Wall Street Journal Article
- Thread starter GregH
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'd go so far as to say a majority
(currently 403 against regulation as drug delivery device and 93 for). Great comment Elaine (as always).
Best written article to present, MHO! There are at least two other Threads running on ECF now with this same article, have posted but couldn't see my post, some excellent feedbacks as usual!!!
So it's either regulated as tobacco or ban. Well it figures, e cig companies are not big business like pahrm and tobacco so, as usal the little guy get it in the patootie no matter what and, we as individulas either lose it altogether or are taxed out of being able to afford it. Well, I guess it's time to find out who the nic drug lords will be in my area or become one myself.
Since you're newer to the forum, you may not have read yet the discussions here about taxing.
One popular theory is that e-cigs would be taxed more like other tobacco products (which aren't taxed as heavily as cigarettes) or NRTs, not as cigarettes. "Tobacco product" does not automatically mean "cigarette," as is shown with products like snus and disolvables. Consider the fact that this product reduces harm, so an excessive "sin tax" that is "justified" by anti-tobacco proponents (because of the harm caused) wouldn't be as easily arguable.
Additionally, cigarettes are taxed based on weight, so it'll be a while before they figure out how to tax cartridges/liquid. And even if they do add a tax at the same rate as tobacco cigarettes, which I think is unlikely, based on my calculations, e-cigarettes would still be cheaper than tobacco cigarettes.
No wonder I did not see it yesterday in the WSJ. It was in todays" paper---the 25th.If someone wants to write or email the Editor with a positive comment and add their own experience with the ecig that would be a very good thing to do. The antis will be flooding them. The address and e-mail are posted below:
wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
WSJ,The Editor
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York,NY
10036
A teacher of government posted about how he sees government getting involved in all type of issues that will effect health care costs. Just what we need. I responded'
"Michael, by the way you're thinking, the government will need to control every aspect of human life, is that what you would expect as an American? Obesity is growing at an astronomical rate as the rate of smoking is decreasing. In 2000 the mortality from obesity was only 100k behind that of smoking. Considering that smoking is decreasing and obesity is increasing these numbers will soon reverse. We know that there are more and earlier health risks associated with seriously overweight individuals from high blood pressure to diabetes.
Are you sure that you want to be charged excise taxes on products you use everyday as smokers have been doing for decades. The truth of the matter on smoking related diseases is that a lot of those costs for smokers in terms of death rates and health costs come later in life.
The result of shorter life expectancy is a decrease in social cost for health and social security payments. If you do the math, earlier death actually saves society, not costs it.
Take an average SS payment of $1200/mo. That calculates to About $14000 in today's dollars per year. Over 10 years, that's a savings of $140,000 alone. If you take the figures offered up by one of the more obnoxious "health" associations CFTFK-
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0327.pdf
They estimate a lifetime difference in medical cost of around $18,000 more than never smokers and $13000 in former smokers, based on 2004 numbers. Considering that less than 20% of the US population is considered a never smoker (less that 100 cigarettes lifetime is the cutoff for that designation), there is only about a $5000 savings in health costs by quitting.
The bottom line is that a little less than 20% of the population is in the never smoker category and they have a social cost (social security plus medical costs) over their additional 10 years of life of $122,000 on average. The ex-smoker (60% of the population) with a 5 year shorter life expectancy has a social cost of $57,000 and the smoker comes in at $18,000 social cost. Not considered in these estimates is the further reduction in social cost by both the smoker and ex-smoker based in the excise taxes they paid over their lifetime.
Yes, if you look purely at health costs, smokers probably cost more overall, but the benefits to society on a reduced life expectancy cannot be overlooked."
"Michael, by the way you're thinking, the government will need to control every aspect of human life, is that what you would expect as an American? Obesity is growing at an astronomical rate as the rate of smoking is decreasing. In 2000 the mortality from obesity was only 100k behind that of smoking. Considering that smoking is decreasing and obesity is increasing these numbers will soon reverse. We know that there are more and earlier health risks associated with seriously overweight individuals from high blood pressure to diabetes.
Are you sure that you want to be charged excise taxes on products you use everyday as smokers have been doing for decades. The truth of the matter on smoking related diseases is that a lot of those costs for smokers in terms of death rates and health costs come later in life.
