Smoking causes taxes? Not.

[jacee]

Watch out for the coming crime wave!

Harper's ramping up a war on contraband tobacco!

-ottawas-tobacco-tax-smokescreen/

Among the general population, a recent study by the Ontario Convenience Stores Association found rates of illegal tobacco usage as high at 46.6% in parts of Ontario; the provincial average was 21%. According to the Canadian Convenience Store Association, Contraband tobacco has cost convenience store owners as much as $2.5-billion in lost sales annually and the federal and provincial governments more than $2-billion a year in lost tax revenue and has put many c-retailers out of business.

So that $675-million the government is counting on to balance its books? Its a smokescreen. Cigarette tax revenues will drop as smokers turn to contraband. Governments will spend more money on law enforcement to combat increased criminal activity.

Smoking rates have dropped to %18 in Canada about the same amount as elsewhere, regardless of cost increases, decreases and 'contraband'.

Call it what it is ... a tax grab ... that will likely net the govt nothing. $675m more in taxes?

I doubt it!

Edited February 14, 2014 by jacee

[TimG]

Call it what it is ... a tax grab ... that will likely net the govt nothing. $675m more in taxes? I doubt it!

So do you apply the same logic to other taxes?

Or is this an effect that only occurs for taxes that you do not like or affect you personally?

Edited February 14, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

So do you apply the same logic to other taxes?

Or is this an effect that only occurs for taxes that you do not like or affect you personally?

It's just a political ploy that will net nothing.

[TimG]

It's just a political ploy that will net nothing.

Please answer my question: do you take the position that all taxes will generate less revenue than anticipated because of people acting to avoid the tax or is this a position that only applies to taxes that you do not like? Edited February 14, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Please answer my question: do you take the position that all taxes will generate less revenue than anticipated because of people acting to avoid the tax ...

Don't be ridiculous.

.

[TimG]

Don't be ridiculous.

Thanks for admitting that you are a hypocrite that only complains about taxes when they affect you personally. Edited February 14, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Thanks for admitting that you are a hypocrite that only complains about taxes when they affect you personally.

Did I complain?

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Harper pretending to collect more taxes ... when that won't happen.

.

[TimG]

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Harper pretending to collect more taxes ... when that won't happen.

Then why don't you point out the same when the NDP talks about raising taxes on the rich or corporations? Do you think that tax avoidance is something that is only practiced by smokers?

BTW - the objective of tobacco taxes is to reduce revenue in the long run. i.e. the government wants people to stop smoking so if consumption and taxes goes down then that is a good thing. This is not true of most other taxes.

[Wilber]

Quebec and Ontario still have the cheapest smokes in the country. Smoking rates are all over the map and seem to have more to do with regional life styles than cigarette prices.

[Army Guy]

So we should do nothing about 2.5 bil loss in revenue while other citizens try and carve out a living...

and say nothing of the 2 bil losses that the government could have used towards something else.....

Who's pocket is this 4.5 bil going into anyways.....my guess is organized crime....but thats my guess....

And we invest 675 mil to get some of this back, sounds like killing three birds one stone, decrease Organized crime cash flow, keep our law biding citizens in work....stop the loss of tax dollars....

[Shady]

So do you apply the same logic to other taxes?Or is this an effect that only occurs for taxes that you do not like or affect you personally?

Great catch! LOL! I'm guessing it'll only apply to tobacco and not to general sales taxes, business taxes, and income taxes. Because its not convenient.

[Boges]

Cracking down on contraband tobacco effects the First Nations. I suppose that's why people are opposed to it.

I'm for contraband cigarettes/tobacco. The taxation on tobacco is offensive. Let people smoke!

It's even more hypocritical when you consider nicotine E-cigs are banned in Canada. That's a very effective method to quit.

The government policy isn't to make people quit. It's to make people pay taxes.

And the health care argument doesn't hold any water because smokers generally don't live that long so they don't end up being as huge a burden.

[Smallc]

The Manitoba NDP raise tobacco taxes at least this much every single budget...so...I guess jacee must feel the same about them.

[Bob Macadoo]

I think the point was taxing smokes is fine however the budgetary prediction for it is incorrect as usual. Then again gov't budgets are smokescreens anyway.

[Remiel]

And the health care argument doesn't hold any water because smokers generally don't live that long so they don't end up being as huge a burden.

You forgot the other health care argument: poisoning other people for your own pleasure. And before you say anything, no, car exhaust is not an analogy. Our entire civilization will not grind to a halt if people stopped smoking.

[Boges]

Legislation has largely mitigated exposure to second-hand smoke. It's unheard of to see someone smoking indoors.

[Remiel]

Smokers hang around just outside the entrances of buildings all the time. Enforcement appears to be horrible. I am convinced my mother's health has been negatively affected by the people who do that at the building where she works. And this is a building used by a government, where officers of the law are present all the time. And it still happens.

[Boges]

Smokers hang around just outside the entrances of buildings all the time. Enforcement appears to be horrible. I am convinced my mother's health has been negatively affected by the people who do that at the building where she works. And this is a building used by a government, where officers of the law are present all the time. And it still happens.

Usually you see signs that say you need to be a certain distance away from an entrance. Regardless, having to smell smoke a few times a day is hardly something that will shorten someone's life noticeably.

I think the bigger question regarding that is why workplaces allow smokers to take so many breaks throughout the day.

[bush_cheney2004]

Legislation has largely mitigated exposure to second-hand smoke. It's unheard of to see someone smoking indoors.

Ever been to a Las Vegas casino ? Several provinces still permit designated smoking areas / rooms IIRC.

Edited February 16, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Boges]

Ever been to a Las Vegas casino ?

Land of the free?

Many states and provinces have effectively banned smoking indoors.

[bush_cheney2004]

Land of the free?

Many states and provinces have effectively banned smoking indoors.

See my edit above about provinces still permitting smoking in designated areas. Hotels still have smoking and non-smoking rooms.

Edited February 16, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Boges]

See my edit above about provinces still permitting smoking in designated areas. Hotels still have smoking and non-smoking rooms.

Certainly. But you can pretty much avoid it. Gone are the days where waitresses die of lung cancer because they work in smokey bars.

This was Brough forward regarding the health effects of smoking. My argument is that, in Ontario anyway, second-hand smoke isn't a huge problem anymore.

At least to the point where anything short of banning tobacco outright would improve the situation.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

This was Brough forward regarding the health effects of smoking. My argument is that, in Ontario anyway, second-hand smoke isn't a huge problem anymore.

I understand, but smokers and non-smokers can still be subjected to second hand smoke in private vehicles and homes. Smoking also represents a significant safety hazard in other respects.

[jacee]

I understand, but smokers and non-smokers can still be subjected to second hand smoke in private vehicles and homes.

Only by choice.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Only by choice.

.

Please explain how a child in a car seat would have such a choice ? Would the child announce to his/her smoking parents or guardian:

"The smoking lamp is out throughout this car"