Is taxing vaping impractical?
- Thread starter sofarsogood
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
What I'm gathering from this thread is MN is taxing the liquids distributed by traditional tobacco distributors but not the e liquids sold by vape stores nor any vaping devices. Could a State put an excise tax on purified nicotine? I'm not sure. So far there is virtually no excise taxes on vaping in the US. My intuition is that's because there are problems the taxing authorities know about that we aren't discussing. Just because some legislator proposes a law or ordinance doesn't mean it's practical or will have enough support to pass.
It sounds like you are putting forth a statement of fact. And you no this how exactly?. If this is nothing more than your opinion, fine.
I do however think it ignores a long history of demonization and ensuing sin taxes.
I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Sometimes a tax is just a tax... The burden isn't to prove something isn't happening, but to prove something is...
your right. that's how they showed up every where all at once.
refilling wasn't even an option then. hence the references to cartridges.
the rest as they say is history.
its interesting to note that if the decline in smoking is 10% nationally
i'll bet my bottom dollar its a lot higher here.
the tax thing will rear its ugly head here in the very near future.
regards
mike
I watched the Minneapolis St Paul public hearing where arguments were made for and against clean air restrictions on vaping. In hindsite here are a few arguments that could have been made better.
1. There is enough science to say that vaping almost certainly does not represent an air quality issue for bystanders so bar and restrant owners should be allowed to decide about vaping on their premises because those will be places where smokers can learn about vaping.
2. Business owners who allow employees to vape will be helping them quit smoking because in the beginning of that effort it's hard to get enough nic fast enough to conform to work day break times.
3. Whether vaping is a gateway for kids should be determined by surveys before claiming it is a problem.
4. Restricting what kids can buy without parents' permission is nothing new but what about kids who are smoking and would benefit from vaping, with their parents consent of course?
5. Unjustified restrictions may be widely ignored which tends to undermine respect for the rule of law, especially among kids.
6. Taxes on e liquids amount to a tax on life saving medicine. It's not just immoral, it's genocide.
7. In the recent debate about how to treat people in America who were exposed to ebola government officials insisted decisions must be based on science, not mob rule. Thousands will die because of ebola, 10s of millions will die because of tobacco yet abundant public health science is clearly not influencing government decisions about vaping.
1. There is enough science to say that vaping almost certainly does not represent an air quality issue for bystanders so bar and restrant owners should be allowed to decide about vaping on their premises because those will be places where smokers can learn about vaping.
2. Business owners who allow employees to vape will be helping them quit smoking because in the beginning of that effort it's hard to get enough nic fast enough to conform to work day break times.
3. Whether vaping is a gateway for kids should be determined by surveys before claiming it is a problem.
4. Restricting what kids can buy without parents' permission is nothing new but what about kids who are smoking and would benefit from vaping, with their parents consent of course?
5. Unjustified restrictions may be widely ignored which tends to undermine respect for the rule of law, especially among kids.
6. Taxes on e liquids amount to a tax on life saving medicine. It's not just immoral, it's genocide.
7. In the recent debate about how to treat people in America who were exposed to ebola government officials insisted decisions must be based on science, not mob rule. Thousands will die because of ebola, 10s of millions will die because of tobacco yet abundant public health science is clearly not influencing government decisions about vaping.
This, I have to argue with
Yes, there are kids smoking. Allowing them to vape won't help, as most smoke to rebel. You wouldn't see kids embrace vaping as an alternative if they were allowed to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as taxes go... my guess is that the legiscritters are trying hard to figure out a way to tax vaping that won't be simple to avoid. Trust me: EVERY government is always on the lookout for a way to get more money out of their citizens, and will use whatever justification they can think of to do so. The tobacco tax in Wisconsin is a very good example: it was sold as a sin tax (meaning it's there to make the activity "too expensive", thereby making people quit). However, the legislature always figures the revenue from it into the budget (when it was raised a couple years ago, they actually figured the projected numbers into the budget).
