$2 tax on vapor products proposed in Philly to preserve revenue for failing Philly Schools from recently enacted $2/pack cigarette tax

[Bill Godshall]

Philadelphia (PA) City Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown proposes $2 tax on vapor products to preserve revenue for failing Philly Schools from recently enacted $2/pack cigarette tax, to encourage vapers to switch back to lethal cigarettes, and to discourage smokers from switching to life saving e-cigs.
Phila. councilwoman wants to tax e-cigarettes

It appears that the recently enacted and implemented $2/pack cigarette tax in Philly is prompting many smokers to switch to vaping.

Please note that Reynolds-Brown (and Mayor Nutter) ignored all of the scientific evidence by approving the vaping ban earlier this year, and that SRC Chairman Bill Green was an original cosponsor of that legislation (before he left City Council to become SRC Chairman).

 

[Bill Godshall]

According to the bill, the tax rate would be as follows.

(a) For each electronic cigarette sold, two dollars ($2.00);

(b) For each milliliter (ml) of nicotine solution sold, other than in an electronic cigarette, fifty cents ($.50), but not to exceed five dollars ($5.00) in total per transaction.

So the tax would be $5 for every 10ml, 20ml, and 30ml bottle of e-liquid sold.
If this tax is approved, vape shops in Philly will likely begin to sell e-liquid in 100ml and 200ml bottles (as they'd be taxed the same $5 as a 10ml bottle).

 

[Kent C]

(a) For each electronic cigarette sold, two dollars ($2.00);

Likely to do away with 'disposables'. May push people toward gen 2 devices....

 

[bigdancehawk]

Ban it, then tax it.

 

[DrMA]

Here's a novel idea for "untapped revenue" - tax malicious stupidity. It's far more appropriate for supporting schools, since they are ultimately responsible for the lack of education that lead to the same ignorance and stupidity in the first place.

OTT, where did this absurdity about smokers supporting schools come from in the first place? If the good people of Philly think schools are important, they should all share the cost burden, not relegate that responsibility on the shoulders of a victimized minority (smokers).

 

[Kent C]

Ban it, then tax it.

Ban it! ... no wait... Tax it!

 

[Lessifer]

You know what doesn't get taxed according to those rules? Pre-filled cartos, like the ones BT sells... surprise...

 

[edyle]

According to the bill, the tax rate would be as follows.

(a) For each electronic cigarette sold, two dollars ($2.00);

(b) For each milliliter (ml) of nicotine solution sold, other than in an electronic cigarette, fifty cents ($.50), but not to exceed five dollars ($5.00) in total per transaction.

So the tax would be $5 for every 10ml, 20ml, and 30ml bottle of e-liquid sold.
If this tax is approved, vape shops in Philly will likely begin to sell e-liquid in 100ml and 200ml bottles (as they'd be taxed the same $5 as a 10ml bottle).

Seems to me most likely it's the effect of the dropoff in revenue on big tobacco taxes.

Since that's going down they're taxing the obvious 'cause'.



tax is just legal stealing in my book

 

[SensesFailed]

This goes much further up the line, trying to recoup money from schools, not that certain people would DARE question the Republican governor we have....

I don't live in Philly, but I do visit since one of my best friends lives there and have talked to them to try and get some information from the council down there so I can pay some people a visit next time I do down there, which of course, will hopefully be soon.

Obviously I don't an issue with some taxes, but when we start taxing EVERYTHING, now we're going crazy.

 

[kakiser56]

They are getting wise to the fact that they are losing cigarette tax dollars so now want to put the burden on those who vape.
Councilwoman proposes e-cigarette tax to help fund Philly schools

 

[Harlen]

Yep but the money will help pay for schools for the kids. Pay for the health care of vaper's to fund drug programs for them.
Same old crap stealing from the bad people is ok you know

 

[sonicdsl]

Merged post 10 & 11 (http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...nacted-2-pack-cigarette-tax.html#post14389706) into existing thread on same topic.

 

[csardaz]

(b) For each milliliter (ml) of nicotine solution sold, other than in an electronic cigarette, fifty cents ($.50), but not to exceed five dollars ($5.00) in total per transaction.

So the tax would be $5 for every 10ml, 20ml, and 30ml bottle of e-liquid sold.
If this tax is approved, vape shops in Philly will likely begin to sell e-liquid in 100ml and 200ml bottles (as they'd be taxed the same $5 as a 10ml bottle).

If its capped $5 per transaction, the tax is the same $5 for buying 3 x 30ml bottles as 1 x 100ml bottle?

Still it most penalizes the people who grab a days worth at the convienience store when they get coffee, and least the people who hit a vape shop twice a month for larger orders.

 

[xpl0it]

All the B&M's have to do is change the price of their toppers to include the price of the liquid and then give the liquid away for free. That is unless they begin taxing each piece of hardware.

 

[OCD]

I will never understand the "You used to smoke and we still want our money from you" line of thought.

Biggest thing this will do is hurt local businesses because more folks will purchase online from out of state so not only is the thinking moronic from the start it shoots themselves in the foot in the process.

 

[Lessifer]

The biggest thing about this one is that it's not even a veiled money grab. There's no "protect the children" or "you'll cost us more in medical expenses so we'll tax you up front." It's just, we're not taxing these at any extra level, and we want to, because we think we can.

 

[skoony]

If its capped $5 per transaction, the tax is the same $5 for buying 3 x 30ml bottles as 1 x 100ml bottle?

Still it most penalizes the people who grab a days worth at the convienience store when they get coffee, and least the people who hit a vape shop twice a month for larger orders.

it is probably written vaguely to lull people into thinking it means 5 max on the entire purchase.(1-100 items) seams reasonable.
it will be interpreted as meaning each item is an individual purchase.(1+1+1....=100) OGM!

regards
mike

 

[Alto101]

Here is the comment I posted on Blondell's facebook:
You should be ashamed of yourself for this proposal. People who switch from traditional cigarettes to e-cigarettes are greatly improving their future health. The rational for sin taxes is to compensate society for the negative behavior (the sin). With e-cigarettes, vapors are improving the overall public health (by not smoking) and should be rewarded for doing so. Imagine the decreased health costs, increased productivity, years gained earning income and paying into the state income tax system that people who switch to vaping will enjoy. Instead you want to punish people who vape and take away a major incentive from switching to e-cigarettes. I really hope that politicians like you are someday named as parties in a massive lawsuit by smokers who never made the switch to e-cigarettes due to your policies. You are willing to risk the health of your constituents for an insignificant amount of tax money that you will never collect. Instead the smart people in your area will make their purchases online or in a smarter nearby city. In reality, your proposal if enacted will cause decreased employment in your area, no significant increase in tax revenue and cause some smokers who would have otherwise switched to a safer alternative to continue smoking. Maybe you should learn to do what American households are forced to do - align your expenses with your income instead of taking more

 

[TomGeorge]

^BRAVO! Well written and good points. I hope he actually reads it tho

 

[roosterado]

Vapers Voting Guide Facebook Group-- https://www.facebook.com/groups/844797618898610/