One on One: Editorial writers Doug MacEachern and Linda Valdez debate whether Arizona should find new revenue by taxing electronic cigarettes.
Arizona lawmakers preparing to deal with an enormous budget deficit are considering revenue-enhancing options. One possibility is taxing electronic cigarettes at a rate comparable to taxes levied against tobacco cigarettes.
Arizona has few restrictions on the sale of e-cigarettes, and they are taxed no different than other commercial products. E-cigarettes heat liquid nicotine into a vapor the user inhales. But they exhale mostly water vapor.
So, should e-cigarettes be taxed akin to tobacco cigarettes? These new 'smoking' products won't produce nearly as much revenue as regular cigarettes, which reap about $2 a pack for the state. But there may be societal reasons for taxing them, too.
Editorial writers Doug MacEachern and Linda Valdez discuss the pros and cons of adding taxes to the sale of e-cigarettes.
Doug MacEachern(Photo: David Kadlubowski/The Republic)
MACEACHERN: The most compelling argument against this idea has got to be the fact its supporters want to enact a 'sin tax' on a product not because it is actually sinful - which is how society now views tobacco - but because it looks like something we've deemed sinful.
The proposal gets even stranger, though, when you consider that many e-cigarette users are former cigarette smokers who are 'smoking' e-cigs as a non-toxic alternative. Do we really want to heavily tax something that helps people quit smoking tobacco?
VALDEZ: If this is about sin, then it's hard to imagine why the state would tax a nice glass of wine with dinner. Where's the harm? Luxury taxes are aimed at things we can do without. That certainly includes alcohol and tobacco.
For consistency, it makes sense to tax e-cigarettes. Smokers who really want to quit aren't going to be put off by a tax on e-cigarettes; they are already paying a tax on their expensive habit. Besides, this new vice is being marketed for its own sake. Not just to help people quit smoking.
MACEACHERN: I'm just failing to see how it is a 'vice' worthy of the kind of condemnation it is receiving.
Cities like Tempe have banned them, even though the federal Food and Drug Administration has struggled fruitlessly since 2011 to categorize and regulate them, mostly because their vapor does no discernible harm.
The objections to them are less science-based than they are psychological: People see someone 'smoking' an e-cig indoors and they instinctively see tobacco cigarettes. As an actual vice they are no more dangerous to bystanders than someone drinking a diet soda. Yet we don't advocate big tax increases on soda pop.
Linda Valdez(Photo: David Kadlubowski/The Republic)
VALDEZ: E-cigarettes are a nicotine-delivery system. Nicotine is an addictive substance.
But this is less about 'bad' or 'better' vices - or nanny governments. It's about consistency. It's also about a few sane voices in state government who are willing to face the fact we need more revenue to run schools, etc.
A tax on e-cigarettes won't do much for the budget. But just imagine if it got lawmakers in the habit of looking for other inconsistencies in the tax code that let revenue go up in vapor.
Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/1wFqyGu
Entities 0 Name: Doug MacEachern Count: 3 1 Name: Arizona Count: 3 2 Name: Linda Valdez Count: 3 3 Name: David Count: 2 4 Name: Tempe Count: 1 5 Name: MACEACHERN Count: 1 6 Name: federal Food and Drug Administration Count: 1 Related 0 Url: http://ift.tt/1q17VYI Title: Stealth taxes rise by 50pc in a decade - Telegraph Description: The amount of tax revenue the Government has collected through indirect or "stealth" taxes has risen by 50pc over the past 10 years, research has found. The amount collected by HMRC in indirect taxes grew from £93bn in 2003-04 to £138bn in the last tax year (2013-14), research from Bloomsbury Professional, a specialist tax publisher, found.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar