better healthcare, tobacco use prevention, and helping law enforcement... all to protect their BIG profits! Tell them we will protect our children and vote YES on 56."

Ignore those men behind the curtain.... the one with the ratty MSA T-shirt and the other with the tobacco tax stamp on his forehead....

 

[Rossum]

Who doesn't want to fund healthcare, or law enforcement?

Starve the beast.

 

[Lessifer]

Received this in an email from CASAA today:
...did you know it includes enacting a 62% - 68% tax on vapor products?

The Sacramento Business Journal is interested in your feedback regarding this tax. But, as we have feared, the media are only reporting part of the story -- even by running a simple poll.

Please take a moment today to take this quick poll. Keep in mind that the tax hike they are referring to includes an outrageous tax that will severely impact your access to vapor products.
Take the poll http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...-a-2-per-pack-tax-hike-on-cigarettes/20426172

 

[oplholik]

I did the poll.

 

[plumeguy]

Prop 56 will kill over 200K Californians over the next ten years by dissuading them
from switching to vaping. Costing everyone who pays for health insurance over $5500 in extra premiums and copays.

Remind all California voters that a significant amount of their own personal money is at stake.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Remind all California voters and Retailers that a significant amount of their own personal money is at stake.

I Fixed that for you.

 

[Lessifer]

Just saw a Yes and a No ad in the same commercial break.

 

[Alexander Mundy]

I haven't been following this, but ran across this on FB

Advocates of Tobacco Tax on E-Cigarettes Use Dead Kids in Ad Campaign

(Actually it's toe tags, but the meaning is there)

 

[zoiDman]

Did you Vote Today?

 

[oplholik]

Yep. I assume that if the tax passes, and I'm afraid it will, it will go into affect on the 1st of Jan.?

 

[zoiDman]

Yep. I assume that if the tax passes, and I'm afraid it will, it will go into affect on the 1st of Jan.?

I believe it is 90 Days from Passage.

ETA:

SECTION 10. Effective Date
This act shall become effective as provided in Section 10(a) of Article II of the California Constitution; provided, however, the amendment to section 30121 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall become effective April1, 2017.

.
.
.


SECTION 3. Definition of Tobacco Products
Section 30121 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:

30121. For purposes of this article:

1. “Cigarettes” has the same meaning as in Section 30003, as it read on January 1, 1988.
2. “Tobacco products” includes, but is not limited to, a product containing, made, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption whether smoked, heated, chewed absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested by any other means, including, but not limited to, cigars, little cigars, chewing tobacco pipe tobacco, or snuff, but does not include cigarettes. Tobacco products shall also include electronic cigarettes. Tobacco products shall not include any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other therapeutic purposes where that product is marketed and sold solely for such approved use.
3. “Electronic cigarettes” means any device that is intended to be used to deliver aerosolized or vaporized nicotine to the person inhaling from the device, including, but not limited to an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, vape pen ore-hookah. Electronic cigarettes include any component, part or accessory of such a device that is used during the operation of the device, whether sold separately or as a package with such device, if it is intended to be used to deliver aerosolized or vaporized nicotine to the person using the device. Electronic cigarettes also include any liquid or substance containing nicotine, whether sold separately or as a package with any device that would allow it to be inhaled. Electronic cigarettes do not include any battery, battery charger, carrying case or other accessory not used in the operation of the device if sold separately. Electronic cigarettes shall not include any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other therapeutic purposes where that product is marketed and sold solely for such approved use.
4. “Fund” means the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund created by Section 30122.

Prop 56 fattens insurance company profits.