Huge cigarette tax increase in NYS

Jeanwah

Legislature approves cigarette tax increase
By Tom Precious
News Albany Bureau

ALBANY — Cigarette taxes imposed in New York will become the nation's highest under a measure approved Monday by the state Legislature, and the state will end two decades of debate by requiring the collection of taxes on cigarette sales by Indian retailers.

The moves against the tobacco industry and Indian cigarette merchants were driven by a revenue-finding frenzy — in this case, $440 million worth of added tax receipts — by Gov. David A. Paterson and the Legislature trying to close the state's deficit.

The state's excise tax on cigarettes will rise on July 1 by $1.60 per pack, to $4.35. It also sharply raises the levy to various levels, based on weight or wholesale prices, on cigars, snuff, chewing tobacco and pipe tobacco. "Little cigars," growing in popularity with teenagers, will be taxed like cigarettes.

The legislation will permit the state to start collecting taxes on Indian cigarette sales on Sept. 1, a move the state has threatened during the administrations of the past four governors. But critics said the bill includes a loophole to make it easier for Indian tribes including the Seneca Nation, the nation's largest Native American seller of tax-free cigarettes, to seek redress in federal courts.

The bill also does not end tax-free Indian sales of non-cigarette tobacco products, such as cigars, and also does not cover gasoline sales. It also could make it easier, and more lucrative with the hike in cigarette taxes, for Indian businesses to manufacture and sell tax-free their own brand of cigarettes, an increasingly popular route in New York.

more @ http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/06/21/1 ... rette.html

So cigarettes are over $10 / pack here. I don't smoke 'em but is this exactly right for a state to do? How about a liquor tax? Obesity tax? Soft drink tax? I just can't see how ONLY cigarette smokers should be scapegoats here, NY Congressmen. We know you like your donuts!

Jeanwah

I forgot to mention that NYS is at desperate means with its financial health and that we may very well be at the same place California is currently at in terms of a nearly bankrupt state.

FiveB247x

Holla!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjsXo9l6I8

OutOfBreath

They need money, smoking is viewed increasingly as bad morals.
In other words win-win for the legislature.

But they have to get the money somewhere, I suppose.

Peace
Dan

Jeanwah

OutOfBreath wrote:

They need money, smoking is viewed increasingly as bad morals.

I fail to see how cigarettes are the lone bad moral in this country... The state would do much better with taxing junk food or beer or booze! Since more people consume those than cigarettes.

CJMST3K

Jeanwah wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

They need money, smoking is viewed increasingly as bad morals.

I fail to see how cigarettes are the lone bad moral in this country... The state would do much better with taxing junk food or beer or booze! Since more people consume those than cigarettes.

It's easier to pick on a minority of people than the majority.

norm

Jeanwah wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

They need money, smoking is viewed increasingly as bad morals.

I fail to see how cigarettes are the lone bad moral in this country... The state would do much better with taxing junk food or beer or booze! Since more people consume those than cigarettes.

tax them all...beats raising income tax

OutOfBreath

Jeanwah wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

They need money, smoking is viewed increasingly as bad morals.

I fail to see how cigarettes are the lone bad moral in this country... The state would do much better with taxing junk food or beer or booze! Since more people consume those than cigarettes.

Ah, but popularity-wise, cigarettes is easier. Cigarettes will kill you, have just about nothing but downside and can rightfully be slammed as a vice of which you should be ashamed and thus at least pay (more) for it.

Taxing food will be humongously unpopular in the recession no less, even if directed at "bad foods". Poor eating habits (either by choice or necessity) doesn't pack the same moral punch and is much more excusable.

Cigarettes, alcohol and gambling are much easier to tax and get support for than just about anything else. Which makes them prime targets when revenues must be increased.

I'm not even saying it's wrong to tax these things harshly, just outlining why it's also easy and the path of least resistance for politicians.

Peace
Dan

VINNY GOOMBA

Who is going to make better use of the money you give them: Albany, or the crackhead down the street?

You know the answer if you live here. It's a trick question... They both blow it just the same.

Raising taxes on ANYTHING is pointless in New York. The money goes out the window, unaccounted for, everytime.

Jeanwah

CJMST3K wrote:

It's easier to pick on a minority of people than the majority.

But if they picked on the majority, more money would be made on the tax. Goes to show that Congressmen aren't really looking out for the health of the state's budget.

norm wrote:

tax them all...beats raising income tax

I'm with Norm.

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Who is going to make better use of the money you give them: Albany, or the crackhead down the street?

You know the answer if you live here. It's a trick question... They both blow it just the same.

Raising taxes on ANYTHING is pointless in New York. The money goes out the window, unaccounted for, everytime.

Very true. But we are right behind CA as far as bankrupting ourselves. Gotta do something.

WaveCameCrashin

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Who is going to make better use of the money you give them: Albany, or the crackhead down the street?

You know the answer if you live here. It's a trick question... They both blow it just the same.

Raising taxes on ANYTHING is pointless in New York. The money goes out the window, unaccounted for, everytime.

and the same could be said for the rest of the country in some cases..

CJMST3K

Jeanwah wrote:

CJMST3K wrote:

It's easier to pick on a minority of people than the majority.

But if they picked on the majority, more money would be made on the tax. Goes to show that Congressmen aren't really looking out for the health of the state's budget.

...but then they'd have an argument. They just want to tax those who are in the minority since its an easy fight for them to win.

Drowned Out

One thing to consider: how much are smokes in surrounding states? Could interstate/international smuggling become an issue?
I know this is the battle that's been fought in Canada for years...over taxing cigs until the black market gets out of control and violent.... then cutting taxes until it's under control, then raising them again....supressing personal choice does wonders for organized crime's bottom line.

Pats54

If your are going to try to receive revenue (tax) from a product shouldn't you be promoting the product and try to get increased consumption of said product. Wouldn't you want more users so you will increase revenue. Just a thought

CJMST3K

Found this online. Don't know how accurate it is, but we'll assume it is:

Godfather.

black market cigarettes on the future front line, a splendid opportunity for criminals to make a buck. ..
now that's equal opportunity employment.....everybody makes a few bucks.

Godfather.

yoke

I have family in the south and out west... $2.75 a pack on average, as compared to $8 in NJ, why would I pay NJ prices when I can get them cheaper somewhere else??


These fools don't realize that all they are doing is creating a Black Market for cigarettes. Not to mention that each time they raise taxes people quit and then they don't have enough tax revenue.

I have a novel idea, how about the Fed and States stop spending so much money.. lets cut some fat

know1

In my opinion, when they keep adding all these taxes on various consumption items, they need to do a corresponding tax DECREASE somewhere else to offset it. But they don't. They government is greedy getting greedier and bloated getting bigger and it's time that it's stopped.

Where is the politician who is advocating lowering spending instead of finding new things to tax?