New Cigar Tax
- Thread starter Greg
- Start date
You know I must say that even though taxes are a bitch, I already live in a country with ridiculous taxes on tobacco. If I buy cigars here, or import them I pay about $100 USD a box in tobacco taxes. Plus a 25% value added tax on the price. Granted I try to import them from foreign tax free vendors and hope they do get through customs, without getting noticed, but I about 50% of the packages get stopped and taxes levied.
In Norway (where I live) taxes are not seen really as evil, people just accept them and don't drink or smoke as much as elsewhere, or if they do the just pay the price. An interesting little anecdote, a friend of mine was playing "Sim City" or something like that where you are mayor and need to levy taxes, he is norwegian and levied huge taxes, roughly what we pay in norway, I think there was a revolution.
I regulary think that if the US had the kind of taxes we have here there would be a revolution. I agree that it is a bitch to pay a huge cigar tax, but I will say that most cigars are probably around $10-15 so we are talking about a $5 tax, which really isn't all that bad. I know most of us smoke 1 or 2 cigars a day at the most. $5 is like a vente latte at starbucks, nobody seems to complain to much about that.
It does seem that smokers of all stripes seem to be last group that it is politcally acceptable to persecute publically. All of these anti smoking laws and high taxes, pretty soon yall are gonna have to start setting up some cigar speakeasys instead of just a herf.
In Norway (where I live) taxes are not seen really as evil, people just accept them and don't drink or smoke as much as elsewhere, or if they do the just pay the price. An interesting little anecdote, a friend of mine was playing "Sim City" or something like that where you are mayor and need to levy taxes, he is norwegian and levied huge taxes, roughly what we pay in norway, I think there was a revolution.
I regulary think that if the US had the kind of taxes we have here there would be a revolution. I agree that it is a bitch to pay a huge cigar tax, but I will say that most cigars are probably around $10-15 so we are talking about a $5 tax, which really isn't all that bad. I know most of us smoke 1 or 2 cigars a day at the most. $5 is like a vente latte at starbucks, nobody seems to complain to much about that.
It does seem that smokers of all stripes seem to be last group that it is politcally acceptable to persecute publically. All of these anti smoking laws and high taxes, pretty soon yall are gonna have to start setting up some cigar speakeasys instead of just a herf.
Looks like it passed committee vote ... the next step is a full Senate vote.
Article Date: 24 Jul 2007
The Senate Finance Committee voted 17-4 to approve legislation that would reauthorize SCHIP and increase funding for the program by $35 billion over five years, the Los Angeles Times reports (Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times, 7/20). SCHIP expires on Sept. 30. Committee members on July 13 finalized an agreement on SCHIP reauthorization that would increase five-year funding for the program from $25 billion to $60 billion by raising the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to $1 per pack.
Under the plan -- negotiated by committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.), ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and members Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) -- the 6.6 million children currently enrolled in SCHIP would continue to receive benefits, and an additional 3.3 million children could be enrolled in the program.
President Bush has proposed a $5 billion increase over five years for SCHIP, which would increase the program's total five-year funding to $30 billion. In recent days, Bush has said that he would veto the Senate bill (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 7/19).
All 11 Democrats on the committee and six of the committee's 10 Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Republican sponsors of the legislation, in addition to Grassley and Hatch, include Sens. Mike Crapo (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Gordon Smith (Ore.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) (Johnson, CongressDaily, 7/19). Republican Sens. Jim Bunning (Ky.), John Ensign (Nev.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Trent Lott (Miss.) voted against the bill (Pear, New York Times, 7/20). Baucus "confidently predicted Senate passage before Congress adjourns for its August recess," USA Today reports. "It's clear to me this will not be filibustered" by Republicans, Baucus said (Wolf/Jackson, USA Today, 7/20).
caudio51
BoM Nov '05; Mar '06
Jul 19, 8:11 PM EDT
Senate Panel OKs Child Health Bill
By KEVIN FREKING
Associated Press Writer
U.S. Video
Advertisement
Interactive Poll
AP-Ipsos Poll: Bush and Congress
Latest News
Senators Question Gonzales' Credibility
House Democrats Divided Over Farm Bill
US Lawmakers Seek Reunions for Koreans
Study: New Rules Led to Medicaid Decline
Miss America Promotes Internet Safety
Interactives
The 110th Congress' First 100 Hours
Sen. Max Baucus: The AP Interview
Congressional Scandals
Mark Foley Scandal Timeline
Harry Reid Land Deal
Lobbyists Family Ties
Congressional Leadership Financial Disclosure
Congressional Pay
Congressional Pensions
Buy AP Photo Reprints
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Brushing aside threats of a presidential veto, a Senate committee on Thursday approved a five-year, $35 billion expansion of a children's health insurance program that would be financed through higher tobacco taxes.
