Proposed 775% increase of the pipe tobacco tax

[Commander Quan]

I'm not sure how many of you knew about this but, H.R. 4439, the Tobacco Tax Parity Act of 2010 was introduced on January 13, 2010 and would raise the tax on pipe tobacco 775% from $2.8311 to $24.78 per pound.



111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. R. 4439
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose the same rate
of tax on pipe tobacco as is imposed on roll-your-own tobacco.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 13, 2010
Mr. COHEN (for himself and Mr. DOGGETT) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose
the same rate of tax on pipe tobacco as is imposed
on roll-your-own tobacco.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,



SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tobacco Tax Parity Act of 2010’’.



SEC. 2. PIPE TOBACCO AND ROLL-YOUR-OWN TOBACCO RATE PARITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 5701 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘$2.8311 cents’’ and inserting ‘‘$24.78’’.



(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to articles removed (as defined in section 5702(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) after the date of the enactment of this Act.

More Info here http://nomoretobaccotaxes.com/archive/2010/01/22/pipe-tobacco-to-be-taxed-at-roll-your-own-rates.aspx

Use this page to email your senators and congressmen. http://pipesmagazine.com/blog/tag/tobacco-tax-parity-act/

 

[Jatte]

Hey , that's ike canada

except, here a pound has almost 200 dollars tax on it, and 50 g pouches cost like 25-30 dollars.

 

[mmack66]

Time to find the nearest harbor.

 

[Obsessed]

Before anyone gets in a lather about this, it's probably worth trying to determine if this is something that is actually being pushed seriously and is expected to pass, or is just a bill the two Congressmen introduced to grandstand or make a point. (Full disclosure: I don't smoke, so I'm not that concerned either way, but I just thought I'd try to spare some B&Bers from unnecessary anxiety.)

 

[MedicBill]

Before anyone gets in a lather about this, it's probably worth trying to determine if this is something that is actually being pushed seriously and is expected to pass, or is just a bill the two Congressmen introduced to grandstand or make a point. (Full disclosure: I don't smoke, so I'm not that concerned either way, but I just thought I'd try to spare some B&Bers from unnecessary anxiety.)

Agreed, that seems like an unreasonable and ridiculous increase...

 

[Commander Quan]

This is to raise the tax on pipe tobacco to the same amount that Roll Your Own cigarette tobacco was raised to last year, so the answer is YES this is a serious bill. RYO companies had rebranded their product as pipe tobacco to skirt around the tax, and having to raise their prices to insane levels. This is the the congressman's way of making sure they get "Their" money.

 

[castlecraver]

This is intended to achieve parity between pipe tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco. RYO tobacco was subject to the tax increase behind the child health initiative of 2009, but pipe tobacco was exempted. As a result, tobacco companies have been retiring and relabeling their RYO brands as pipe tobacco (I'm very aware they're different products, but the government makes no distinction apart from labeling) effectively loopholing the tax.

Not advocating for/against, just presenting some context.

 

[richmondesi]

This is intended to achieve parity between pipe tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco. RYO tobacco was subject to the tax increase behind the child health initiative of 2009, but pipe tobacco was exempted. As a result, tobacco companies have been retiring and relabeling their RYO brands as pipe tobacco (I'm very aware they're different products, but the government makes no distinction apart from labeling) effectively loopholing the tax.

Not advocating for/against, just presenting some context.

This was my understanding as well.

 

[jkh]

This is intended to achieve parity between pipe tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco. RYO tobacco was subject to the tax increase behind the child health initiative of 2009, but pipe tobacco was exempted. As a result, tobacco companies have been retiring and relabeling their RYO brands as pipe tobacco (I'm very aware they're different products, but the government makes no distinction apart from labeling) effectively loopholing the tax.

Not advocating for/against, just presenting some context.

Says the tobacco industry to Congress, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

 

[davecmu]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out against the foil of the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing basically unrestricted campaign funding by corporations... Is there enough tobacco money to buy off the bill, or not?

 

[luvmysuper]

These programs that are funded by sin taxes are in and will not go away.
So, in the case of tobacco, as the user base decreases due to social stigma and cost, the programs that are funded by tobacco will be hurting for money.
Non tobacco users will be affected, because increased tax revenue will be required for funding.
Start hoarding your Twinkies now folks - fat food is next and then...
Liesure activities.

 

[Jim]

How much longer are we going to tolerate this kind of behavior from people we elect to serve us?

 

[richmondesi]

How much longer are we going to tolerate this kind of behavior from people we elect to serve us?

That's an excellent question.. The problem is that the majority of the electorate thinks it's OK to target us for stuff like this because it allows the government to raise money without getting in their pockets

 

[spanx]

Good thing I'm hooked on cigarettes, this time it doesn't apply to me.Don't you just love it when the government tries to take care of you.

 

[Jim]

That's an excellent question.. The problem is that the majority of the electorate thinks it's OK to target us for stuff like this because it allows the government to raise steal our money without getting in their pockets

fixed it for you Paul..

 

[richmondesi]

fixed it for you Paul..

 

[CCMphysician]

Absolutely outrageous. What a surprise! Democrats proposed the bill. Behold, the rise of the real police state, the nanny state.

-CCM

 

[mmack66]

Absolutely outrageous. What a surprise! Democrats proposed the bill. Behold, the rise of the real police state, the nanny state.

-CCM

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Obsessed]

How much longer are we going to tolerate this kind of behavior from people we elect to serve us?

You are absolutely right - this is outrageous. They should just ban tobacco altogether!




















Good night all! Discuss amongst yourselves.

 

[luvmysuper]

You are absolutely right - this is outrageous. They should just ban tobacco altogether!
Good night all! Discuss amongst yourselves.

I truly wish they would.
But that will never happen because of the loss of tax revenue combined with the increased burden of jobless factory workers, tobacco farmers, cellophane makers, et al.
No, the Politicos are quite happy that people smoke and that they can tax them on their addictions.
Besides, what would Al Gore do with all his land that is growing tobacco now?