• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Something smells fishy about this

lordofthereef said:
What's the difference? The manufacturer, under your definition, is the one that makes the cig from crop to carton, right? How is owning a machine that puts these together any different? You have a machine in your store that is making a product with the sole purpose of tax evasion.
Click to expand...

thats like saying youre in a carpool for the sole purpose of evading taxes on fuel
 
It appears to me just an issue on the method tobacco is taxed. If tobacco was taxed directly then manufacturing issue is moot. I see no reason to differentiate pipe and cigarette tobacco. There may be reason to differentiate based on nicotine content.
 
copestag said:
thats like saying youre in a carpool for the sole purpose of evading taxes on fuel
Click to expand...

Not at all. At least I don't see it that way. I am in a carpool to be less wasteful of a resource, and to get where I want to go faster. In fact, in many states this is encouraged.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
It appears to me just an issue on the method tobacco is taxed. If tobacco was taxed directly then manufacturing issue is moot. I see no reason to differentiate pipe and cigarette tobacco. There may be reason to differentiate based on nicotine content.
Click to expand...

This I can 100% agree with.
 
In your first example, one is not limited to smoking tobacco for nicotine intake. In fact, I would be shocked if any of these patients were ever suggested by their doctors to pick up smoking.

I think addiction itself is something that some are more genetically predisposed to than others. Some chemicals/products are more addictive than others, and so on. AFAIK, nicotine isn't actually what is harmful in cigarettes. It is simply what generally keeps you smoking them.
 
lordofthereef said:
In your first example, one is not limited to smoking tobacco for nicotine intake. In fact, I would be shocked if any of these patients were ever suggested by their doctors to pick up smoking.

I think addiction itself is something that some are more genetically predisposed to than others. Some chemicals/products are more addictive than others, and so on. AFAIK, nicotine isn't actually what is harmful in cigarettes. It is simply what generally keeps you smoking them.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more to the taxing of tobacco that is used to produce medicine or used in research and the mechanisms needed to prevent diversions to avoid taxation, if there were exemptions for approved uses.

The most prevalent nicotine delivery system includes those mentioned byproducts. I was thinking more of a "fairness" issue towards those that are addicted, maybe a rebate/voucher to get help on at least harm reduction for the nicotine addiction.
 
you seem to be adhering to the talking points in regards to the taxation and overlooking the real intent here....

these people arent doing this to "evade taxes"......... they are paying taxes on the loose tobacco product....... the entire purpose for rolling your own has absolutely nothing to do with taxation whatsoever......... its about paying $75 for a carton of cigarrettes from the store ($15 of which might be taxes so for the sake of argument lets say $60 for the carton which is going to the manufacturer not the "children)...... or they can pay $15 for enough loose tobacco and pay a small fee (no clue what this company charges... but I would guess its $10-$15) to have them rolled for you quickly......... it has nothing to do with taxes.... it has everything to do with paying half price for a carton of higher quality smokes

people have been using RYO products for centuries........ long before there was a manufacturer and long before there was an America to tax them....... so if someone goes and buys a can of prince albert and a pack of papers and rolls them at home are they tax evaders? theres no difference here except they are paying a 3rd party to roll them

so by your reasoning........ even though you claim to have honorable intentions in your carpooling...... in actuallity you are a tax evader under the same standards

just like guys who brew beer in their basement.......... they dont brew it because they want a unique flavor of their creation... they dont do it because its cheaper to make a better beer at home than to buy pisswater from the store.... they dont do it as a personal hobby......... they are brewing that beer just so they can stick it to the "children" ..... dirty tax evaders
 
OutofDate1980 said:
It appears to me just an issue on the method tobacco is taxed. If tobacco was taxed directly then manufacturing issue is moot. I see no reason to differentiate pipe and cigarette tobacco. There may be reason to differentiate based on nicotine content.
Click to expand...

My smoke shop salesman told me yesterday that there is a specific tax on cigars here in Utah. It is something like 89%. It applies, apparently, to those cheap ass "little cigars" packaged 20 to a pack and less costly than cigarettes. I think the state saw a chance to tax a growing user base that was forced into spending less for bad tobacco.
 
lordofthereef said:
Why, exactly? They are using a machine to do the final processing step, one which hasn't been done at the plant, right? Once that step has been done, the product is taxed more heavily, no? So, how is the argument silly?
Click to expand...

It is silly because it simply is silly. The logic is simply silly.
 
copestag said:
just like guys who brew beer in their basement.......... they dont brew it because they want a unique flavor of their creation... they dont do it because its cheaper to make a better beer at home than to buy pisswater from the store....
Click to expand...

