Obama and his crew screw us over once again

[candyman]

More information here: clicky

Federal Excise Taxes

On February 4, 2009, President Obama signed into law a $32.8 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funded by significant increases in the Federal Excise Taxes (FET) on tobacco. This tax increase was a top priority of the new Administration and Congress, and was signed into law by President Obama his first three weeks in office.

The chart below shows how taxes went up as a result of the Federal Government’s recent actions.

This federal tax is in addition to the tobacco taxes imposed at the state and in many cases at the local level. Find out how your Senators and Representative voted on this tax increase below.

Want to help protect your wallet from future burdensome taxes of this sort? Send a communication to your Senators and Representative – thanking those who voted against this increase and reminding those who voted yes that you’ll remember how they voted during their next election.

“This is the worst time to raise taxes for an extremely fragile economy. What’s really needed is for Congress to live within its means - control its spending appetite and quit putting further pressure on taxpayers, when they need money for their own purposes and their own families.”

– Scott Hodge, President, The Tax Foundation

[candyman]

It’s not fair to tax smokers in order to pay for programs that benefit everyone.

Adult smokers represent just over 20% of the population, but they are being singled out to bear a

$21.8 billion excise tax burden.

Cigarette taxes have been raised 88 times since 2000 – increasing the cost of cigarettes 93.1% since

1999.

In some states, cigarettes have more than doubled as a result of tax increases over the past several

years.

Cigarette tax increases have unintended consequences that hurt local businesses.

Higher prices encourage smuggling and illegal cigarette purchases, which rob local businesses of

legal sales and revenue.

Projections indicate that the tax hike could decrease cigarette sales significantly; costing thousands

of jobs, as local retailers lose revenue and are forced to cut back staff.

Cigarette taxes are not a stable revenue source to sustain the funding needed for such programs.

As cigarette excise taxes have increased, cigarette volumes have declined.

Cigarette consumption in the United States has been declining approximately 3-3.5% a year and is

expected to continue to decline. As a result, the federal government will realize less and less revenue

from a cigarette tax over time and will need to find a way to fill the future gaps in funding.

Cigarette tax increases like the one proposed have the power to decrease cigarette sales

significantly – or worse, increase the illegal purchase of cigarettes – which would deprive the state

and federal government of funding for important public programs.

[candyman]

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/10/federal-...tax-inequitable

http://wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=54394

http://www.jointogether.org/news/yourturn/...nd-economy.html

http://www.momsview.com/discus/messages/3743/4414.html

http://wjz.com/local/alcohol.tax.2.960582.html

http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_indu...sts/archive.htm

[candyman]

http://www.alcoholtaxincrease.org/taxpayerburden.htm

http://www.nowpublic.com/health/new-tobacc...d-enough-enough

http://www.beverageworld.com/content/view/32643/154/

[TitsMcGee]

It's freaking ridiculous, there are so many other things that can be taxed. I don't know why cigarettes are the first time to get more taxes.

[candyman]

It's freaking ridiculous, there are so many other things that can be taxed. I don't know why cigarettes are the first time to get more taxes.

Because it is easy to go after the smokers and Big Tobacco...

Yeah, I was this idea for keeping better control of alcohol. Each state, or even county, has a certain population and they will be given a certain number of DUI charges. What would then happen would be if the number of people with DUI charges goes past the number that the state or county was given...taxes on alcohol would go up in that area.

Wait...that idea might be stupid because most of the states excuse DUI charges...and people that drink that much wouldn't understand what was going on anyways...