interscape
New Member
Why up the tax on cigars? Seems like they could up the tax on a pack of cigarettes by 2 cents and make 10x's the money. Who the hell smokes cigars anyways.
-
Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
Click here to visit! here...
The most important post you will ever read
- Thread starter Fia
- Start date
merlik
New Member
I received a response back from one of my senators and he doesn't even address the cigar issue so I e-mailed him again specifically asking for information about cigars. It does look as though he is opposing the tax increase.
tsmckenney
Mick
Still, read his response.
"these proposals would raise the federal excise tax on tobacco by 61 cents and would cut funding.."
That is our problem, right f'n there. No, it's not a 61 cent tax hike on tobacco. It's a 61 cent tax hike on 'cigarettes'. The cigar tax is listed separately. Again, IMHO, our only hope in this war is to separate cigarettes from tobacco. Every letter I write includes a statement incorporating that idea. I can't control if any of these f.ckers are reading it or not, but nonetheless. Gotta keep pushing the message.
"these proposals would raise the federal excise tax on tobacco by 61 cents and would cut funding.."
That is our problem, right f'n there. No, it's not a 61 cent tax hike on tobacco. It's a 61 cent tax hike on 'cigarettes'. The cigar tax is listed separately. Again, IMHO, our only hope in this war is to separate cigarettes from tobacco. Every letter I write includes a statement incorporating that idea. I can't control if any of these f.ckers are reading it or not, but nonetheless. Gotta keep pushing the message.
Jack Straw
Active Member
Good luck!!
Here is a letter the AHA (The American Heart Association) sent out on 7/17/07:
AHA applauds SCHIP bill
July 17, 2007
The AHA today expressed strong support for the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which would renew and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that is scheduled to expire Sept. 30. The bipartisan bill would increase the federal tobacco tax to fund the program’s renewal and add 3.3 million children to the 6.6 million children covered by SCHIP now. The measure also would extend optional coverage to pregnant women and relieve states of some administrative burdens imposed by new Medicaid citizenship documentation requirements. “Thank you for your tireless efforts to improve the SCHIP program and provide uninsured, low-income American children with the health care coverage they need and deserve,” AHA said in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who negotiated the legislation. The Senate Finance Committee plans to begin marking up the bill this week.
It appears Jay helped write the current version!!
This is what gets me...expands coverage...and relieves states from using Medicaid...so much for checks and balances.
It kills me as well. I'm usually very happy with Senator Grassley's position, but definitely not in this case. What's going on with Republicans these days? It seems they're getting as bad as the Dems. on taxing and overspending. Don't any of these people remember that our country was founded on a "small government"? Laissez faire, people, hello!
vudu9
New Member
So let me get this straight:
The SFC wants to provide low-income children health care by taxing the hell out of smokers. It has been stated in many articles as fact that a vast majority cigarette smokers are are in the lower income bracket. By raising taxes, lower income cigarette smokers will be forced to quit due to the higher prices. The revenues will eventually decrease as will the smoking. It has been realized that 3 to five years out, the SCHIP program will have to rely on roughly 22 million new smokers to come along to support the program. This means that the low income smokers will have to pass the habit along to their "healthy" children to make up for all of the "quitters" KEEPING them poor because they have to pay outrageous prices for smokes just to be able to keep SCHIP running so their childrens, children will eventually be able to get free health care?!
Freakin' AWSOME! - I'm so out of here
The SFC wants to provide low-income children health care by taxing the hell out of smokers. It has been stated in many articles as fact that a vast majority cigarette smokers are are in the lower income bracket. By raising taxes, lower income cigarette smokers will be forced to quit due to the higher prices. The revenues will eventually decrease as will the smoking. It has been realized that 3 to five years out, the SCHIP program will have to rely on roughly 22 million new smokers to come along to support the program. This means that the low income smokers will have to pass the habit along to their "healthy" children to make up for all of the "quitters" KEEPING them poor because they have to pay outrageous prices for smokes just to be able to keep SCHIP running so their childrens, children will eventually be able to get free health care?!
Freakin' AWSOME! - I'm so out of here
Jack Straw
Active Member
The flaw in your argument is that it assumes the USA has the most "end users" of cigarettes. Actually, the majority of the cigarettes being produced are being exported to Japan, China, India, and the former Soviet Union. And since the tax is being levied against the manufacturers, it will, naturally, be passed along to the consumer.
It makes it easier for our elected officials to vote for a tax that will, largely, be supported by other countries.
I wonder...
"Large cigars are taxed at the rate equal to 53.13 percent of the manufacturer's or importer's sales price but not more than $10.00 per cigar. . . ." (emphasis added)
Let's just use Fuente for a hypothetical here. What if Fuente incorporates two new corporations in the USA: Fuente Imports, Inc., and Fuente Wholesale, Inc. Fuente Imports, Inc., imports all Fuente's products to the USA and sells them to Fuente Wholesale, Inc., for a buck per cigar (or whatever). The tax is then $0.53 per cigar. Fuente Imports, Inc., pays the tax and Fuente Wholesale, Inc., then sells the cigar to the retailers for whatever price it wants.
Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't know the first thing about import law (and I'm not going to spend the time to find out, either), so maybe there's something that prevents this from happening.
