nicnik's Minnesota tax rant devoid of facts

[nicnik]

ANTZ rant pretends vaping is smoking

Health Care Leaders: Tax Bill Helps Tobacco Industry, Hurts Minnesota Youth

EDIT: Please don't let my misunderstanding of the situation sway your opinion. The ranting was mine, and I'd forgotten there's already a thread with a better understanding of this move by Minnesota legislators.

But I can't say I really understand the situation very well. I tried today.

I think this link was posted recently:

MN - The Vapor Tax is back!

 

[Nermal]

Eliminates an annual cigarette tax increase, which is necessary to keep pace with inflation and deter youth from smoking in the future; and Lowers the tax rate on e-cigarettes sold by Big tobacco, such as VUSE and Mark Ten.

• 
  
  Loverly. Lower tax on cigarettes. Lower tax on crap sold by Big Tobacco, but not other e - cig products? May I assume some possibility of a bias?

 

[skoony]

I live in Minnesota. Cigarette sales are decreasing. They want to eliminate
the annual increase not,reduce the current rate.
The issue with e-cigarettes is a little more convoluted. They are not
lowering the tax rate they are closing a loophole in the 2009 95%
wholesale tax on e-cigarettes. This law was specifically referring to
cigalikes and pre-filled carto's. These were to my knowledge the
only type of products actually being sold in Minnesota face to face
at the time. The legislator in their infinite wisdom slapped the tax
on the cigarette wholesalers in Minnesota. The was one slight problem. The
cigarette wholesalers were not selling the product. Independent
distributors or online vendors were. Not a penny was ever collected.
Today Minnesota tobacco wholesalers still do not sell e-cigarette products.
BT's e-cigs are sold independently of the wholesalers.
I believe the 30% tax will address all the e-cigarette products and
be structured in a way to actually collect the money. I will be
looking at the details this week.
Regards
Mike

 

[nicnik]

• 
  
  Loverly. Lower tax on cigarettes. Lower tax on crap sold by Big Tobacco, but not other e - cig products? May I assume some possibility of a bias?

Good. My post didn't fool you.

I think you got it right, that they've got it so wrong.

 

[skoony]

@nicnik I kind of forgot about this.
I did a little snooping and found this. If I am reading this right it
looks like we dodged a bullet thanks to our governor, Mark Dayton.
HF 848 Status in the House for the 89th Legislature (2015 - 2016)

The odd thing is,there was no hew and cry from the usual suspects as
the bills seemed to have bipartisan support. The Governor is a Uber Liberal
in every negative sense of the word. He is also known to have unmentioned
health conditions and some suspect mental conditions. I do not know if he
is a smoker as the subject never has come up. Even so I wouldn't be
surprised if was was a closet vaper. It's the only thing that would make sense.
We don't call him "Governor Goofy" for nothing. (not the original Gov. Goofy)
Regards
Mike

 

[Bill Godshall]

The Minnesota anti-tobacco and anti-vaping groups lobbied to defeat RJ Reynolds sponsored bills (this year and last year) that would have dramatically increased taxes on e-liquid, while sharply reducing the tax on Reynold's Vuse and other cigalikes.

Nothing like convincing anti-vaping groups to defeat legislation that would dramatically increase taxes on e-liquid.

 

[skoony]

@Bill Godshall whats really odd is the total lack of local coverage.
Last year there were rumors of the e-cig proponents teeming up with the medical
other stuff groups and going to bat for each other. The gist being it would be
very awkward for the legislator to allow the one while grinding the other into
dust. I have wondered why this hasn't occurred in other even more liberal
states.
Regards
Mike