You must know way different people than I do. People that I know that brew beer do it because it is a fun hobby and yes, to experiment with flavors.

I don't know much about tobacco taxes. From the sound of things, the intent of these machines was to lessen taxes. If that is the case, I stand by my statement. Finding ways to avoid a tax, no matter how ridiculous the tax is, and especially if said tax has been accepted for some time, is unacceptable, IMO. If the sole intention of these machines is not to avoid taxes, and people buying these forms of cigarettes are somehow taxed MORE than they would be had they just sprung for the carton, then I am wrong.

I still disagree with your gas tax statement. As I mentioned, carpooling is CONDONED by the government as it is recognized to conserve resources. Gas taxes go to road reparations, etc. It stands to reason that if you are taking one vehicle instead of three, you are doing less overall damage to the roads and using the roads less overall, no? So, it stands to reason that your share of the tax should be less as well because you are using less resources that said tax is used to pay for overall. Makes 100% perfect sense to me.

In any case, perhaps the issue here is that there is a tax on tobacco (outside of standard sales taxes), PERIOD. Why is there one, anyway? We are taxing the hell out of a product (mostly) produced in the US and imposing less taxes on the crap that comes in from overseas, right?
 
lordofthereef said:
I don't know much about tobacco taxes. From the sound of things, the intent of these machines was to lessen taxes. If that is the case, I stand by my statement. Finding ways to avoid a tax, no matter how ridiculous the tax is, and especially if said tax has been accepted for some time, is unacceptable, IMO. If the sole intention of these machines is not to avoid taxes, and people buying these forms of cigarettes are somehow taxed MORE than they would be had they just sprung for the carton, then I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing tax fraud with tax avoidance and saving money. Cheating the tax man is illegal. That is to say, if you are not paying tax due on income, you are cheating. Using legal deductions does "cheat" the tax man because he gets less tax. Not illegal.

And if you have kids, are you cheating because you can avoid paying some taxes us single farts must pay?

and until the tax authority decides that rolling your own is tax cheating, there are no moral or legal issues with using a rolling machine.

Rolling your own saves you money, but you are not cheating anyone. You pay tax on the rolling papers as well as the tobacco. The primary reason for rolling machines is to save money, not to cheat on your taxes. Any more than home cooking is cheating because you do not patronize a restraint and pay more for your good eats.
 
Alright,
For my own understanding here...
I can pay for a pack of Marlboros OR I can pay for some loose tobacco and some rolling papers. Is my percentage paid on the Marlboros the same, more, or less than said loose tobacco with rolling papers?
 
Hey folks . . . please do not confuse tax avoidance or cheating with saving money. This discussion would be easier if we simply used a little common sense and stop with the inappropriate analogies that absolutely do not apply.

Yes, if I can do something myself for three bucks that would cost me twelve bucks retail, I pay less taxes because the cost is lower. This is not cheating for God’s sakes, it is saving money. Some of you seem to think it is tax avoidance for some nefarious reason.

Yes it is avoidance but it is not cheating by any stretch of the imagination. Some people are simply too silly for words. Get a grip folks; please think things through before silly comments are proffered.

Tax cheating is illegal and wrong, but buying in bulk and creating the final product yourself does save money and taxes, and it is perfectly legal.

And stop to consider that rollers are paying local sales tax, federal tobacco taxes, and state tobacco taxes on tobacco as well as on rolling papers. At least in Utah, we have a tax on papers. Rollers pay their fair share of taxes and they are huge. They do not cheat the tax man and some of you are wrong about the idea that it is cheating on taxes when you roll your own smokes.
 
lordofthereef said:
Alright,
For my own understanding here...
I can pay for a pack of Marlboros OR I can pay for some loose tobacco and some rolling papers. Is my percentage paid on the Marlboros the same, more, or less than said loose tobacco with rolling papers?
Click to expand...

Not sure. A pack of a name brand is about 7.50 or so plus sales tax here in Utah. Part of that cost is local tobacco taxes as well as federal taxes on tobacco products.

Rolling your own is perhaps half as much but it requires effort. And you pay federal and state taxes on the papers as well as the tobacco. My tobacconist reports that sales of rolling materials and cheap rollers are way up due to the cost of cigarettes. The huge increase in cost was primarily due to huge taxes, federal and state.

An incredibly high Utah tax is applied to little cigars because many people started smoking them; they were an ultra-cheap alternative to cigarettes.
 
I personally am not implying that saving money is cheating taxes. My question is simple. If I buy a pack of smokes, I am taxed a certain percent. If I buy loose tobacco plus rolling papers I am taxed a certain percent on each. How does the tax (percent) on loose tobacco plus that of rolling papers compare to the tax on the pack of smokes?