"Large cigars are taxed at the rate equal to 53.13 percent of the manufacturer's or importer's sales price but not more than $10.00 per cigar. . . ." (emphasis added)
Let's just use Fuente for a hypothetical here. What if Fuente incorporates two new corporations in the USA: Fuente Imports, Inc., and Fuente Wholesale, Inc. Fuente Imports, Inc., imports all Fuente's products to the USA and sells them to Fuente Wholesale, Inc., for a buck per cigar (or whatever). The tax is then $0.53 per cigar. Fuente Imports, Inc., pays the tax and Fuente Wholesale, Inc., then sells the cigar to the retailers for whatever price it wants.
Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't know the first thing about import law (and I'm not going to spend the time to find out, either), so maybe there's something that prevents this from happening.
vudu9
New Member
True to a degree. The rub here is that companies like Altria (fromerly Philip Morris) are multi-national corperations with facilities all over the world such as the Dominican Republic. Little known fact; Leon Jimenez (famed cigar brand of the boom) makes (made) Marlboros in the DR for PM. These companies can offset and avoid the tax burden in the US by producing more product in 3rd world countries thereby dodging the heavy tax increase as long as they don't import their product to the States. The senate finance committee probably knows this and therefore has no issue with americans funding the program 100%.
lurch
I.Y.A.O.Y.A.S.
I picked a hellofa time to pick up cigar smoking
tsmckenney
Mick
Very interesting points. Most of the tobacco supplied to African markets comes from a company called BAT tobacco. British American Tobacco. Much of their tobacco is grown in Africa itself. So there are other suppliers to sell to the Asian markets as well. I wouldn't pretend to know how that plays out in the grand scheme of things, but it certainly equates somewhere.
Me too. Anybody who has ever been to Canada, or at least Toronto, knows how ridiculous the taxes here are. I wanted to get into cigar smoking, picked up a few cigars for quite a bit of $, and realized I had bought absolute junk. Then I found out Americans are not nearly taxed as much.
Well, I guess if you guys end up with this getting approved / happening, all hope will be lost for me and other Canadians who rely on the States.
Fia
Member
Passed committee by a 17-4 vote. Will go to the senate in about a month. Need to start calling the senators again.
antaean
Did this happen to you?
Contacted both of my US Senators. Have not heard back from either one yet.
Cheers,
antaean
Cheers,
antaean
tc7man
New Member
It is all about the constitution. Where in there does it give congress authority to provide healthcare for children? The only way out of this nazi-like system of ours is to make the congressmen uphold the constitution like they swore to do, and only elect those who actually will. The constitution very specifically limits the power of congress and only authorizes a very few things that they have lawful authority to do. Why are we letting them disregard all of that and allow them to pass countless laws which have no constitutional authority at all? If we remind these people of those facts, it would solve much more than our tobacco tax issue.
Well if they haven't already voted on it and you want to email your senator, here's a form letter to save some time.
Dear Senator,
This letter regards the tobacco tax that is being considered, specifically "large cigars" (weighing 3 pounds or more per 1000 cigars).
The current tax it 20.7% per cigar, but not more than 48.75 per 1000 cigars. The proposed tax is 53% per cigar, but no more than $10 per cigar.
Cigar prices vary greatly, but the average price is around $5 each. The tax on 1000 cigars of this value would increase from $5048 to $7650. The tax on a single cigar would increase from 1/250th of one penny to $2.50, 62500 times the original tax.
The 53% tax on a single purchase is also highly disproportionate to the suggested tax on other tobacco products. The proposed cigarette tax of $1 would be roughly 20% of the purchase price. Taxes on chewing tobacco and snuff are both less than 2 cents each.
As a voter in your state I ask you to consider the effect this tax will have on cigar smokers, the cigar industry in America and abroad.
Thank you for your attention,
D-Man
Dear Senator,
This letter regards the tobacco tax that is being considered, specifically "large cigars" (weighing 3 pounds or more per 1000 cigars).
The current tax it 20.7% per cigar, but not more than 48.75 per 1000 cigars. The proposed tax is 53% per cigar, but no more than $10 per cigar.
Cigar prices vary greatly, but the average price is around $5 each. The tax on 1000 cigars of this value would increase from $5048 to $7650. The tax on a single cigar would increase from 1/250th of one penny to $2.50, 62500 times the original tax.
The 53% tax on a single purchase is also highly disproportionate to the suggested tax on other tobacco products. The proposed cigarette tax of $1 would be roughly 20% of the purchase price. Taxes on chewing tobacco and snuff are both less than 2 cents each.
As a voter in your state I ask you to consider the effect this tax will have on cigar smokers, the cigar industry in America and abroad.
Thank you for your attention,
D-Man
spiffykyle
New Member
I talked to my senators last week (at least their aides). And its comforting to know that one of them, Sen. John Cornyn, is opposed to the tax. I spoke with one of his aides for a while, and also got a form reply email.
Since the form never explicitly said he would vote against the bill, I asked one of his aides and she said that yes, he will vote against the bill.
Still haven't heard either way from Hutchison.
So...one down, 99 more to go. Actually, I guess only 50 more needed for majority.
spiffy
Since the form never explicitly said he would vote against the bill, I asked one of his aides and she said that yes, he will vote against the bill.
Still haven't heard either way from Hutchison.
So...one down, 99 more to go. Actually, I guess only 50 more needed for majority.
spiffy