E-cigarettes threaten tax revenue (finally someone said it)

[Skitty]

Things are a bit different here in the US. Our government does not provide universal healthcare for all of us so I would wager a very low % of tobacco tax dollars go to paying for the health effects here.

Yeah, although still could be said to be social costs incurred (police needed for drunk fighting, cleaning for ciggie-.... litter, etc.). Reasonably, anything apart from standard tax must be *for* something, like car tax is (theoretically) for road maintenance and repairs required by more wear. Otherwise it's just picking something at random and going "you users of [insert item/service here] get to fund our inability to budget!". In essence, why penalise smokers and not coffee drinkers or people who use 3ply toilet roll or those who prefer black socks over white (alright that last one could be dodgy, hosiery-racism is a serious problem!).

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ScottP]

I get so confused with politics.
Thanks for the link! I do remember that one now, plus I found the other one I had on the tip of my tongue. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/why-is-obama-caving-on-tobacco.html

My summary was still far off lol

Thanks for that link. For once I actually agree with Bloomberg. Although it sounds like that would only lower the base cost of imported tobacco in the interest in free trade. The taxes themselves are what is going up. It could be the combination would be a net zero increase for imported stuff and an increase in overall price for domestic. This is bad in it own way because it could then put the American product at a disadvantage over the imported tobacco. I will never advocate for the use of cigarettes but I would also never promote foreign tobacco over domestic either.

 

[ScottP]

Yeah, although still could be said to be social costs incurred (police needed for drunk fighting, cleaning for ciggie-.... litter, etc.). Reasonably, anything apart from standard tax must be *for* something, like car tax is (theoretically) for road maintenance and repairs required by more wear. Otherwise it's just picking something at random and going "you users of [insert item/service here] get to fund our inability to budget!". In essence, why penalise smokers and not coffee drinkers or people who use 3ply toilet roll or those who prefer black socks over white (alright that last one could be dodgy, hosiery-racism is a serious problem!).

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

You are 100% correct they will "say" the taxes is needed to help fund XYZ specific project but usually the money just gets added into the general funds and spent however they want to. It's not like they show us the books of how they spend all the money. Something tells me if they did, most of them would be unemployed after the next election.

 

[damthisisfun]

Google is our friend - find out each State's revenue from Tobacco taxes and it will make ur mind into Google's sister - as in BOGGLE......lol. Not to mention Federal tax. It is all about money.

 

[Tache]

Realistically, Italy is in bad shape economically. The EU will only bail them out for so long. They will be grasping at straws. Equally realistically, tax on e-cigs would only be a drop in the bucket. What they really need to focus on is a culture that accepts and enables an "under the table" black market.

If everyone legitimately paid their small share (including the ultra-rich - who always seem to find ways around it), then e-cigs or any new product would be able to actually contribute to the economy via regular (not sin) consumer taxes.

 

[Kent C]

..... like climate change, have scientific basis ....

 

[Kent C]

It may not really be their choice. When science is clear and overwhelming it becomes politically untenable to pretend it's not.

That really hasn't stopped them in the past.