States Profiting the Most from Sin

[zoiDman]

Here is a Very Interesting Article regarding How Much Money some states collect from Gambling, Smoking and Alcohol Consumption.

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/08/16/states-profiting-the-most-from-sin/

 

[stevegmu]

Interesting. All but 1 are blue states, yet Republicans are the ones most frequently blamed for 'sin' taxes...

 

[zoiDman]

Interesting. All but 1 are blue states, yet Republicans are the ones most frequently blamed for 'sin' taxes...

Blue Today, Red in the Past? Or Maybe they were Blue in the Past Also? I dunno.

The Numbers are Staggering all the Same.

When you start think about the Tax Revenues Lost from Untaxed e-liquids, it seems like there is Little Wonder that it Couldn't go on like it is Today forever.

 

[zoiDman]

BTW - The State I Live in wants me to Quit Smoking, Drink Less and Gamble Responsibly.

It seems like if Everyone Did, my State would have to Raise Taxes in other Areas to make up for the Shortfall.

 

[stevegmu]

Tax revenue is why e-nic will never be banned. Some regulation- a tax stamp and license, and all will be good.

When sin taxes dry up, VAT will be enacted.

 

[zoiDman]

Tax revenue is why e-nic will never be banned. ...

This is My Belief also.

e-liquids may end up Not Being Sold in Liquid form. And they might Only be sold by Big Business. But I can't see e-liquid being Banned Completely.

To much Tax Money would be Lost.

 

[stevegmu]

I think there will just be certain standards to make sure the ingredients and nic levels are safe.

The question is, what is big business? Johnson Creek, Halo? I'd be more than fine if they were the only online vendors I could buy from. I'd miss Alice In Vapeland, but I'd get by. I do think the days of $5 for 120ml juice will be over within the next couple years.

 

[DC2]

This is My Belief also.

e-Liquids may end up Not Being Sold in Liquid form. And they might Only be sold by Big Business. But I can't see e-Liquid being Banned Completely.

To much Tax Money would be Lost.

Hey Zoid, I have seen this argument before (not from you) but I don't understand it...

It seems to me that banning e-liquid is the best way to ensure that no tax money is lost.
Ban e-liquid and people keep smoking, thereby keeping the current revenue stream completely intact.

What am I missing?

 

[zoiDman]

Hey Zoid, I have seen this argument before (not from you) but I don't understand it...

It seems to me that banning e-liquid is the best way to ensure that no tax money is lost.
Ban e-liquid and people keep smoking, thereby keeping the current revenue stream completely intact.

What am I missing?

:This Isn't Fact. Just a Personal Opinion"

I think More Revenue could be Gained on e-Liquids (verses Banning e-Liquids) because.

1) More People will Switch to e-Cigarettes (for the Health Benefit) from Analogs BUT will Continue to Use e-Cigarettes for Years. Verses Quitting Smoking and Never paying into Taxes again.

2) e-Cigarettes are VERY Popular with the 18~25 Year Old age Group. Many "Young" Vapers use e-Cigarettes because they Feel there is No Health Risk. But a High Percentage of them will Not start Smoking because it Health Aspects. And because it is Not Very Socially Excepted.

3) Vapers Tend to use More e-Liquid/More Nicotine per Day than Smokers do. Every time you hear the Term "Chain Vaping" you can think of a Person paying More per Day in Tobacco Tax verses a Person who is PAD.

4) The Tax Rate could Be Higher per Daily amount of e-Liquid than it is Today per Packs of Cigarettes. DIY is Dirt Cheap. So a Higher amount of Tax could be put on a Given amount of ml/day and still leave Room for BT Profits. Remember, you don't need to Grow Tobacco that Tastes Good when Burned. You just need to Grow Tobacco that has a High Yield of Nicotine per Pound of Leaves.

e-Cigarettes could be a Win - Win - Win. Profits, Taxes and HRT. Lets just hope the FDA has the Intelligence to Regulate them Accordingly.

 

[WBB0]

I think there will just be certain standards to make sure the ingredients and nic levels are safe.

The question is, what is big business? Johnson Creek, Halo? I'd be more than fine if they were the only online vendors I could buy from. I'd miss Alice In Vapeland, but I'd get by. I do think the days of $5 for 120ml juice will be over within the next couple years.

There will be huge sums of money collected for "licenses" to give the "appearance" of a safer, regulated product. They will endlessly enforce the collection of those fees, but not much to make anything actually safer than it already is.

Just watch any of those "save my restaurant, bar, whatever" type shows. Those places are licensed, regulated, inspected and absolutely disgusting.

 

[zoiDman]

...

It seems to me that banning e-liquid is the best way to ensure that no tax money is lost.
Ban e-liquid and people keep smoking, thereby keeping the current revenue stream completely intact.

