My take is its a govmt. Agency using its power for corporate takeover of a marketable resource. in essence interfering in free trade favoring its major contributors. Theft. Paint it any way you want.
I view taxation as theft, and honestly, a more "benign" form of theft. This is something entirely different (IMO) some sort of "master plan" to control smoking and vaping itself and it's fuzzy, but ultimately to me it sounds like a certain amount of vaping that was present, may not be, and this is the worst part (IMO).
Look, Federally tax vaping. I get it, I understand it, it's a growing industry and etc. But wanting to "format" vaping by reducing flavorings, and by artificially "swelling" the vaping market by reducing nicotine in tobacco.... That's a lot different than a tax. I guess in a sense it will be "stealing" vaping by thoroughly limiting harm reduction and how it can be (easily) obtained.
While I have no great love for Phillip Morris, I did see their denial of the IQOS to be somewhat symbolic-- PM has been the "government's partner" for a long time, with cigarettes, they have a powerful lobby and even then their harm reduction device was rejected.... While I wouldn't use one personally it WAS a harm reduction product. Perhaps vaping will be stolen in terms of innovation and new things, along with taxation. I don't care for it, and would probably reluctantly go, "Just tax us! It's better!" unless this is merely the ramp up to a most undesirable tax and getting the public on the government's side.. IDK. Just glad I found vaping when I did. Etc.
Anna
Look, Federally tax vaping. I get it, I understand it, it's a growing industry and etc. But wanting to "format" vaping by reducing flavorings, and by artificially "swelling" the vaping market by reducing nicotine in tobacco.... That's a lot different than a tax. I guess in a sense it will be "stealing" vaping by thoroughly limiting harm reduction and how it can be (easily) obtained.
While I have no great love for Phillip Morris, I did see their denial of the IQOS to be somewhat symbolic-- PM has been the "government's partner" for a long time, with cigarettes, they have a powerful lobby and even then their harm reduction device was rejected.... While I wouldn't use one personally it WAS a harm reduction product. Perhaps vaping will be stolen in terms of innovation and new things, along with taxation. I don't care for it, and would probably reluctantly go, "Just tax us! It's better!" unless this is merely the ramp up to a most undesirable tax and getting the public on the government's side.. IDK. Just glad I found vaping when I did. Etc.
Anna
If Vaping can be as Big (or Bigger) of a Taxation Revenue Stream as Combustible Cigarettes (but doesn't have the Unwanted side effect of those Tax Payers dying prematurely - and racking up Major Health Care costs while doing it) for States and the Feds, while would a Money Hungry government want to Cripple the Vape Industry?
Because they are idiots?
I genuinely mean that, actually. Although "crippling" smoking and then pushing users to purchase closed, pod systems that are among the weakest and MOST expensive actually accomplishes that.
It seems to me that this administration wants vaping to be as "similar" to smoking as possible, but you will see NO mention of WTA in terms of similarity. I see this more as a "double effect" make vaping as expensive as possible, but also unpleasant, so people continue to smoke (for the alkaloids) and vape (for the nicotine). If both products are equally as expensive and difficult to manage, you actually get yourself a "double purchase" and a "double tax."
Taking nicotine out of cigarettes and then crippling vaping (to me) indicates the best "taxation/spend/revenue" situation that can be devised. Etc.
Perhaps I am giving the FDA too much forethought and they don't really have a "plan." But to me, that seems to be the "plan". Make vaping unappealing but necessary to smokers as the nicotine will be gone, without upsetting the tobacco companies TOO much and making them "substantially equivalent" in both "price" and "harm."
Anna
I genuinely mean that, actually. Although "crippling" smoking and then pushing users to purchase closed, pod systems that are among the weakest and MOST expensive actually accomplishes that.
It seems to me that this administration wants vaping to be as "similar" to smoking as possible, but you will see NO mention of WTA in terms of similarity. I see this more as a "double effect" make vaping as expensive as possible, but also unpleasant, so people continue to smoke (for the alkaloids) and vape (for the nicotine). If both products are equally as expensive and difficult to manage, you actually get yourself a "double purchase" and a "double tax."
Taking nicotine out of cigarettes and then crippling vaping (to me) indicates the best "taxation/spend/revenue" situation that can be devised. Etc.
Perhaps I am giving the FDA too much forethought and they don't really have a "plan." But to me, that seems to be the "plan". Make vaping unappealing but necessary to smokers as the nicotine will be gone, without upsetting the tobacco companies TOO much and making them "substantially equivalent" in both "price" and "harm."
Anna
I don't know, why are they considering banning almost all flavors? Why has Gottlieb only payed very minor lip service to vaping, and most of the strong points mention BP NRT's? The FDA isn't concerned one bit with tax revenue, it's not even in their wheelhouse.
Alcohol, Obesity and Smoking Do Not Cost Health Care Systems Money
Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure
The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:
The lifetime costs were in Euros:
Healthy: 281,000
Obese: 250,000
Smokers: 220,000
Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.
Snuff the Facts
Professor W. Kip Viscusi of Harvard Law School calculates that the extra health-care costs of smokers are about $.50 per pack of cigarettes. But smokers do not live as long as non-smokers and, thus, smokers create savings for taxpayers that usually aren’t considered. Because smokers die earlier than non-smokers, taxpayers save expenditures that otherwise would be made for pensions as well as nursing home care and other costs related to conditions associated with old age.
