Printable View
Ronin, if AA didn't pass, weed would still be taxed and regulated, it just wouldn't have an additional 15% tax arbitrarily added to the base tax. Don't compare to gas, tobacco, and alcohol. The government flat out steals monry from the consumers on gasoline. Tobacco and alcohol are already taxed too high on their own. They are not a fitting example, and certainly not justification for what AA called for.
And the rate on weed is? over and above the normal sales tax. I honestly do not know but if it has no additional tax then it needed it. 15% is chump change compared to the $1 a pack Colorado levied a few years ago on cigarettes. They claimed that it would drastically reduce smoking but it did not and in all honesty they do not want us to kill the cash cow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I can't smoke weed even under the MMJ because I work for the fed. Too old to do so now anyway but just like cigs it is a bad thing. Any smoke inhaled is a bad thing to the body. So after years of being victimized/marginalized because I am a nasty, bad smoker that make all the mothers hide there children and the butt of jokes by the younger subjects we make pot legal and the crowd goes wild. Guess what? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Still think they should make it all legal. but then I got my hand slapped by a judge 37 years ago for saying that.
I still don't understand what all the stink is since when I was a teenager and where I grew up it was only a traffic ticket for under an OZ back then.
Just my take on it..
Are you asking what the tax rate on weed sales will be? I feel like I'm missing the tone of this sentence. Don't forget that weed isn't limited to being smoked anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrymrc
What I was asking was when the law passed what tax over and above the normal sales tax was enacted? It was voted on to tax at 15% but the message I get is that passing the legality had no additional tax on it in the first place. Am I correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
From all of the griping and talk of 'black market' sales, it appears to me that those advocating that we should make pot a taxable commodity were disingenuous. They were willing to sell it illegally before, why should we think that the pattern would change? You can dye the fur on the leopard, but the spots are still there.
I believe so. AA was to set the "sales tax" portion at 10% in order to cover regular sales tax and fund regulation. There will be an additional 15% tax on the sale, to fund school construction; for a total tax of 25%. The bill specified that the tax amount of either portion of the tax may be changed for any reason, not to.exceed 15% each.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrymrc
I never said it wouldn't be taxed, I was more saying the taxes on it should be independent of everything else. And why can't I compare weed tax to gas, tobacco, and booze? They're taxed really high- which is the goal for Pro-AA folks on weed. I see a perfect correlation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Because those aren't acceptable taxes either. Just because one product has an unacceptable tax rate, doesn't mean that more should.
What is an "acceptable tax rate?"
Believe me, I look at how every proposal will affect my own pocketbook and vote accordingly, but how do you frame up any discussion around something so arbitrary and subjective?
Acceptable is whatever the local tax base rate is. If the local tax rate on consumables is 7.25%, then what is the justification of having the weed be taxed at 25%? Oh yeah, for "regulation" and building schools for the kids.