Will there be taxes levied against vaping? Believe it... as soon as legislatures can figure out how to do it effectively
"as soon as the legislature can figure out how to do do it effectively." And there's the rub in my opinion. Excise taxes on vaping can't recover more than trivial revenues even if there is another front opened in the war on drugs.
Taxes such as that on prefilled gear will just hasten people moving to DIY and bigger PV's. Because they will appear cheaper than before such a tax imposition. [Or return to smoking perhaps].
Most people start on cigalikes, but quickly move on anyway, once the limitations of those devices become clear - so i don't really see how taxation like that can possibly plug such gaping holes in local and state budgets, not to mention how unreliable it would appear to be as an income stream, unless you tax nic juice in general.
T
Most people start on cigalikes, but quickly move on anyway, once the limitations of those devices become clear - so i don't really see how taxation like that can possibly plug such gaping holes in local and state budgets, not to mention how unreliable it would appear to be as an income stream, unless you tax nic juice in general.
T
Isn't this Assumption based on the e-Liquid Market remaining the same as it is Today? And that there will be the Same Amount of Sellers selling e-Liquids that contain Nicotine after the coming FDA Rules are in place.
In Europe, there's also the part of "paying for the added burden on the national health care system". That would be fair, if smokers paid a SMALLER tax to cover for those expenses ONLY.
But the fact is, all European Govt's still bag a boatload of money AFTER paying for those extra expenses. That is one of reasons behind the recent e-cig war in Europe, namely the new European Tobacco Directive.
And when I was a smoker, I even had to endure misinformed non-smokers telling me how I was a burden to THEM.
This is what really makes me mad: I used to pay sin-taxes because I was an "added burden" on the health care system, and also to "encourage" me to quit.
Six years after managing to QUIT, the Portuguese Govt wants to make me pay sin-taxes all over again. After I HAVE quit, and now that I am NOT an added burden anymore.
All because, despite all those anti-smoking campaigns and despite all those non-smokers looking down their noses at smokers, it seems smokers come in handy for the Govt's coffers, after all - and people who have QUIT smoking must still make their "contribution" to the higher cause...!
Some weeks back I recall reading analysis that indicates smokers cost the health system less than non smokers because non smokers live longer. Smokers were never a burden compared to everybody else.
My local vape shop opened a few months ago. Traffic was slow. Lately the place is a mob scene. The sales clerk says he has many customers and most are getting to zero cigs.
My local vape shop opened a few months ago. Traffic was slow. Lately the place is a mob scene. The sales clerk says he has many customers and most are getting to zero cigs.
Scared of mortality, when every advert shows people of 70 smiling and riding bicycles to stay fit in the Florida sunshine.
Even the adverts have changed - i recall ones where i lived for funereal insurance plans 'for those final expenses' and if you joined they'd send you a 'charming carriage clock'.
Presumably to help you count down to your demise.
If we all live longer, the natural response would be a tax on grey hair, but only if it has nic in it!
T
Even the adverts have changed - i recall ones where i lived for funereal insurance plans 'for those final expenses' and if you joined they'd send you a 'charming carriage clock'.
Presumably to help you count down to your demise.
If we all live longer, the natural response would be a tax on grey hair, but only if it has nic in it!
T
So, cigarettes are paper and dry leaves. They tax that. They'll always find a way.
If you're a hunter in Canada, you get treated the same way. Welcome to marginalism.
Most taxation is impractical unless you can screw it out of people when they earn money, spend money, or if they own immoveable objects, like houses.
T
T
80% vg - 20% pg.. 3mg nic.. add flavor,, PUT THIS GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE. Unlike analog smokes, i KNOW what my juice consist of.. tax it, ban it or make it hard to get, i can and will make my own juice. They cannot ban, tax or regulate vg, or pg and flavoring.On that note, im constantly stepping down my nic levels.. soon ill be at 0 nic,,
I have a vaping road map. I might stop vaping along the way but I'll never let the capability disappear because of relapse risk. At some point I'll have 2 liters of 10% nic in the freezer and a reasonalbe assortment of devices. If I was comfortable with 6mg liquid 2 L of nic would last for quite a few years.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