When those savings are computed (at a 3 percent discount rate), they more than offset the costs that smokers create. Smokers actually save society about $.32 per pack smoked. Not only do smokers save taxpayers money, smokers also pay an average of $.53 per pack in federal and state taxes. And given the approximately 30 billion packs of cigarettes smoked a year in the United States, smokers pay $15.9 billion more than would be necessary if we were to follow the principle that people should pay for the costs they impose on others. In effect, smokers pay taxpayers for the right to smoke in addition to the savings that they create for taxpayers by dying early.
Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure
The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:
The lifetime costs were in Euros:
Healthy: 281,000
Obese: 250,000
Smokers: 220,000
Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.
Snuff the Facts
Professor W. Kip Viscusi of Harvard Law School calculates that the extra health-care costs of smokers are about $.50 per pack of cigarettes. But smokers do not live as long as non-smokers and, thus, smokers create savings for taxpayers that usually aren’t considered. Because smokers die earlier than non-smokers, taxpayers save expenditures that otherwise would be made for pensions as well as nursing home care and other costs related to conditions associated with old age.
When those savings are computed (at a 3 percent discount rate), they more than offset the costs that smokers create. Smokers actually save society about $.32 per pack smoked. Not only do smokers save taxpayers money, smokers also pay an average of $.53 per pack in federal and state taxes. And given the approximately 30 billion packs of cigarettes smoked a year in the United States, smokers pay $15.9 billion more than would be necessary if we were to follow the principle that people should pay for the costs they impose on others. In effect, smokers pay taxpayers for the right to smoke in addition to the savings that they create for taxpayers by dying early.
I think there is a Tug-of-War going on between those who beat the "We Have to Save the Children" drum for their Ill-Informed Voter Base and those who see e-Cigarettes as Viable Harm Reduction when it comes to Flavors.
Not making Congressional Enemies is many times a Good Call for government agencies. Especially when you submit your Budget proposal of how much Money you need for next year. And what you say you need the Money for.
---
Not sure how Any Government Agency wouldn't concerned about Tax Revenues? See that that is what Funds the Agency. And is where the Funds come from to Cut the Checks every Friday.
You start Fooling with a Tax Receivables, and Don't have a Very Compelling reason to do so, and you wont be Sitting in your Corner Office for long.
Regarding where their funding comes from
Food and Drug Administration - Wikipedia Seems a good portion is generated via the Prescription Drug User Fee Act...
Food and Drug Administration - Wikipedia Seems a good portion is generated via the Prescription Drug User Fee Act...
Not sure what everyone pays in State Taxes for a Pack of Smokes these days? But I think the Feds still get $1.01 per pack.
But say I'm a PAD Smoker living in a State that Taxes me $2.99/pack. Plus the $1.01 the Feds get, that come out to 4 Bucks a day in Combined Taxes.
Or $1460 a Year in Taxes.
Or $43,800 over a 30 Year Period based on a 2018 Dollars.
I wonder how much Health Care in Todays Dollars I could get for 44 Grand in the USA?
But say I'm a PAD Smoker living in a State that Taxes me $2.99/pack. Plus the $1.01 the Feds get, that come out to 4 Bucks a day in Combined Taxes.
Or $1460 a Year in Taxes.
Or $43,800 over a 30 Year Period based on a 2018 Dollars.
I wonder how much Health Care in Todays Dollars I could get for 44 Grand in the USA?
Last edited:
Yep... Which the End User (minus any Subsidies) pays in some form. And the Rest comes from Congress.
BTW - Do all Cigarette Taxes collect go to Funding just the FDA?
@Kent C - The studies and data you referenced on lifetime costs makes sense but that won't stop our government from trying to decide how we should live. I have hope that Scott Gottlieb won't be your typical FDA Commissioner, and I have reason to believe he won't based on the many interviews I have watched with him. Hopefully he can stick it to the tobacco industry while keeping vaping regs as they are, or potentially loosening them. The focus needs to be on preventing kids from starting on nicotine and ensuring there's a diversity of alternatives for adults as they migrate away from cigarettes that kill over 400,000 Americans annually. At least that's my hope..."Who is John Galt?" 
I never implied that. Your acknowledgment in your last sentence should tell you that
Basically, it isn't about "money" as much as "control". Money follows control - any good socialist/fascist knows that.
I don't even know how to answer the second part, it is my assumption that the fed and state taxes goes into general funds, i.e. They dissapear into a puff of debt
On February 4, 2009, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 was signed into law, which raised the federal tax rate for cigarettes on April 1, 2009 from $0.39 per pack to $1.01 per pack. The increase was to help cover the cost of increased coverage under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Curious Where Cigarette Tax Money Goes
Curious Where Cigarette Tax Money Goes
@Kent C, I didn't mean to imply that you implied that, it was just a statement of fact about our often-illogical government 
It is thus implied that he didn't imply what you didn't mean to imply that he implied, and that you didn't really imply what he thought you implied anyway. Savvy?
Last edited:
Two and a half aspirin, one X-ray. Note that’s just the X-ray itself. If you actually want someone to read it that’ll run a little more.
You know, I was just wondering how exactly are cigarette companies supposed to reduce the nicotine in the raw tobacco anyway? I am afraid they will come up with some sort of horrendous chemical process they will have to put it through to do that. It will probably end up making them even worse for smokers somehow. Just like making them "fire safe" did.
Similar threads
- Locked
