US Federal taxation news

[Bijan]

https://halfwheel.com/another-u-s-senate-bill-seeks-massive-federal-tax-increase-on-cigars-other-tobacco-products/392883/

ANOTHER U.S. SENATE BILL SEEKS MASSIVE FEDERAL TAX INCREASE ON CIGARS, OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS

[shippers]

Quote

to a weight-based system of $49.56 per pound and no less than 10.066 cents per cigar.

I know it is the thin end of the wedge but how I would love to have that tax rate in the UK. But then I am grateful not to have the AUS rate...

[Nevrknow]

Another reason for me to quit cigs.

[Vitola Corleone]

Seems relevant to the NC consumers in the US. US CC consumers are not paying US taxes.

4 hours ago, Nevrknow said:

Another reason for me to quit cigs.

Glass half full: Another reason to shift 100% to habanos 

 

[Frozen North]

Canada’s brutal rates top them all 😡

[LLC]

Government and politicians are like crack addicts and tax revenue is their fix. Pathetic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kaptain Karl]

4 hours ago, LLC said:

Government and politicians are like crack addicts and tax revenue is their fix. Pathetic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yup true that. We’re gonna be hearing this a lot for the next 21 months🙄🙄🙄

[Vitola Corleone]

2 hours ago, Kaptain Karl said:

Yup true that. We’re gonna be hearing this a lot for the next 21 months🙄🙄🙄

21 months? I love youthful optimism. 

"Come meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[Kaptain Karl]

6 hours ago, Vitola Corleone said:

21 months? I love youthful optimism. 

"Come meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

House and senate buddy 

[Zedman05]

Canada’s brutal rates top them all

Nope.
Look into what OZ is getting bent over for. We are only half way to what they are. A pack of darts up here only costs like $15, but in OZ they are around $40. Taxation without representation, baby.

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

[Bijan]

53 minutes ago, Zedman05 said:

Look into what OZ is getting bent over for.

We're marginally worse on cigars. 50 cab of Lusitanias is sub $3,000 in Australia but over $3,000 in Canada. But it's pretty close.

We're better on very cheap cigars since we're by value though and they're by weight.

Edit: We do have the stores operating on native land selling without provincial taxes though.

[Wookie]

What is the USD equivalent price for a Lusitania in Canada now? Or a cab of RASS?

[Zedman05]

What is the USD equivalent price for a Lusitania in Canada now? Or a cab of RASS?

A Lusi will go for 48-52 here.

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

[MrBirdman]

1 hour ago, Wookie said:

What is the USD equivalent price for a Lusitania in Canada now? Or a cab of RASS?

“If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.”

-Anonymous Snob

[Bijan]

53 minutes ago, Zedman05 said:

A Lusi will go for 48-52 here.

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
 

Edit: Sorry forgot about USD. Carry on...

[Chas.Alpha]

3 hours ago, Kaptain Karl said:

House and senate buddy 

Dunno. The R’s have managed to split themselves in two, but this borders on the beginnings of a forbidden topic, so we will leave it here...

[Bijan]

2 hours ago, Wookie said:

What is the USD equivalent price for a Lusitania in Canada now? Or a cab of RASS?

Until recently take standard international price and multiply by about 3.3 (depends on the province). The native stores would be about a multiple of 1.8 to 2. I think it might have gone up recently but I haven't seen the new numbers.

[Jimmy_jack]

Have to fund  the crazy “stimulus” checks somehow. 

[Fosgate]

Next politician that asks me for a contribution, I'm gonna shove a cigar so far up their azz they're going to have to set fire to their nose to smoke it. Then tell them, "There's your contribution."

[LordAnubis]

3 dollars in tax 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Must be tough 

[zigarrenziggy]

It's brutal for pipe tobacco. $49 a pound is almost a 100% tax on most bulk blends. Really a shame

[Chibearsv]

Wow, who could say "no" to keeping new mothers from dying during childbirth?

"Sin tax" is always promoted as some sort of financial solution but it never works.  As "sin products" usage declines, tax needs to rise to retain revenue, so "legal" usage declines more, and on and on.  So, if intelligent people are promoting a sin tax (and I'm not making that assumption), the motive isn't truly revenue related....it's to eliminate the taxable item or activity.  

[Grateful13]

2 hours ago, Chibearsv said:

 

"Sin tax" is always promoted as some sort of financial solution but it never works.  As "sin products" usage declines, tax needs to rise to retain revenue, so "legal" usage declines more, and on and on.  So, if intelligent people are promoting a sin tax (and I'm not making that assumption), the motive isn't truly revenue related....it's to eliminate the taxable item or activity.  

This logic actually applies to all taxes, including the income tax. 

[Cairo]

2 hours ago, Chibearsv said:

Wow, who could say "no" to keeping new mothers from dying during childbirth?

"Sin tax" is always promoted as some sort of financial solution but it never works.  As "sin products" usage declines, tax needs to rise to retain revenue, so "legal" usage declines more, and on and on.  So, if intelligent people are promoting a sin tax (and I'm not making that assumption), the motive isn't truly revenue related....it's to eliminate the taxable item or activity.  

Imho there are two main types of people who push this stuff:

(1) Control freaks.  We all know them.   They are the neighborhood busybody who wants to make sure the weeds in the neighborhood don't grow too unsightly.    The meme in the US these days is "Karen".   When they make it to the legislature they go bonkers.

(2) "Experts".   They hang around foundations, universities, science labs--or are very impressed by such folks.    They are convinced that "science" will cure every problem.   Of course "science" treats human beings like cattle to be studied--and herded, and history has shown that when you mix "science" and politics you often get a boot on your neck.

Humans are very complex, so of course one person could have elements of both personalities.

Sin taxes are of course very regressive since poor people either use the products more or lack the skills, knowledge and/or ability to evade the tax.

[foursite12]

3 hours ago, Chibearsv said:

Wow, who could say "no" to keeping new mothers from dying during childbirth?

"Sin tax" is always promoted as some sort of financial solution but it never works.  As "sin products" usage declines, tax needs to rise to retain revenue, so "legal" usage declines more, and on and on.  So, if intelligent people are promoting a sin tax (and I'm not making that assumption), the motive isn't truly revenue related....it's to eliminate the taxable item or activity.  

The argument holds if revenue is the only objective. In theory, sin taxes are targeted to disincent people from engaging in the targeted activity, thus saving socially -borne expenses created by those of us choosing to engage in them. Absent that benefit, the tax becomes solely punitive.