A majority of Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee joined all of the committee's Democrats in voting to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The program subsidizes insurance for children and some adults with incomes too high for Medicaid but not high enough to afford private insurance. The vote was 17-4.
"There are more kids without health insurance than there are kids in the first and second grades," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman. "Americans overwhelmingly support getting kids covered."
The additional spending the committee approved would bring total SCHIP funding to $60 billion over five years - double what the administration has proposed. The tax on a pack of cigarettes would increase by 61 cents to help pay for the expansion. Taxes on cigars and chewing tobacco also would jump.
The committee's Democratic leaders had wanted to add $50 billion to the program, and their House counterparts are determined to pursue that amount. The compromise forged by the committee could become extremely fragile if GOP senators are forced to vote on an expansion much beyond what the committee approved.
"I hope they understand it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the United States Senate," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
The 60 votes would be needed to overcome a filibuster. Baucus said he believes his proposal has enough support to overcome such a hurdle, as well as a promised veto from the president.
"The vote speaks for itself," Baucus said.
Lawmakers said the $35 billion expansion would allow 6.6 million people to maintain their current health coverage, and it would provide coverage for another 3.2 million uninsured children.
The administration reacted to the vote by saying that sending the president a bill he cannot sign puts at risk millions of needy children who would lose health insurance when the program's funding expires Sept. 30.
"We are ready to renew our commitment to low-income children today, but we cannot agree to a gradual government takeover of health care - and neither will the American people," said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt.
Some dissenters on the committee believe the legislation raises taxes unnecessarily and does not do enough to refocus the program on low-income children.
"The Democrats are playing a game of reverse Robin Hood with this legislation," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.
The program began 10 years ago. It was generally designed to help families whose income does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty level, or $34,340 for a family of three. But several states have extended coverage to children with higher incomes and to adults. The latter expansion has particularly incensed some lawmakers who disapprove of waivers the Bush administration has granted to those states.
The SCHIP program is going in the opposite direction from where it should be going, said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who voted against the proposal along with Lott, Jim Bunning, R-Ky., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
The Senate proposal would gradually move adults who don't have children out of the program. States would have the option to cover them through Medicaid. The federal government also would lower the percentage, or matching rate, that it pays for parents' coverage. In addition, the federal government won't be allowed to grant new waivers to states allowing them to cover parents. But states will have the option of providing coverage to pregnant women through SCHIP.
Congressional Budget Office officials testified that spending on adults would drop by $1 billion over the next five years under the Senate proposal.
"We've been handed a mess by this administration," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., referring to the adult coverage. "This takes steps to change that. That's a fact."
Several advocacy groups are supporting the higher tobacco tax because it would not only fund the program's expansion, but because higher taxes also lead to less smoking.
For every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes, overall cigarette consumption drops by about 4 percent, and the rate drops even more for children.
"Research shows a clear health benefit from higher tobacco taxes," said William Carr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Overall, the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes would go up to $1 a pack
The tax on cigars is much more complicated to calculate. But Norm Sharp, president of the Cigar Association of America, said the tax for large cigars could go from a cap of about 5 cents a cigar to a cap of $10 a cigar.
"We're looking at cigars going up in price at retail 2.5 times to 3 times current prices," Sharp said.
"How do we explain that, justify that, or do we even care?" Lott said at one point when asking colleagues about the tax increase on cigars.
"A $10 cap on a very expensive cigar would not be terribly onerous," Baucus replied.
---
On the Net:
Senate Finance Committee: http://finance.senate.gov/
State Children's Health Insurance Program: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/schip.asp
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Senate Panel OKs Child Health Bill
By KEVIN FREKING
Associated Press Writer
U.S. Video
Advertisement
Interactive Poll
AP-Ipsos Poll: Bush and Congress
Latest News
Senators Question Gonzales' Credibility
House Democrats Divided Over Farm Bill
US Lawmakers Seek Reunions for Koreans
Study: New Rules Led to Medicaid Decline
Miss America Promotes Internet Safety
Interactives
The 110th Congress' First 100 Hours
Sen. Max Baucus: The AP Interview
Congressional Scandals
Mark Foley Scandal Timeline
Harry Reid Land Deal
Lobbyists Family Ties
Congressional Leadership Financial Disclosure
Congressional Pay
Congressional Pensions
Buy AP Photo Reprints
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Brushing aside threats of a presidential veto, a Senate committee on Thursday approved a five-year, $35 billion expansion of a children's health insurance program that would be financed through higher tobacco taxes.
