or should be taxed at a much lower rate in order to encourage the switch to the less harmful option,
Or as the AEI seminar crew said, including Sally Satel - none at all. So as not to get into that hypocrisy.
or should be taxed at a much lower rate in order to encourage the switch to the less harmful option,
Yeah, I think we can all agree that since there is no "sin" so far as we know with vaping, it should not be subject to a sin tax. Just the same sales tax that everything else is subject to.Or as the AEI seminar crew said, including Sally Satel - none at all. So as not to get into that hypocrisy.
The thing is, it will never be a one to one, at least not without a complete revision of the vapor industry, which is what they seem to be trying to do.
Also, when you acknowledge the harm reduction, part of that is acknowledging that the less harmful product either shouldn't be taxed, or should be taxed at a much lower rate in order to encourage the switch to the less harmful option, like we're starting to see in the UK. After all, the tobacco taxes are, on the surface, intended to discourage use. You can't acknowledge that it's a less harmful option, but want to tax it at the same or higher rate, without acknowledging that you're a hypocrite.
For those in Cali...a rally ( I made a rhyme)
In this meeting the collaborative efforts of NBS, SFATA-CA, and ATR will be presented. This is a meeting you do not want to miss.
#notblowingsmoke #sfata-california and #americansfortaxreform will be presenting the plan to take on the dreaded tax ballot initiative that seeks to tax vapor products by 62 to 69%.
A true collaboration and a force in California to be reckoned with, both the industry and consumer side will need to do what is needed to defeat this tax the only way it can be defeated, by votes.
Your help and your efforts will be critical and this is not a time to rely on a small group doing all the heavy lifting. This time, it’s all hands on deck and we welcome your hands to make this the loudest fight the vapor industry and community has ever put on in California.
Together, we can do this. Get your seat at the meeting and learn all about our plan of attack and your role in it. And remember, one of us is never as strong as all of us! We hope to see you there on July 10th, at 6PM.
I definitely think the taxes will be written into law. I know I won't be paying the tax on my next 5-10 years worth of vaping.But here's the Deal. Does Anyone Really think that e-Cigarettes are Not going to be Taxed at a Buck-a-Day + State Taxes anyway?
Forget about the Cute Name someone wants to put on it like a "Sin Tax". Hell, they might just call it "The States are Broke and the Feds are 19 Trillion in the Hole" Tax.
Can Taxes on e-Cigarettes be Stopped? Or is this one of those Hypothetical Should or Shouldn't things?
I know I won't be paying the tax on my next 5-10 years worth of vaping.
I definitely think the taxes will be written into law. I know I won't be paying the tax on my next 5-10 years worth of vaping.
If all that survives the regulations are cigalikes, and those cigalikes cost as much or more than cigarettes, will there still be a market?
They both scare me, what scares me the most, personally, is the potential for the deeming to disrupt the avenues to get around the taxes.To be Honest with you Les, I Don't Know what Scares me More?
Deeming. Or the Inability to Hold Back Tax Legislation on BOTH the State and Federal Level.
Also, when you acknowledge the harm reduction, part of that is acknowledging that the less harmful product either shouldn't be taxed,or should be taxed at a much lower ratein order to encourage the switch to the less harmful option, like we're starting to see in the UK.
Well yes, but that's a grammatically flawless sentence by a Nobel prize winning author. So there's a little difference.☺I think if they were alive today Franklin would have a late night talk show having worked his way back into good graces from getting busted for a pandering operation he ran on the side and Jefferson would be a hip hop record producer in L.A.
I've always hated how my overuse of commas wrecks my writing style, but this makes me feel so much better.
I think if they were alive today Franklin would have a late night talk show ...
...Sugar taxes. And who knows what after. They'll suck one market dry and move on to the next, lol. I don't drink soda and I think it's unhealthy, so I'll be laughing about that one. Let someone else carry the tax burden for a while. Sweets on the other hand...