...

BTW - You are Correct when you say that No Tax Money is Lost if e-Liquids were Banned and No One Switched.

Perhaps my wording of "To much Tax Money would be Lost." is Poor.

Maybe a Better way to say what I meant would be "A Greater Amount of Potential Tax Money would be Lost."

 

[DC2]

:This Isn't Fact. Just a Personal Opinion"

I think More Revenue could be Gained on e-Liquids (verses Banning e-Liquids) because.

1) More People will Switch to e-Cigarettes (for the Health Benefit) from Analogs BUT will Continue to Use e-Cigarettes for Years. Verses Quitting Smoking and Never paying into Taxes again.

2) e-Cigarettes are VERY Popular with the 18~25 Year Old age Group. Many "Young" Vapers use e-Cigarettes because they Feel there is No Health Risk. But a High Percentage of them will Not start Smoking because it Health Aspects. And because it is Not Very Socially Excepted.

3) Vapers Tend to use More e-Liquid/More Nicotine per Day than Smokers do. Every time you hear the Term "Chain Vaping" you can think of a Person paying More per Day in Tobacco Tax verses a Person who is PAD.

4) The Tax Rate could Be Higher per Daily amount of e-Liquid than it is Today per Packs of Cigarettes. DIY is Dirt Cheap. So a Higher amount of Tax could be put on a Given amount of ml/day and still leave Room for BT Profits. Remember, you don't need to Grow Tobacco that Tastes Good when Burned. You just need to Grow Tobacco that has a High Yield of Nicotine per Pound of Leaves.

e-Cigarettes could be a Win - Win - Win. Profits, Taxes and HRT. Lets just hope the FDA has the Intelligence to Regulate them Accordingly.

That is a fair reply, and I can't say it doesn't make sense.

But it does assume that they will be able to get away with high taxes on e-liquid.
And since sin taxes are supposed to be based on offsetting health care costs, high taxes would NOT be justified.

That doesn't mean they won't try, and it doesn't mean they won't succeed.
But is that a basket they would want to put all of their eggs in?

If it was me, I'd try to stop vaping long before I'd want to assume that taxes from vaping are going to meet, let alone exceed cigarette taxes.

 

[zoiDman]

That is a fair reply, and I can't say it doesn't make sense.

But it does assume that they will be able to get away with high taxes on e-liquid.

...

Once again, just me.

But when I tried e-Cigarettes for the First Time, I didn't care if they Cost as much as Analogs. Because Analogs were killing me. So if I spent the $175/month on e-Cigarettes, who cares.

You take a PAD Smoker and Tell Him/Her that the can Feel Better and Possible Spend Less by Switching. Most Will. You Tell them that they will Feel Better and Spend Less, well, if they don't, then they are Stupid and Deserve Analogs.

Also Remember that Cigarettes Didn't always have so much Tax on them. It was Year After Year of piling More and More Taxes.

I predict that the Tax Basis will start the Same Way. Small at First. And Growing Slowly ever Year.

 

[stevegmu]

There will be huge sums of money collected for "licenses" to give the "appearance" of a safer, regulated product. They will endlessly enforce the collection of those fees, but not much to make anything actually safer than it already is.

Just watch any of those "save my restaurant, bar, whatever" type shows. Those places are licensed, regulated, inspected and absolutely disgusting.

I'm not sure how real those shows are. Health inspectors do make the rounds.

If all they have to do is take an online safety course and quiz at the end to get a license, as well as inspection of their facility, that's better than nothing. No one should want a completely unregulated product- especially one that is vaporized and inhaled.

 

[DrMA]

Once again, just me.

But when I tried e-Cigarettes for the First Time, I didn't care if they Cost as much as Analogs. Because Analogs were killing me. So if I spent the $175/month on e-Cigarettes, who cares.

You take a PAD Smoker and Tell Him/Her that the can Feel Better and Possible Spend Less by Switching. Most Will. You Tell them that they will Feel Better and Spend Less, well, if they don't, then they are Stupid and Deserve Analogs.

Also Remember that Cigarettes Didn't always have so much Tax on them. It was Year After Year of piling More and More Taxes.

I predict that the Tax Basis will start the Same Way. Small at First. And Growing Slowly ever Year.

That's an interesting point of view. For me, the biggest reason to quit analogs was the tax. Sure, I was aware of the health effects, but I really liked tobacco. Only when WA state started taxing loose&rolling tobacco, I decided to give a serious try to ecigs. I guess it was the proverbial straw that broke the Camel's back (pardon the pun)...

 

[Bob Chill]

The choke is the nic. You can't tax vg/pg/flaves. Widespread alternative use of those eliminates the ability to tax.

A reasonable middle ground is to simply tax nic at the wholesale and then retail channel. Premixed bottles will be taxed on content. That's pretty easy to do.

I envision a possible world where nic base can only be sold to licensed mixers. The mixers then sell to State b&m's. 7-11's could sell bottles of halo, Johnson creek, etc.

Some state b&m's can do it craft style just like micro-breweries. I never mind paying more for a quality crafted product.

Banning flavors other than tobacco isn't the endof the world. There is no reason to ban unflavored nic base. Maybe you can't buy 100mg strength but if I can get my hands on 6-24 base then I can mix anything I want.

Banning bottled juice altogether is a horrifying thought but the ecig world has matured pretty quickly. I think it possible that the chance to outright ban bottled liquid has passed. Could be wrong but I would at least hedge that I'm right.

Another scary thought is assuming the math will be right. Nic absorption is much different with vapor and saying a blu or Njoy is = to a pack or more of smokes is insane. If the tax man does the same math it could be a painful blow to the wallet.

 

[zoiDman]

That's an interesting point of view. For me, the biggest reason to quit analogs was the tax. Sure, I was aware of the health effects, but I really liked tobacco. Only when WA state started taxing loose&rolling tobacco, I decided to give a serious try to ecigs. I guess it was the proverbial straw that broke the Camel's back (pardon the pun)...

There was a Time when Cost was the Main Motivating Factor in wanting to quit Analogs. But for me, that was 3 or 4 Failed Attempts ago.

Sure, I was all for Saving Money. But it became Secondary at the End. The toll Analogs were taking on My Health was what made e-Cigarettes so Appealing.

Saving Money was like the Icing on the Cake. Because I Feel 100% Better Now.

BTW - How long had you Smoked when you made the Switch.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Banning bottled juice altogether is a horrifying thought but the ecig world has matured pretty quickly. I think it possible that the chance to outright ban bottled liquid has passed. Could be wrong but I would at least hedge that I'm right.

...

If I was BT, I would consider this Priority #1 in my Manipulation of the FDA.

 

[Bob Chill]

Very true. But big tobacco controls the leaves that the labs extract. And they'll probably buy the labs too. Big tobacco will be the big nic supplier in the chain of raw leaves to the shelves. And they'll be the goto for the common ecig user. As we see with many smokers. If it's not as easy as buying a pack of smokes then the heck with it. What we do here takes patience and experience. IMO- If a truly satisfying cigalike came out then many smokers will turn to those and stick with them. Disposable and rechargeable cigalikes with disposable carts have plenty of room to grow into a much more satisfying product.

Edit: want to add the point that BT will engineer a cigalike with "fda approved chemicals" to mimic the addiction to regular cigs. BT will get their clients for life and just maybe we get to keep our bottles too.

I'm not getting caught with my pants down this time. Sweeping regulation shut down my last business almost overnight. Nobody thought it would happen. Everybody was hoping for things to change before "doomsday". Nope. Doomsday came and passed and my industry shrank incredibly fast shortly after. Not this time. I have my doomsday vaper supplies all stocked up and stored. I'll keep adding as necessary. I will protect my own this time and not hope for someone else to do it.

 

[DC2]

The choke is the nic. You can't tax vg/pg/flaves. Widespread alternative use of those eliminates the ability to tax.

A reasonable middle ground is to simply tax nic at the wholesale and then retail channel. Premixed bottles will be taxed on content. That's pretty easy to do.

I envision a possible world where nic base can only be sold to licensed mixers. The mixers then sell to State b&m's. 7-11's could sell bottles of halo, Johnson creek, etc.

Some state b&m's can do it craft style just like micro-breweries. I never mind paying more for a quality crafted product.

Banning flavors other than tobacco isn't the endof the world. There is no reason to ban unflavored nic base. Maybe you can't buy 100mg strength but if I can get my hands on 6-24 base then I can mix anything I want.

Banning bottled juice altogether is a horrifying thought but the ecig world has matured pretty quickly. I think it possible that the chance to outright ban bottled liquid has passed. Could be wrong but I would at least hedge that I'm right.

Another scary thought is assuming the math will be right. Nic absorption is much different with vapor and saying a blu or Njoy is = to a pack or more of smokes is insane. If the tax man does the same math it could be a painful blow to the wallet.

All of this is clearly the best outcome we could reasonably hope for.

But while this may be the best outcome we can hope for, I have a hard time seeing it happening this way.
--I am quite certain this is NOT what Big Pharma wants
--I am quite certain this is NOT what Big Tobacco wants
--Although it MAY satisfy Big Government in their pursuit of our taxes, but that is debatable

However, the truth is that there is no justification for putting a sin tax on nicotine liquid in the first place.
And when they try, I have no doubt CASAA will be fighting against it, as they should.