http://www.nbcnews.com/business/denver-activists-hand-out-joints-protest-high-pot-tax-8C11115204
This makes me want to punch a kitten. Seriously.
So... an amount of weed that would cost $50 will now cost... oh god... $62.50. As opposed to, say, decades in prison and/or thousands in fines. Yeah, that's worth protesting over. Hardly any improvement at all.
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.
Quote from: I, Regulator on September 10, 2013, 12:26:28 AM
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.
Well, I can see what would happen if it were legalized across the board. New Hampshire weed stores would get a lot of Massachusetts business. No black market necessary.
We would vote for every tax increase on that shit everytime. IT'S WHAT MASSHOLES DO.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 10, 2013, 12:35:33 AM
We would vote for every tax increase on that shit everytime. IT'S WHAT MASSHOLES DO.
:lulz:
Truth
I would be perfectly happy to have a regular, reliable, dependable place to buy weed from. That privilege is something I'd be happy to pay for.
Anyone who doesn't see the sense in that is, well, a libertarian probably.
I don't see why it shouldn't be taxed, but 25% is really really steep. Is alcohol taxed at the same rate? If yes, I can't find much to object to I guess.
I don't know what the laws are there about growing, but it grows so prolifically and easily that now that it's legal I would hope to see prices decrease.
Yeah, prices here have gone WAY down in the last 6-8 months. To the point that most of my friends who were selling it on the black market only are having to shut down or try to find inroads into the medical market. I can buy an ounce of the best pot anywhere in the world for about $200, which would have cost me around $300 a year ago. So even if that ounce ends up costing $250 at a retail outlet once taxes are included, well, who the fuck cares?
And the retail market hasn't even started yet. I imagine the trend will be even more pronounced once you can actually buy it at the store.
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 12:37:02 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 10, 2013, 12:35:33 AM
We would vote for every tax increase on that shit everytime. IT'S WHAT MASSHOLES DO.
:lulz:
Truth
Except for that one time you took the extra tax off liquor and it's still more expensive than Rhode Island. I have no idea how you did that.
Speaking of which, theres a rumor that RI may go sales tax free like NH. This could be the smartest and dumbest thing we could ever do.
Smartest: the business from both MA and CT would be staggering.
Dumbest: We have 3x the people of NH in half the area. Losses would be baaaaad until they learned to actually bookkeep instead of write shit off into someone's pocket.
I VOTED TO LEAVE THAT TAX ON! I AM A CHILD OF PILGRIMS AND I KNOW I HAVE TO PAY FOR MY SINS SATURDAY NIGHT!
Quote from: Suu on September 10, 2013, 03:30:40 AM
Speaking of which, theres a rumor that RI may go sales tax free like NH. This could be the smartest and dumbest thing we could ever do.
Smartest: the business from both MA and CT would be staggering.
Dumbest: We have 3x the people of NH in half the area. Losses would be baaaaad until they learned to actually bookkeep instead of write shit off into someone's pocket.
How's your tourism? NH gets by mostly on skiing and pretty mountains (and liquor stores).
Quote from: Suu on September 10, 2013, 03:22:05 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 12:37:02 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 10, 2013, 12:35:33 AM
We would vote for every tax increase on that shit everytime. IT'S WHAT MASSHOLES DO.
:lulz:
Truth
Except for that one time you took the extra tax off liquor and it's still more expensive than Rhode Island. I have no idea how you did that.
We like to drink in Boston...
Actually, a friend who's originally from Mass but moved to Phoenix came back for a visit and went to the bar with x amount of money, thinking that he'd have a pretty decent night and a decent buzz. He came away from that bar shitfaced. I guess we mix our drinks stronger here too. Or at least compared to Phoenix.
Drunk is in the AIR here, you don't need alcohol for it.
Send them to Texas for six months. They'll never bitch again.
Quote from: I, Regulator on September 10, 2013, 12:26:28 AM
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.
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!
-
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.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 07:07:11 PM
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.
I used tobacco because their liquor taxes are excise, and are done by volume, which is a pain in the ass.
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.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 07:57:51 PM
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.
"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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 08:00:42 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 07:57:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 08:10:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 08:00:42 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 07:57:51 PM
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.
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.)
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.
I'm an Oregonian, so...
There are two things we will never, ever do here: pump our own gas, and institute sales taxes.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 08:39:43 PM
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.
This is a good point.
Example: SUVs. For most people, these are luxuries. Some people, though, have a legitimate use for a gas-guzzling behemoth. How do you decide if the person needs the vehicle, or just has penis size issues?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 09:25:46 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 08:39:43 PM
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.