The result of shorter life expectancy is a decrease in social cost for health and social security payments. If you do the math, earlier death actually saves society, not costs it.
Take an average SS payment of $1200/mo. That calculates to About $14000 in today's dollars per year. Over 10 years, that's a savings of $140,000 alone. If you take the figures offered up by one of the more obnoxious "health" associations CFTFK-
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0327.pdf
They estimate a lifetime difference in medical cost of around $18,000 more than never smokers and $13000 in former smokers, based on 2004 numbers. Considering that less than 20% of the US population is considered a never smoker (less that 100 cigarettes lifetime is the cutoff for that designation), there is only about a $5000 savings in health costs by quitting.
The bottom line is that a little less than 20% of the population is in the never smoker category and they have a social cost (social security plus medical costs) over their additional 10 years of life of $122,000 on average. The ex-smoker (60% of the population) with a 5 year shorter life expectancy has a social cost of $57,000 and the smoker comes in at $18,000 social cost. Not considered in these estimates is the further reduction in social cost by both the smoker and ex-smoker based in the excise taxes they paid over their lifetime.
Yes, if you look purely at health costs, smokers probably cost more overall, but the benefits to society on a reduced life expectancy cannot be overlooked."
Last edited:
If the reason for the tobacco taxes is really health, then of course we will see your "fair" taxes on e-cigs. I suspect however, that just looking like you're injuring the public health would be a heavily taxable event...
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Per Kristin's posting above, cigarettes are not taxed by weight, but rather by the pack.
And while most states tax smokeless tobacco at a lower rate than cigarettes (as they should since cigarettes are far more hazardous), about fifteen states now absurdly tax smokeless tobacco at a higher rate (as a percentage of wholesale or retail price) than cigarettes. For example, Minnesota taxes smokeless tobacco (and now e-cigarettes) at 70% of wholesale price, while MN's $1.56/pack cigarette tax is less than 30% of the wholesale price of cigarettes in that state.
And while most states tax smokeless based upon a % of wholesale price, increasingly more states (due to lobbying by Philip Morris) have began taxing smokeless tobacco by weight, which I've been advocating for the past several years because a 1.2 oz can of Skoal and Copenhagen should be taxed at the same rate as a 1.2 oz can of Grizzly, which costs less than half the price of Skoal and Copenhagen.
But I think the best method of taxing e-cigarettes and e-liquid that contain nicotine would be as a percentage of wholesale price (even though that is not clearly defined or understood term in the fledgling e-cigarette industry). I suggest that a 5% state tax on e-cigarettes would be reasonable, as would a 5% federal tax (if/when e-cigarettes are legally defined as tobacco products).
For comparison, the average state cigarette excise tax is about 25% of the retail price, while the federal cigarette excise tax is about 20% of retail price.
For the past several years, I've been advocating taxing smokefree tobacco products at a significantly lower rate than cigarettes. Here in PA, where there is no tax on smokeless tobacco, I've been advocating a modest weight based tax, while CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA have been advocating a 30% of wholesale price tax (and they previously advocated a 60% of wholesale price tax).
And while most states tax smokeless tobacco at a lower rate than cigarettes (as they should since cigarettes are far more hazardous), about fifteen states now absurdly tax smokeless tobacco at a higher rate (as a percentage of wholesale or retail price) than cigarettes. For example, Minnesota taxes smokeless tobacco (and now e-cigarettes) at 70% of wholesale price, while MN's $1.56/pack cigarette tax is less than 30% of the wholesale price of cigarettes in that state.
And while most states tax smokeless based upon a % of wholesale price, increasingly more states (due to lobbying by Philip Morris) have began taxing smokeless tobacco by weight, which I've been advocating for the past several years because a 1.2 oz can of Skoal and Copenhagen should be taxed at the same rate as a 1.2 oz can of Grizzly, which costs less than half the price of Skoal and Copenhagen.
But I think the best method of taxing e-cigarettes and e-liquid that contain nicotine would be as a percentage of wholesale price (even though that is not clearly defined or understood term in the fledgling e-cigarette industry). I suggest that a 5% state tax on e-cigarettes would be reasonable, as would a 5% federal tax (if/when e-cigarettes are legally defined as tobacco products).
For comparison, the average state cigarette excise tax is about 25% of the retail price, while the federal cigarette excise tax is about 20% of retail price.
For the past several years, I've been advocating taxing smokefree tobacco products at a significantly lower rate than cigarettes. Here in PA, where there is no tax on smokeless tobacco, I've been advocating a modest weight based tax, while CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA have been advocating a 30% of wholesale price tax (and they previously advocated a 60% of wholesale price tax).
I'm curious, too. Since the smokeless products cost society very little (if anything) in terms of increased medical costs shouldn't we be advocating removing any existing taxes on these products? This would provide a financial incentive to switch, whcih is important, because most smokers have been brainwashed to believe that there is no health advantage to switching.
I'm sorry, Bill, but from what I have seen, when you give these folks an inch, they take the proverbial mile. As soon as you advocate for a modest tax on smokeless, the legislators run with it (spurred on by the Alphabet Soup Gang) and jack up those rates as you have described. Don't give them any ideas that they can use to inflict harm on us. They have enough of those on their own.
I'm sorry, Bill, but from what I have seen, when you give these folks an inch, they take the proverbial mile. As soon as you advocate for a modest tax on smokeless, the legislators run with it (spurred on by the Alphabet Soup Gang) and jack up those rates as you have described. Don't give them any ideas that they can use to inflict harm on us. They have enough of those on their own.
Elaine, these "health" organization need to maintain what they have gained by becoming so anti. If attention gets diverted to other, more pressing issues like obesity (especially among our youth), the money doesn't get filtered to the anti-smoking/tobacco/nicotine industry. This is not a satisfactory result for their ?non-profit?"health" initiatives.
The only way they can maintain their revenue stream is to keep people smoking or, as we've seen over the past decades, expand the enemy to smokeless and non-pharma nicotine. I'm beginning to find it morbidly humorous that many of the most harshly critical antis, the ex-smoker, tallies heavily into the smoking related morbidity and mortality statistics.
I'd love to figure out how to stop kids from ever starting smoking, but history will show that allowing the kids to become obese will, more than likely, be a lot greater health cost. My journey into smoking was certainly far from the average young person's journey, not starting until I was of legal age. Had I not smoked, I may have been on some form of meds for years, who knows. There are a lot of psychological reasons why people start and if they're not smoking, they're doing something else. Medical attention, expensive. Other illicit avenues, expensive. Self elimination.....
For those youth that smoke out of rebellion, there will always be some product that adults object to and the kids will gravitate to it. The question is how do you get them out of those circumstances as quickly and as safely as possible. Unless reduced harm is accepted and quantified, there is no way to break the cycle. Unless you provide an economical incentive for a switch, there will be no incentive. I think that works well for the "health" associations.
When you look at a population in 2010 that contains less than 20% never smokers, you have to question what your chances are of completely eliminating smoking without a total ban, and you know how that would work out.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Per inquiries, advocating lower taxes on smokefree tobacco products (and e-cigarettes) than for cigarettes provides the following benefits:
- it educates elected officials and news media that smokefree tobacco and e-cigs are less hazardous than cigarettes,
- it exposes the abstinence-only anti-tobacco advocates as the extremists they are,
- if/when smokeless tobacco (and e-cigarettes) are taxed (even slightly), they won't be banned,
- by taxing e-cigarettes, they will be considered tobacco products (not drug devices),
- it makes us appear reasonable.
- it educates elected officials and news media that smokefree tobacco and e-cigs are less hazardous than cigarettes,
- it exposes the abstinence-only anti-tobacco advocates as the extremists they are,
- if/when smokeless tobacco (and e-cigarettes) are taxed (even slightly), they won't be banned,
- by taxing e-cigarettes, they will be considered tobacco products (not drug devices),
- it makes us appear reasonable.
I agree with Bill, there needs to be some concession to the taxing of e-cigs, the e-liquid or at the very least of the nicotine for those of us who do our own mixing. And I think that a 5% tax is very reasonable especially if it will keep e-cigs available to us.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
