E cigarettes boost Economy

[jkos]

Not sure if this belongs here but maybe our Representatives would like to do a little math. The Feds and local governments stand to loose millions in lossed tax revenue from e cigs. But what about the the millions that have switched. My wife and I spent approximately $200.00 a month on analogs.vs $30.00 a month now. That leaves us with more disposable income. If just 10 million switch to vaping, that would have a big impact on the economy. 10 million x $100.00 = 1billion a month, 12 billion a year into the economy.Just a rough estimate. Ecigs save lives, provides jobs , and boosts the economy. I would like to think some Representative will have the Testicles to jump on the ecig revolution and look like the hero who turned the economy around. Now thats a stimulas package.

 

[TennDave]

Though I agree with you, I believe the problem is that budgets are already set up that are dependent on the tax revenues received from packs of cigarettes. With less money coming in from them at whatever level, including for municipalities makes Representatives nervous that they will not be able to meet their fiscal goals. It would take a total restructuring and revamping- a paradigm shift, if you will for Representatives to see it your way.

 

[Vocalek]

Lawmakers need to keep the law of diminishing returns in mind. When the price is raised too high, profits go down because people find other products to purchase. Now I realize that "profits" sounds a little strange when applied to the government, but you can think of it in terms of the total amount of money they can collect, minus the cost of collecting it.

When the public views a tax as unfair, they will go out of their way to avoid that tax.

Governments got themselves into a vicious circle when they decided to use "social engineering" to control behavior. They raise the taxes on cigarettes supposedly to discourage people from an unhealthy practice. But then when it works, and the government sees its income source diminishing, the legislators want to raise the taxes further to make up their income shortfall. After a certain point, there are two factors affecting how much money the government collects--the fall in sales due to people discontinuing the purchase of cigarettes altogether, and the fall in sales due to people finding a supplier who doesn't collect the taxes.

There are two ways for government to escape from the vicious circle: Find some other product or service to tax, or cut back on their spending.

If the government would encourage a switch to low-risk tobacco products by making sure they are lower in cost, their collections from cigarette taxes would fall, but their costs of smoking-related diseases would go down as more people quit.

 

[2coils]

Lawmakers need to keep the law of diminishing returns in mind. When the price is raised too high, profits go down because people find other products to purchase. Now I realize that "profits" sounds a little strange when applied to the government, but you can think of it in terms of the total amount of money they can collect, minus the cost of collecting it.

When the public views a tax as unfair, they will go out of their way to avoid that tax.

Governments got themselves into a vicious circle when they decided to use "social engineering" to control behavior. They raise the taxes on cigarettes supposedly to discourage people from an unhealthy practice. But then when it works, and the government sees its income source diminishing, the legislators want to raise the taxes further to make up their income shortfall. After a certain point, there are two factors affecting how much money the government collects--the fall in sales due to people discontinuing the purchase of cigarettes altogether, and the fall in sales due to people finding a supplier who doesn't collect the taxes.

There are two ways for government to escape from the vicious circle: Find some other product or service to tax, or cut back on their spending.

If the government would encourage a switch to low-risk tobacco products by making sure they are lower in cost, their collections from cigarette taxes would fall, but their costs of smoking-related diseases would go down as more people quit.

President Obama should bring you in to balance his budget!!! LOL

 

[Petrodus]

President Obama should bring you in to balance his budget!!! LOL

 

[Littlewing]

President Obama should bring you in to balance his budget!!! LOL

He doesn't HAVE a budget! At least acts that way!

 

[2coils]

He doesn't HAVE a budget! At least acts that way!

"stimulus" my friend!

 

[Petrodus]

Oops ... post deleted ... wrong fourm

 

[Aloysius]

Lawmakers need to keep the law of diminishing returns in mind. When the price is raised too high, profits go down because people find other products to purchase. Now I realize that "profits" sounds a little strange when applied to the government, but you can think of it in terms of the total amount of money they can collect, minus the cost of collecting it.

...

If the government would encourage a switch to low-risk tobacco products by making sure they are lower in cost, their collections from cigarette taxes would fall, but their costs of smoking-related diseases would go down as more people quit.

So to put it in simple terms... ASSUMING e-cigs are healthier than smoking, keeping taxes on e-cigs low means I will probably live longer, so I can work longer, and pay more taxes, and need less Medicare when I do finally retire...

 

[cyberwolf]

If the government would encourage a switch to low-risk tobacco products by making sure they are lower in cost, their collections from cigarette taxes would fall, but their costs of smoking-related diseases would go down as more people quit.

This is going to sound awfully cynical and hint at a conspiracy theory, but let's not forget what the single biggest industry in the U.S. is - Healthcare. I can't help but think that over a trillion dollars in GDP attributed to healthcare doesn't somehow affect the way decisions are made in Washington. Creating a healthier population and reducing healthcare costs sounds like a no-brainer to citizens, but I wonder whether our elected officials aren't fat and happy with the status quo.

 

[Petrodus]

This is going to sound awfully cynical and hint at a conspiracy theory, but let's not forget what the single biggest industry in the U.S. is - Healthcare. I can't help but think that over a trillion dollars in GDP attributed to healthcare doesn't somehow affect the way decisions are made in Washington. Creating a healthier population and reducing healthcare costs sounds like a no-brainer to citizens, but I wonder whether our elected officials aren't fat and happy with the status quo.

Speaking only for myself and not meant to offend anyone ...
Government run health care is a SLIMSBID
Seems Like It Makes Sense But I Doesn't