This is a good point.
Example: SUVs. For most people, these are luxuries. Some people, though, have a legitimate use for a gas-guzzling behemoth. How do you decide if the person needs the vehicle, or just has penis size issues?
Exactly. Or shoes. My $300 fashion statement could be your $300 absolutely necessary work boots. How to decide for people? Down that road lies Utopianism.
Tangentially related article:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-legalized-marijuana-might-be-bad-pot-smokers/
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 11, 2013, 02:14:26 PM
Tangentially related article:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-legalized-marijuana-might-be-bad-pot-smokers/
I literally just finished reading that article. Don't understand the point of the comparison to cigarettes, though. It's not like keeping it illegal means people are going to be cool with you smoking around them, either.
I think the point was more that the reality is that (smoked) marijuana is going to be more analagous to cigarettes than alcohol, when it comes to how people who don't smoke marijuana perceive it, in part because it is still smelly smoke. It isn't an argument for keeping it illegal, it's just to kind of remind pot smokers that just because it will be legal doesn't mean everyone is going to be cool with it being used just anywhere.
At least if they're going to do that stuff there are some non-smoking options. Expecting other people to breathe in your second hand smoke is just fucking rude.
This is now a marijuana thread instead of a get-inch-take-mile thread.
I'm out.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 11, 2013, 03:04:05 PM
This is now a marijuana thread instead of a get-inch-take-mile thread.
I'm out.
Well, it's sort of inevitable, isn't it? I mean, you made a thread about POT so we have to go back to Ye Olde Potte Thread because BECAUSE. You don't like it? Move to China. You thinktthey got any pot threads in China? Pffff, you'll be begging for your threads to be side railed by the same old, mealy, tired song and dance. Begging.
I, for one, am glad that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
But I'm just awful that way.
Categorically speaking, I'm not fond of sin tax because I don't consent to my behavior being explicitly controlled by price manipulation. You want to impose a sales tax, I'm 100% fine with that, but I don't like there being a governmental list of products which are legal but discouraged. (where discouraged means the government draws bonus money from your use of them)
I think public health issues should generally be addressed at the industrial level, not at the consumer level. With the current lobbyist environment, that's not gonna happen--why isn't there a consumer lobby again?
That being said, go ahead and tax the fuck out of mary jane, if only to show other states that it is a cash crop. The high tax rate probably won't last, but it will rebalance the discussion about the costs of legalization.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 11, 2013, 04:49:11 PM
Categorically speaking, I'm not fond of sin tax because I don't consent to my behavior being explicitly controlled by price manipulation. You want to impose a sales tax, I'm 100% fine with that, but I don't like there being a governmental list of products which are legal but discouraged. (where discouraged means the government draws bonus money from your use of them)
Roads gotta get fixed somehow, Cram. A general sales tax reams the very asses out of the poor.
Governments don't really impose "sin" taxes to discourage the use of certain products. They impose them to collect more revenue. The pressure to increase taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco products to reduce use comes from public health organizations.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 11, 2013, 04:49:11 PM
Categorically speaking, I'm not fond of sin tax because I don't consent to my behavior being explicitly controlled by price manipulation. You want to impose a sales tax, I'm 100% fine with that, but I don't like there being a governmental list of products which are legal but discouraged. (where discouraged means the government draws bonus money from your use of them)
I think public health issues should generally be addressed at the industrial level, not at the consumer level. With the current lobbyist environment, that's not gonna happen--why isn't there a consumer lobby again?
That being said, go ahead and tax the fuck out of mary jane, if only to show other states that it is a cash crop. The high tax rate probably won't last, but it will rebalance the discussion about the costs of legalization.
I am totally not cool with sales taxes. At all. Like I said, I'm an Oregonian through and through on that issue. They penalize the poor, who are already paying a premium for their necessities.
I'm not fond of tackling the social cost issue at the consumer end with cigarettes, either. In my opinion it should be the tobacco companies who pay an extra tax for SELLING POISONOUS STUFF to the public. I am sure we can all see why that didn't happen. Doesn't mean it will never happen.
The tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical companies will never pay for that unless they are forced to do so, and given their lobbies, it is pretty much impossible that it will happen. We tried to get pharmaceutical companies to just contribute less than 1% of their profits to dispose of unused medicines and they balked.
We've been trying for years just to get tobacco products equalized here and the tobacco lobby has successfully squashed it time and time again.
It sucks, but it is the way of the world.
It's why we need lobby reform, which is not an impossible goal.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 11, 2013, 06:23:45 PM
It's why we need lobby reform, which is not an impossible goal.
That would help a lot of crap.