A majority of Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee joined all of the committee's Democrats in voting to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The program subsidizes insurance for children and some adults with incomes too high for Medicaid but not high enough to afford private insurance. The vote was 17-4.
"There are more kids without health insurance than there are kids in the first and second grades," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman. "Americans overwhelmingly support getting kids covered."
The additional spending the committee approved would bring total SCHIP funding to $60 billion over five years - double what the administration has proposed. The tax on a pack of cigarettes would increase by 61 cents to help pay for the expansion. Taxes on cigars and chewing tobacco also would jump.
The committee's Democratic leaders had wanted to add $50 billion to the program, and their House counterparts are determined to pursue that amount. The compromise forged by the committee could become extremely fragile if GOP senators are forced to vote on an expansion much beyond what the committee approved.
"I hope they understand it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the United States Senate," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
The 60 votes would be needed to overcome a filibuster. Baucus said he believes his proposal has enough support to overcome such a hurdle, as well as a promised veto from the president.
"The vote speaks for itself," Baucus said.
Lawmakers said the $35 billion expansion would allow 6.6 million people to maintain their current health coverage, and it would provide coverage for another 3.2 million uninsured children.
The administration reacted to the vote by saying that sending the president a bill he cannot sign puts at risk millions of needy children who would lose health insurance when the program's funding expires Sept. 30.
"We are ready to renew our commitment to low-income children today, but we cannot agree to a gradual government takeover of health care - and neither will the American people," said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt.
Some dissenters on the committee believe the legislation raises taxes unnecessarily and does not do enough to refocus the program on low-income children.
"The Democrats are playing a game of reverse Robin Hood with this legislation," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.
The program began 10 years ago. It was generally designed to help families whose income does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty level, or $34,340 for a family of three. But several states have extended coverage to children with higher incomes and to adults. The latter expansion has particularly incensed some lawmakers who disapprove of waivers the Bush administration has granted to those states.
The SCHIP program is going in the opposite direction from where it should be going, said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who voted against the proposal along with Lott, Jim Bunning, R-Ky., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
The Senate proposal would gradually move adults who don't have children out of the program. States would have the option to cover them through Medicaid. The federal government also would lower the percentage, or matching rate, that it pays for parents' coverage. In addition, the federal government won't be allowed to grant new waivers to states allowing them to cover parents. But states will have the option of providing coverage to pregnant women through SCHIP.
Congressional Budget Office officials testified that spending on adults would drop by $1 billion over the next five years under the Senate proposal.
"We've been handed a mess by this administration," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., referring to the adult coverage. "This takes steps to change that. That's a fact."
Several advocacy groups are supporting the higher tobacco tax because it would not only fund the program's expansion, but because higher taxes also lead to less smoking.
For every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes, overall cigarette consumption drops by about 4 percent, and the rate drops even more for children.
"Research shows a clear health benefit from higher tobacco taxes," said William Carr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Overall, the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes would go up to $1 a pack
The tax on cigars is much more complicated to calculate. But Norm Sharp, president of the Cigar Association of America, said the tax for large cigars could go from a cap of about 5 cents a cigar to a cap of $10 a cigar.
"We're looking at cigars going up in price at retail 2.5 times to 3 times current prices," Sharp said.
"How do we explain that, justify that, or do we even care?" Lott said at one point when asking colleagues about the tax increase on cigars.
"A $10 cap on a very expensive cigar would not be terribly onerous," Baucus replied.
---
On the Net:
Senate Finance Committee: http://finance.senate.gov/
State Children's Health Insurance Program: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/schip.asp
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Wasch_24
2005 BoY
Well, this SCHIP financing has passed the House and the Senate now.
Senate Results
Senate description of the taxes.
House Results
I have seen discussions that indicate the President's veto, if he does veto, might stand a chance of being over turned.
One thing I read recently that I haven't seen or heard too many people addressing is the fact that all existing inventory, everywhere (retailers, distributors, etc), will have to pay the difference between this new tax and the current tax on January 1 2008. I fully believe that this could effectively put many, if not all, B&M shops out of business.
