they really don’t make any sense when they say they need the revenue in one breath and with the other say higher prices will deter young smokers…at a point the tax revenue will fail to exist, or be basically moot…
a leading economist said in an article that health costs from smokers passed on to taxpayers is offset by the smoker dying younger on average…he said many people don’t want to figure this into the formula, but they must to get an accurate picture..he said that states actually save money on smokers, even with the added health costs, and that if states were serious about saving money, they should actually cut taxes and reward smokers…
i agree with the economist, alot of the other dribble is written by anti-smokers, period.
It’s the typical short-sighted liberal tax and spend mindset. Nothing new.
I got a tax bill for Cigarette I brought on the internet, in another State.
Yes! (if you did not pay taxes in another state on those cigarettes) In fact, California has sent bills to 12,000 taxpayers this year who purchased cigarettes over the internet and paid no sales tax. This is not just cigarettes though- technically anything you buy over the internet or through the mail for which you are not taxed is taxable by California. It’s just too hard to track individual spending so only companies are subject to those rules- it’s called a "use tax".
The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) takes a brief look at why non-smokers should be concerned about politicians using Cigarette and Tobacco taxes to fund new programs and fill budget gaps. Unsurprisingly, NTU found that time and time again cigarette taxes do not bring in the revenue politicians promise.
Duration : 0:1:34