Some people are never happy.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Drunk is in the AIR here, you don't need alcohol for it.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Send them to Texas for six months. They'll never bitch again.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This is why I, in part, have said the revenue argument was a suspect one because there is going to be this constant downward pressure to keep the taxes low, so you'll never really generate a lot of revenues, relatively speaking. 

This is also where I said the doors will still be open to the black market.  They will constantly be looking to undercut the regulated market.

It will be interesting to see how this ballot proposal turns out.

<---- Point.    You ----->

Who gives a shit if it's a revenue center or not?  I don't think anyone advanced that as a primary argument.

The idea was, some people are NEVER HAPPY.  Give them an inch, they want a mile.  Give them a mile, they screech about the upkeep costs of that mile.

This thread could have been about legalized domesticated llamas, and it would have the EXACT SAME POINT.  ONE GUY, THAT GUY, would immediately bitch about llama taxation.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

LLAMA TAXES ARE IRRESPONSIBLY HIGH! WHAT ABOUT THE LLAMA LLEGALIZATION ACTIVIST WHO DIDN'T GET A FREE LLAMA AT OUR ANTI-LLAMA TAX EVENT? HE NEEDS THAT FOR THE WOOL AND STUFF! YOU'RE PUTTING AN UNFAIR BURDEN ON LOW-INCOME FARMERS WHO NEED PACK ANIMALS IN THE ANDEAN PEAKS!

[Cain]

-

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The problem with letting women work is that next thing you know they're bitching about income equality. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.

Look, I have no idea whether the taxes are unfair or not. In my mind, it depends on whether that's the same rate at which Colorado taxes alcohol. But the logic of "We already stopped throwing them in jail for this, now they want things to be FAIR?" is not sound reasoning.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The problem with letting women work is that next thing you know they're bitching about income equality. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.

Look, I have no idea whether the taxes are unfair or not. In my mind, it depends on whether that's the same rate at which Colorado taxes alcohol. But the logic of "We already stopped throwing them in jail for this, now they want things to be FAIR?" is not sound reasoning.

I can't look at the CO webpage on account of pop up-style new windows, but:

Tobacco (20 cigarettes) has a $0.84 tax added per pack.

Federal taxes per pack is $1.01.

So a pack of smokes without taxes in Colorado is $5.59 (per http://www.theawl.com/2013/07/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-now-state-by-state), so taking the federal tax out, $4.58.

So the tax rate is .84/4.58 = 18%, compared to 25% for weed.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I used tobacco because their liquor taxes are excise, and are done by volume, which is a pain in the ass.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I wouldn't use tobacco as a comparison because the health (social cost) consequences aren't analogous. They aren't analogous to alcohol either, but alcohol and marijuana are both intoxicants to they seem more categorically analogous. 

But, we use the data we have.

I would agree that the 25% tax is unreasonable.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I wouldn't use tobacco as a comparison because the health consequences aren't analogous. They aren't analogous to alcohol either, but alcohol and marijuana are both intoxicants to they seem more categorically analogous. 

But, we use the data we have.

I would agree that the 25% tax is unreasonable.

I'd say that any and all "sin" taxes should be across the board identical.

If smokes are 18%, then booze and weed should be 18%.

In general, I'm in favor of sin taxes, because it beats taxing shit like food.

[AFK]

"Shoulds" would never happen anyway because of the considerable lobbies of each of those industries.  Once (recreational) marijuana is able to legally establish its lobby, it will be sure to beat down a 25% tax.


I support sin taxes because the social costs are unavoidable.  It is better to establish and fund mechanisms up front to deal with them.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I wouldn't use tobacco as a comparison because the health consequences aren't analogous. They aren't analogous to alcohol either, but alcohol and marijuana are both intoxicants to they seem more categorically analogous. 

But, we use the data we have.

I would agree that the 25% tax is unreasonable.

I'd say that any and all "sin" taxes should be across the board identical.

If smokes are 18%, then booze and weed should be 18%.

In general, I'm in favor of sin taxes, because it beats taxing shit like food.

I don't believe in sin. I could support social cost taxes, and luxury taxes. However, tobacco clearly and directly has enormous health costs and I don't think that there's any justifiable reason to tax anything else at the same rate tobacco should be taxed at.

Food and necessities should never be taxed, but figuring out where to draw the line on "necessity" is not easy at all.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I wouldn't use tobacco as a comparison because the health consequences aren't analogous. They aren't analogous to alcohol either, but alcohol and marijuana are both intoxicants to they seem more categorically analogous. 

But, we use the data we have.

I would agree that the 25% tax is unreasonable.

I'd say that any and all "sin" taxes should be across the board identical.

If smokes are 18%, then booze and weed should be 18%.

In general, I'm in favor of sin taxes, because it beats taxing shit like food.

I don't believe in sin. I could support social cost taxes, and luxury taxes. However, tobacco clearly and directly has enormous health costs and I don't think that there's any justifiable reason to tax anything else at the same rate tobacco should be taxed at.

Food and necessities should never be taxed, but figuring out where to draw the line on "necessity" is not easy at all.

I'm just using the term that was popular when I was a kid.  I think sin taxes are now called social cost taxes.

And I'd say that booze, recreational weed, and tobacco don't qualify as "necessity".  I say that as a pack a day smoker who gets cranky as FUCK without cigs.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I like sin taxes. Not because I intend to tax people out of doing dumb shit, but because part of having a good time is feeling bad about it, which taxes accomplish nicely.

(Massachusetts has a "no tax on food and clothing" policy, which I think is pretty sensible, although the "meal tax" is kinda regressive.)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

They are clearly not necessities, but that isn't what I was saying: I was saying that it is not clear where to draw the line on luxury items.