I can't believe that Congress is funding this bill this way. If they raise the tax on cigarettes and cigars as planned they will become priced out of reach for millions of consumers which will directly impact the anticipated revenue from the tax.
Another ramification is that the U.S. is the world's number one consumer of cigars in the world and once a majority of U.S. retail shops and on-line retailers go out of business this is going to absolutely cripple nations that depend on the tobacco industry i.e. Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, etc.
This tax, more so on cigars then cigarettes, is asinine. The SCHIP program will never see any of the funding from the tax because no one will be able to afford cigars in the quantity they do now and even if someone can afford them they won't have any where to buy them after all the retailers are taxed out of business.
If the veto does not happen or gets overruled we all would be smart to go on a huge spending spree, even if it meant using credit to do so, in the last few months of this year because any smart retailer is going to have ridiculous sales to try and decrease their inventory as quickly as possible before April.
I am going to try and top this thread regularly because writing to you representative about this can still be effective since the two bills likely won't be consoildated and voted on until December.
Senate Results
Senate description of the taxes.
House Results
I have seen discussions that indicate the President's veto, if he does veto, might stand a chance of being over turned.
One thing I read recently that I haven't seen or heard too many people addressing is the fact that all existing inventory, everywhere (retailers, distributors, etc), will have to pay the difference between this new tax and the current tax on January 1 2008. I fully believe that this could effectively put many, if not all, B&M shops out of business.
I can't believe that Congress is funding this bill this way. If they raise the tax on cigarettes and cigars as planned they will become priced out of reach for millions of consumers which will directly impact the anticipated revenue from the tax.
Another ramification is that the U.S. is the world's number one consumer of cigars in the world and once a majority of U.S. retail shops and on-line retailers go out of business this is going to absolutely cripple nations that depend on the tobacco industry i.e. Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, etc.
This tax, more so on cigars then cigarettes, is asinine. The SCHIP program will never see any of the funding from the tax because no one will be able to afford cigars in the quantity they do now and even if someone can afford them they won't have any where to buy them after all the retailers are taxed out of business.
If the veto does not happen or gets overruled we all would be smart to go on a huge spending spree, even if it meant using credit to do so, in the last few months of this year because any smart retailer is going to have ridiculous sales to try and decrease their inventory as quickly as possible before April.
I am going to try and top this thread regularly because writing to you representative about this can still be effective since the two bills likely won't be consoildated and voted on until December.
blessednxs65
Is it Nicaraguan
Of course, even if the proponents of the $10 tax are sincere in their desire to bring additional revenue into government coffers and even if they really want that revenue to be used in order to fund health care programs, raising the tax to $10 per cigar is precisely the wrong way to go about it. The proposed $10 tax will help wreck the cigar industry and its impact will be especially painful in communities where the cigar industry makes up much of the local economy. As the cigar industry is decimated, the government’s ability to bring in additional revenue will suffer. The more the government seeks to cripple the cigar industry with this exorbitant tax, the more it will hamper sales and the less revenue it will be able to bring in.
This bill doesn’t have much of a chance of becoming law, as President Bush has stated that he will veto it. And that’s a good thing. The $10 cigar tax will only lead to more exorbitant spending, it will have a disproportionate impact on the poor, it will hamper the embargo on Cuba and it will ultimately fail to bring in revenue for the government since the tax will cripple the cigar industry. This tax idea deserves to go up in smoke. And you don’t have to be a cigar fan to cheer its demise.
This bill doesn’t have much of a chance of becoming law, as President Bush has stated that he will veto it. And that’s a good thing. The $10 cigar tax will only lead to more exorbitant spending, it will have a disproportionate impact on the poor, it will hamper the embargo on Cuba and it will ultimately fail to bring in revenue for the government since the tax will cripple the cigar industry. This tax idea deserves to go up in smoke. And you don’t have to be a cigar fan to cheer its demise.
Actually, it's US that it will bite, and it will bite us in a different part of the anatomy, not the hands! :angryteet E-mail Bush and/or call the White House to ask him to veto this thing! :gangfire:
Wasch_24
2005 BoY
I think what Cliff was referring to is that this tax is ridiculous because it is going to squash it's own source of revenue after B&Ms close up and cigar manufacturers start going out of business or stop selling in the USA.
The final bill has not been formed yet so writing to your reps is a good idea...even if you live in a state whose reps have voted no, still write and let them know that you support their no vote. :thumbsup: