Or as the AEI seminar crew said, including Sally Satel - none at all. So as not to get into that hypocrisy.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Or as the AEI seminar crew said, including Sally Satel - none at all. So as not to get into that hypocrisy.
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?
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.
Thank you for Posting this!
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?
And many discredit the idea of a black market, but they either haven't been paying attention to another market that has been black since before I can remember and many were patrons.
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.
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.
On a broader scale, the deeming scares me more due to the harm it is doing to the idea of vaping. I'm scared that people will be afraid to make the switch.
If people in general are listening to the misinformation (and by all accounts they are) and vaping choices (gear/eliquid) become very limited and cost close to/as much/more than smoking cigarettes most people will not switch to vaping, why would they? I think vaping took off and became as popular as it is today because of harm reduction, customization and low cost, if you remove all of that you remove the main incentives to switch.
Teh justification to Taxation is - Tobacco Product. FDA Gave all states Free Reign on this through Overreach on a Non hazardous product.
I have never said, do not at this time say, nor will I in the Future say, Nicotine = Tobacco Product. Plain and simple Bull
for Financial Gain.
This product needs to be placed in a Non-hazardous independent Catagory for Harm Reduction and Not Taxed at any level.
There is NO Justification for any Tax beyond standard State Sales Taxes.
There is no Justification for blocking Internet Sales.
There in no justification beyond Social Stupidity for Age Restriction.
Come on FDA - Kill a Few million More!!!!!
And here we go again............ 24hr Study proves Vaping may be unhealthy.
One would think 9 years of Vapers in the US and even longer world wide would belay such studies.
E-cigarettes might lead to oral disease, study suggests
I have never said, do not at this time say, nor will I in the Future say, Nicotine = Tobacco Product. Plain and simple Bull
for Financial Gain.This product needs to be placed in a Non-hazardous independent Catagory for Harm Reduction and Not Taxed at any level.
There is NO Justification for any Tax beyond standard State Sales Taxes.
There is no Justification for blocking Internet Sales.
There in no justification beyond Social Stupidity for Age Restriction.
Come on FDA - Kill a Few million More!!!!!
And here we go again............ 24hr Study proves Vaping may be unhealthy.
One would think 9 years of Vapers in the US and even longer world wide would belay such studies.
E-cigarettes might lead to oral disease, study suggests
Last edited:
Well yes, but that's a grammatically flawless sentence by a Nobel prize winning author. So there's a little difference.☺
I always liked the story of how Franklin walked from Boston to Philadelphia at the age of 17, and arrived with nothing but a loaf of bead in his pocket. Six years later he owned the biggest newspaper in the colonies ...
A gifted writer, scientist, politician, ambassador, and world-class philanderer. You gotta like that guy ...
...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...
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.
this is the very reason I think the only good govt people are the dead ones. 99.9% of our govt leaders don't qualify as good hence their value is less than bacteria/chicken pee
Left & rights of passage,
Blacks & whites of youth,
You can face the knowledge,
That the truth is not the truth,
Obsolete, absolutely
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.
And... tweeted by ECIGattorney: "Federal Judge in Indiana denied @r2bsmokefree motions for prelim injunction and summary judgment. She got the law wrong. Considering appeal"
"If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences" Pericles
"No State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law." 14th amendment US Constitution
Tidbits of Government logic:
An initial objection of Republicans in the Senate was that proposing to pay for the services by raising the federal tax on cigarettes, from 24 cents a pack to 67 cents a pack, ignored the likely consequence that sale of tobacco products would decrease and tax revenues would increasingly fall short of those needed to pay for the expansion of benefits
Kennedy and Hatch scoffed at the objection, with the former saying, "If we can keep people healthy and stop them from dying, I think most Americans would say 'Amen; isn't that a great result?' If fewer people smoke, states will save far more in lower health costs than they will lose in revenues from the cigarette tax."
State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An initial objection of Republicans in the Senate was that proposing to pay for the services by raising the federal tax on cigarettes, from 24 cents a pack to 67 cents a pack, ignored the likely consequence that sale of tobacco products would decrease and tax revenues would increasingly fall short of those needed to pay for the expansion of benefits
Kennedy and Hatch scoffed at the objection, with the former saying, "If we can keep people healthy and stop them from dying, I think most Americans would say 'Amen; isn't that a great result?' If fewer people smoke, states will save far more in lower health costs than they will lose in revenues from the cigarette tax."
State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Similar threads
- Locked