Our founders fought a bloody war of independence over taxation without representation, yet we seem to have no problem, today, with taxation with misrepresentation.
It's as if we prefer being forced to swallow and repeat the government's lies, to being allowed no voice in our own destinies at all.
Left & rights of passage,I Don't feel so bad now.
BTW... Interesting Tie-In,
In the October, 1991 Rush Backstage Club newsletter, Neil Peart explained that the 'Absalom' reference comes from William Faulkners' 1936 book Absalom, Absalom! 1936. "Absalom" was the son of King David. He killed his half-brother for raping their half-sister. Then, he tried to overthrow David and get the throne. A battle resulted during which his hair was caught in a tree suspending him above the ground. Against David's wishes, Absalom was killed by King David's Mighty Men. David grieved for his son by lamenting, "Absalom, Absalom, my son." Said Peart, "After reading the novel, I was curious... and looked up the name in the encyclopedia. Then, while writing that song, I had 'obsolete, absolute' in there, and I thought how similar the word-shape was to 'Absalom.' Since one of the main themes of the song was compassion, it occurred to me that the Biblical story was applicable-David's lament for his son: 'Would God I had died for thee,' seemed to be the ultimate expression of compassion. And that's how it happened."
Distant Early Warning by Rush Songfacts
"An ill wind comes arising
Across the cities of the plain
There's no swimming in the heavy water
No singing in the acid rain
Red Alert
Red Alert"
I was kidding honestly. I don't believe any of it should be taxed. I don't believe in "sin" taxes. The part I find amusing is imagining reactions from all the soda-drinkers who were okay with government overreach as long as it did not affect them, with letting others carry heavy tax burdens, thinking "it can't happen here". I would fight against government overreach regardless, but I take your point.Doesn't that make you part of the problem, then?
I'm not intending to call you out, personally, but, rather, challenge your thinking; which seems to be an all-too-common position.
Soda is almost certainly unhealthy, as are cigarettes, and, to one degree or another, likely is vaping. These are things that we think, based on varying levels of evidence, though, not things that we know.
So, the acceptability of any given sin-tax comes down to a subjective position on how many believe a particular thing is bad for you, and how strongly they believe it. That creates an arena where the ruling class is motivated to propagandize to you, using your own tax dollars to generate their "studies" and publish that propaganda, in order to vilify certain behaviors and justify squeezing yet more tax dollars from you.
In the end, not only do they end up curbing behaviors that might otherwise be mostly harmless or possibly beneficial, they end up spreading misinformation in order to do so. That is harmful to the public twice over; thrice if you consider that the government's (OUR governtment's, anyway) job is not to be attempting to shape our behavior.
Since the nexus of the problem is governmental overreach, considering any seemingly-individual item on the agenda according to whether or not it is something that we personally partake in is short-sighted.
Illegitimate taxes like these do not go unchallenged because the concerned parties fail to speak out against them; by specific design, the concerned parties are generally minorities. Rather, these overreaches go unchallenged because those parties who consider themselves unaffected choose to say nothing, not realizing that they are, in fact, affected, all the same.
As a non-soda drinking vaper, your position to laugh at (to whit, not challenge) soda taxes is just as damaging to you, personally, as a failure to speak out against vape taxes would be, on your part.
Should your interest be vindicated, while the soda-drinkers lose theirs, your victory would be only temporary. A successfully implemented tax against the soda-drinkers would enable the controlling-class, financing their next "study" and wave of propaganda against your special interest, positioning them to have a better chance of defeating your cause on the next attempt.
Our founders fought a bloody war of independence over taxation without representation, yet we seem to have no problem, today, with taxation with misrepresentation.
It's as if we prefer being forced to swallow and repeat the government's lies, to being allowed no voice in our own destinies at all.
Our founders fought a bloody war of independence over taxation without representation, yet we seem to have no problem, today, with taxation with misrepresentation.