The point is, if the tax percent on loose tobacco + rolling papers =/= that of a pack of smokes then there seems to be an intended tax on the manufacturing process as well, and that is what this machine does, manufacture smokes, right? If, however, the tax percent on loose tobacco + rolling papers = that of a pack of smokes, I agree, taxing said machine is ridiculous.
 
lordofthereef said:
I personally am not implying that saving money is cheating taxes. My question is simple. If I buy a pack of smokes, I am taxed a certain percent. If I buy loose tobacco plus rolling papers I am taxed a certain percent on each. How does the tax (percent) on loose tobacco plus that of rolling papers compare to the tax on the pack of smokes?

The point is, if the tax percent on loose tobacco + rolling papers =/= that of a pack of smokes then there seems to be an intended tax on the manufacturing process as well, and that is what this machine does, manufacture smokes, right? If, however, the tax percent on loose tobacco + rolling papers = that of a pack of smokes, I agree, taxing said machine is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I do not know if there is an implied or intended tax on the manufacturing process, but I am guessing there is. I do know there is a tax on the raw materials just as there is a tax on the finished product. I am not a manufacturer, but I feel certain the manufacturer pays some taxes, at some point. Not sure what the rate is, however.

Too bloody high, is my guess.

I think between Utah and the feds, the tax on the raw materials is approaching the tax on the finished product. They see people going on the cheap so they tax materials so they keep revenue flowing.

The goal as I see it is to make it just as expensive to roll as it is to purchase the finished product.

Us smoklers pay vast amounts in taxes and for some people --most, perhaps-- the tax is unavoidable.
 
Taxes are high, no doubt. I am not sure there is really a reason for it other than perhaps coming out and saying, "smoking is bad for you, therefor we will put a higher tax on it than we do on other things". Perhaps it is a way to get people to smoke less. I suppose if that is the reasoning behind it, making self-rolled smokes cost the same as pre-manufactured smokes is a way to do that.

Regardless of the reasoning behind any tax, the people that it effects most (read: the people that end up spending more of their hard earned money) are going to be up in arms, while the people who are not effected are going to be just fine with it.
 
lordofthereef said:
Taxes are high, no doubt. I am not sure there is really a reason for it other than perhaps coming out and saying, "smoking is bad for you, therefor we will put a higher tax on it than we do on other things". Perhaps it is a way to get people to smoke less. I suppose if that is the reasoning behind it, making self-rolled smokes cost the same as pre-manufactured smokes is a way to do that.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly how taxes are supposed to work: punishing undesirable behaviors. Unfortunately, the taxes collected just give politicians more dough to blow. Revenue from cigarette taxes should be used to further efforts to reduce smoking (and possibly treat smokers health conditions).

It's funny (in a sad way) watching conservatives say that tobacco taxes aren't working because the higher they go the less tax revenue is collected (as people quit / reduce smoking).
 
noah way said:
Which is exactly how taxes are supposed to work: punishing undesirable behaviors. Unfortunately, the taxes collected just give politicians more dough to blow. Revenue from cigarette taxes should be used to further efforts to reduce smoking (and possibly treat smokers health conditions).

It's funny (in a sad way) watching conservatives say that tobacco taxes aren't working because the higher they go the less tax revenue is collected (as people quit / reduce smoking).
Click to expand...

What about a huge alcohol, salt, trans-fat, grease, and Big Mac tax? The government can rally enough experts to say all of these things are bad.

Or . . .

We leave people alone to live the life they want to live.

I am not sure things are taxed because they are bad for you. I thuink that it is bad for (some not everyone) is just a great excuse to levy a higher tax.

And I sure as hell know if the government announced a soda, fry, and burger tax of 85%, people including you would complain about it. It is fine to tax
 
noah way said:
Which is exactly how taxes are supposed to work: punishing undesirable behaviors.
Click to expand...


I have to ask... and this is me strictly...... not speaking for anyone else ........ where exactly did you get this notion?

Please point me to any citation ANYWHERE that states the purpose of taxation is to punish undesireable behaviour.
 
copestag said:
Please point me to any citation ANYWHERE that states the purpose of taxation is to punish undesireable behaviour.
Click to expand...

There is no citation, just as there is no federal definition of "bad". It is simply the common sense application of economic principles. These principles have been used for eons in many human societies and it would be stupid not to recognize their power and effectiveness.

Tariffs and import duties are a good example of this. Their virtual abolishment with globalization (and the tax frauds enshrined into law [like the foreign investment tax credit]) is why the US is now an industrial backwater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom