Last paragraph continued:
So, if States are watching their tobacco revenues (MSA and Excise taxes) decline - AS SMOKING REDUCES (what EVERYONE else WANTS TO SEE) - and they have no (harm) justification for replacing that revenue stream via e-vapor products, what do you think they will do???? Continue to try to replace that diminishing revenue by taxing THR products (or vilify them and over-regulate them off the market).
Just a bit more on the NYS January 2001 (soon after MSA) "Tobacco Settlement Payments": http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/releases/tobacco.htm
"ACTUAL ANNUAL TOBACCO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE STATES, 2006-2015 (Millions of Dollars)": https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0365.pdf
Lou Ritter - 7 years ago
http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-fs-msa-overview-2015.pdf
THE MASTER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (MSA = 46 states, four US territories, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Dist of Columbia). "Just as the Settling States’ Medicaid and other health-care costs due to their citizens’ smoking-related illnesses will likely continue indefinitely, the MSA provides that the Participating Manufacturers’ payments to the Settling States will continue in perpetuity. The “base amounts” of these annual payments gradually increase, beginning at $4.5 billion in 2000, $6.5 billion from 2002–2003, $8.14 billion from 2008–2017, and $9 billion in 2018 and each subsequent year in perpetuity."
***** "Q: Are there restrictions on how states use MSA funds?
Answer: While the MSA states that its primary purpose is to decrease youth smoking and promote public health, it does not contain any provisions requiring states to allocate settlement revenues to tobacco prevention and cessation. As a result of decisions by state legislatures, which are responsible for deciding how the money is spent, state coffers lined with this money, coupled with billions in tobacco taxes and other substantial funds from tobacco companies, have not been used for tobacco control and prevention programs.
In 2015, states will receive $25.6 billion in revenue from the MSA settlement and tobacco taxes, but only 1.9% of these funds have been earmarked for tobacco control programs. In times of economic belt-tightening, state legislatures have used funds from tobacco settlement payments to cover budget shortfalls and address fiscal priorities in areas other than tobacco prevention and cessation. In fact, few states have allocated more than a nominal amount of their tobacco settlement revenue to fund tobacco prevention and cessation programs.... As of 2014, only North Dakota and Alaska funded their programs at the minimum level the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention recommends as necessary for an effective tobacco prevention and cessation program."
After the MSA, many states - including NY - floated Tobacco Bonds to get a big chunk of the MSA money upfront ** BUT, they have to make payments on those Bonds (and rely on MSA [reducing] payments to do so): http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/18/nyregion/new-york-city-is-planning-tobacco-bonds-but-experts-are-wary.html
So, let's connect the dots: States get awarded an "annuity" (of sorts) after making a legal claims they have financial burdens resulting from the harms of tobacco. This legal action results in the MSA. States see dollar signs and float bonds to get as much of that money upfront as possible.
As per the above articles, NYS, and many other states, used only a tiny fraction of the MSA funds for the "claimed financial burdens" used to justify the MSA - then they (states - including NYS) floated bonds with no traceability of where the bonds proceeds went - articles show only a tiny fraction went to tobacco correlated expenses - the rest into other unrelated budgets. E.G. NJ recently used tobacco funds towards opioid epidemic: http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/2017/01/23/new-jersey-set-hand-millions-tobacco-cash/96967906/
There are no proven risks/harms identified sufficient to justify ANY taxes beyond regular sales taxes - all other taxing efforts on vapor products are merely states attempting to replace the diminishing tobacco MSA receipts (with no harm-correlated justifications or vapor correlated expenses). As tobacco sales drop, so do BOTH MSA AND EXCISE TAXES. As so many states floated tobacco bonds, used those proceeds for general budget items (leg tracking shows many states re-allocating tobacco funds - both MSA and Excise taxes - into general budgets for schools, after school programs, etc., etc., etc.), while they (States) will never admit it - they have made their States DEPENDENT ON TOBACCO (most deadly consumable) REVENUE.
So, if States are watching their tobacco revenues (MSA
Steven Davis - 7 years ago
Eliquid is NOT Tobacco, so why should is be taxed like Tobacco? Taxing Eliquid and forcing retailers to raise the prices of these eliquids would force a lot of vapers into a tough spot, because we as vapers looked at how much money we saved as one of the main driving forces behind switching to vaping in the first place.
Vaping saves lives, PERIOD.
Mr Peter Byrne - 7 years ago
This is saving the tax payers from paying for the extra burden put on the NHS and all subsidiaries. Why should a much healthier alternative to smoking be shackled the same way?. Will this open the door to tax all kitchens and restaurants for making vapours as a by product to cooking? Or could you only bathe, shower or wash in cold water for fear of being taxed. How many products out there on our shelves and cupboards, have some level of nicotine in? This is that grey area no one is looking at. One stupid law will devaste many many more. Common sense these days is no longer used. It's all down to the richest and most powerful people who only have their best interests to look out for and how this reflects on the real people is and always has been the issue. The fortunate part of this is vaping has many avenues to use to tackle the deliberately placed hurdles put in the way. Especially the wealth of people no longer shackled to tobacco . I may have gone on, but I assure you that there is a basis to all I say and I belive to be true. Our planet gave us nicotine as many other drugs, our scientists and herbalists etc over millenia have used our planet to get these drugs, good or bad. So when we as people decide to change our drug hobbit to one that is less harmful to health why are we accepting the government's involvement? These self appointed people who do nothing but hold people back aren't there to protect us or look after our health, they want your hard earned tax paid cash aswell. It's more than just a product to help you stop smoking, it's a revolutionary change in the world and the world's powers. From big tobacco to tell pharmaceutical industry. These alone will take a massive financial hit, and about time to. This is a small product used individually but United it's another greater world power, a world power of the people. So taxes and the government bring it on, where you block one way we open up another and this is a get on board or watch the changes happen anyway. Maybe I have missed some of the point about tax but it's all relevant to me and to many others, who maybe haven't yet seen the potential of not just this virgin industry which has exploded into the world , but to what and where this industry is going .
Mike Felling - 7 years ago
E-liquid is, first, not tobacco; therefore it should not be taxed as tobacco. As for taxing it wholesale, the consumer would end up paying for such a tax as businesses simply will not be able to afford it and so will pass the cost on. Nicotine, a subatance that on it's own is just as safe as caffeine, is not tobacco; just as corn sugar is not a vegetable; just as whiskey is neither corn nor rye, nor any grain. As the making of e-liquids is fairly simple (for personal use, you can make it in your own home), the result of taxing e-liquids would just boost the DIY market; and as consumers are not always wise enough to know safe handling processes, procedures and standards, the likelihood of increasing the DIY segment actually puts more people at risk. Lastly, more taxes will drive people away from vaping, and most would likely go back to smoking; in essence, more taxes will cause more illnesses and more deaths - and the responsibilitiy for THAT will be directly on the heads of those that pushed for and/or passed taxes on e-liquids. In their zeal based on unfounded fears, they will continue to allow deaths and illnesses to flourish - all so that the tobacco industry can profit on the front end, and the pharmaceutical industry can profit on the back end. And that leaves only one more group that benefits from taxes on vaping; the people that manage funerals.
Last paragraph continued:
So, if States are watching their tobacco revenues (MSA and Excise taxes) decline - AS SMOKING REDUCES (what EVERYONE else WANTS TO SEE) - and they have no (harm) justification for replacing that revenue stream via e-vapor products, what do you think they will do???? Continue to try to replace that diminishing revenue by taxing THR products (or vilify them and over-regulate them off the market).
Just a bit more on the NYS January 2001 (soon after MSA) "Tobacco Settlement Payments": http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/releases/tobacco.htm
"ACTUAL ANNUAL TOBACCO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE STATES, 2006-2015 (Millions of Dollars)": https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0365.pdf
http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-fs-msa-overview-2015.pdf
THE MASTER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (MSA = 46 states, four US territories, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Dist of Columbia). "Just as the Settling States’ Medicaid and other health-care costs due to their citizens’ smoking-related illnesses will likely continue indefinitely, the MSA provides that the Participating Manufacturers’ payments to the Settling States will continue in perpetuity. The “base amounts” of these annual payments gradually increase, beginning at $4.5 billion in 2000, $6.5 billion from 2002–2003, $8.14 billion from 2008–2017, and $9 billion in 2018 and each subsequent year in perpetuity."
***** "Q: Are there restrictions on how states use MSA funds?
Answer: While the MSA states that its primary purpose is to decrease youth smoking and promote public health, it does not contain any provisions requiring states to allocate settlement revenues to tobacco prevention and cessation. As a result of decisions by state legislatures, which are responsible for deciding how the money is spent, state coffers lined with this money, coupled with billions in tobacco taxes and other substantial funds from tobacco companies, have not been used for tobacco control and prevention programs.
In 2015, states will receive $25.6 billion in revenue from the MSA settlement and tobacco taxes, but only 1.9% of these funds have been earmarked for tobacco control programs. In times of economic belt-tightening, state legislatures have used funds from tobacco settlement payments to cover budget shortfalls and address fiscal priorities in areas other than tobacco prevention and cessation. In fact, few states have allocated more than a nominal amount of their tobacco settlement revenue to fund tobacco prevention and cessation programs.... As of 2014, only North Dakota and Alaska funded their programs at the minimum level the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention recommends as necessary for an effective tobacco prevention and cessation program."
After the MSA, many states - including NY - floated Tobacco Bonds to get a big chunk of the MSA money upfront ** BUT, they have to make payments on those Bonds (and rely on MSA [reducing] payments to do so): http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/18/nyregion/new-york-city-is-planning-tobacco-bonds-but-experts-are-wary.html
So, let's connect the dots: States get awarded an "annuity" (of sorts) after making a legal claims they have financial burdens resulting from the harms of tobacco. This legal action results in the MSA. States see dollar signs and float bonds to get as much of that money upfront as possible.
As per the above articles, NYS, and many other states, used only a tiny fraction of the MSA funds for the "claimed financial burdens" used to justify the MSA - then they (states - including NYS) floated bonds with no traceability of where the bonds proceeds went - articles show only a tiny fraction went to tobacco correlated expenses - the rest into other unrelated budgets. E.G. NJ recently used tobacco funds towards opioid epidemic: http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/2017/01/23/new-jersey-set-hand-millions-tobacco-cash/96967906/
There are no proven risks/harms identified sufficient to justify ANY taxes beyond regular sales taxes - all other taxing efforts on vapor products are merely states attempting to replace the diminishing tobacco MSA receipts (with no harm-correlated justifications or vapor correlated expenses). As tobacco sales drop, so do BOTH MSA AND EXCISE TAXES. As so many states floated tobacco bonds, used those proceeds for general budget items (leg tracking shows many states re-allocating tobacco funds - both MSA and Excise taxes - into general budgets for schools, after school programs, etc., etc., etc.), while they (States) will never admit it - they have made their States DEPENDENT ON TOBACCO (most deadly consumable) REVENUE.
So, if States are watching their tobacco revenues (MSA
Eliquid is NOT Tobacco, so why should is be taxed like Tobacco? Taxing Eliquid and forcing retailers to raise the prices of these eliquids would force a lot of vapers into a tough spot, because we as vapers looked at how much money we saved as one of the main driving forces behind switching to vaping in the first place.
Vaping saves lives, PERIOD.
This is saving the tax payers from paying for the extra burden put on the NHS and all subsidiaries. Why should a much healthier alternative to smoking be shackled the same way?. Will this open the door to tax all kitchens and restaurants for making vapours as a by product to cooking? Or could you only bathe, shower or wash in cold water for fear of being taxed. How many products out there on our shelves and cupboards, have some level of nicotine in? This is that grey area no one is looking at. One stupid law will devaste many many more. Common sense these days is no longer used. It's all down to the richest and most powerful people who only have their best interests to look out for and how this reflects on the real people is and always has been the issue. The fortunate part of this is vaping has many avenues to use to tackle the deliberately placed hurdles put in the way. Especially the wealth of people no longer shackled to tobacco . I may have gone on, but I assure you that there is a basis to all I say and I belive to be true. Our planet gave us nicotine as many other drugs, our scientists and herbalists etc over millenia have used our planet to get these drugs, good or bad. So when we as people decide to change our drug hobbit to one that is less harmful to health why are we accepting the government's involvement? These self appointed people who do nothing but hold people back aren't there to protect us or look after our health, they want your hard earned tax paid cash aswell. It's more than just a product to help you stop smoking, it's a revolutionary change in the world and the world's powers. From big tobacco to tell pharmaceutical industry. These alone will take a massive financial hit, and about time to. This is a small product used individually but United it's another greater world power, a world power of the people. So taxes and the government bring it on, where you block one way we open up another and this is a get on board or watch the changes happen anyway. Maybe I have missed some of the point about tax but it's all relevant to me and to many others, who maybe haven't yet seen the potential of not just this virgin industry which has exploded into the world , but to what and where this industry is going .
E-liquid is, first, not tobacco; therefore it should not be taxed as tobacco. As for taxing it wholesale, the consumer would end up paying for such a tax as businesses simply will not be able to afford it and so will pass the cost on. Nicotine, a subatance that on it's own is just as safe as caffeine, is not tobacco; just as corn sugar is not a vegetable; just as whiskey is neither corn nor rye, nor any grain. As the making of e-liquids is fairly simple (for personal use, you can make it in your own home), the result of taxing e-liquids would just boost the DIY market; and as consumers are not always wise enough to know safe handling processes, procedures and standards, the likelihood of increasing the DIY segment actually puts more people at risk. Lastly, more taxes will drive people away from vaping, and most would likely go back to smoking; in essence, more taxes will cause more illnesses and more deaths - and the responsibilitiy for THAT will be directly on the heads of those that pushed for and/or passed taxes on e-liquids. In their zeal based on unfounded fears, they will continue to allow deaths and illnesses to flourish - all so that the tobacco industry can profit on the front end, and the pharmaceutical industry can profit on the back end. And that leaves only one more group that benefits from taxes on vaping; the people that manage funerals.