Internet Tax, how will it effect cigar purchasing?

[Not A Nice Person]

*shrug*
 
~Boar

 
Why the shrug?

 
Because it's a moot point and silly question.
 
I'm going to ignore the rest of your input as political, and heed Devil Doc's advice.
 
~Boar

 

[BigBear]

I don't see/understand the reference to it affecting our privacy.
 
This would not affect my purchases at all. You could see this coming for miles and knew it was only a matter of time before the "luxury" of no sales-tax online would go away. States are missing out on money, plain and simple.
 
-John

 
Here is one excerpt regarding "possible" privacy issue/s. You can read the full article here
 
 
That means that sellers all over the country would have to turn the addresses of the people they sell to over to state tax authorities. You could design a system to minimize the privacy problems here, but not eliminate them—especially when the time comes for the officials in one state to audit the sales in another.
Let’s say a seller of naughty toys were audited by the tax authority in another state. To prove that it has remitted all the taxes due in that state, it woud have to turn over, at the least, data reflecting the amount of its sales by geographical location. There are something like 30,000 state and local jurisdictions with authority to impose sales and use taxes, more than 7,500 of which have already adopted this kind of tax. If not ZIP+4, then the actual address of recipients would have to be turned over. Could they turn over non-identifying summaries? The point of an audit is to check the honesty and accuracy of summary filings, so the answer is no.

 

[searsa1]

I don't see/understand the reference to it affecting our privacy.
 
This would not affect my purchases at all. You could see this coming for miles and knew it was only a matter of time before the "luxury" of no sales-tax online would go away. States are missing out on money, plain and simple.
 
-John

 
Here is one excerpt regarding "possible" privacy issue/s. You can read the full article here
 
 
That means that sellers all over the country would have to turn the addresses of the people they sell to over to state tax authorities. You could design a system to minimize the privacy problems here, but not eliminate them—especially when the time comes for the officials in one state to audit the sales in another.
Let’s say a seller of naughty toys were audited by the tax authority in another state. To prove that it has remitted all the taxes due in that state, it woud have to turn over, at the least, data reflecting the amount of its sales by geographical location. There are something like 30,000 state and local jurisdictions with authority to impose sales and use taxes, more than 7,500 of which have already adopted this kind of tax. If not ZIP+4, then the actual address of recipients would have to be turned over. Could they turn over non-identifying summaries? The point of an audit is to check the honesty and accuracy of summary filings, so the answer is no.

 
In this case a P.O.Box will give you the anonymity you are looking for. The idea that a tax auditor in Iowa cares that someone New Mexico bought "naughty toys" is somewhat amusing to me. This is a situation where states are missing out on a revenue stream and they are taking steps to rectify the situation. Every day you give out personal information. Every swipe of your debit/credit card, every time you get into your car (plate number), every call you make on your phone, ect. I personally do not like the idea of sales tax being charged on internet purchases. With that being said I would take the article referenced above with a grain of salt. I highly doubt charging sales tax on internet purchases will send the US into some sort of Orwellian apocalypse. Always pay cash for your naughty toys.....plausible deniability.  :thumbs:

 

[GKane]

I live in MA, so naturally I am very aware of high tobacco taxes. I am a huge supporter of local B&Ms but understand peoples hesitation when purchasing cigars in states similar to MA. As a result many people turn to mail-order cigars to bypass the extra cost.
 
I think the issue is frustrating for many people because it feels like a change to the current system. However,it is inevitable. Amazon and Wal-mart are lobbying for the change for simple reasons. They know that most e-commerce operations do not have to monetary resources to update there back-end systems to account for 50 different state taxes. The logic is that if the tax is implemented and subsequently enforced, the large retailers will be squashing the competition.. May not happen this year but it will happen. Like people have previously stated, this tax is already in place, however it is not enforced. So to fix the "issue" they are transferring the tax burden to the distributer/seller (which falls back to the consumer).
 
I know that regardless of the tax, I will not give up my passion for smoking. Two things we cannot escape, death and taxes.

 

[sar127]

Even though I'm jumping into this late, I still feel like I'm missing something. Is the reason that no one has mentioned a flat federal rate simply because of the already existing but unenforced state tax rates you guys mentioned? Because the federal tax seems to be a fairest rate after hearing both sides. 
 
With the same tax law across the board, the small businesses won't be impeded as previously mentioned while consumers from high tax states won't be further burdened either. Sure B&Ms within those high tax states will be at a disadvantage compared to internet companies within their own industries, but it'll still be better than it is now!
 

If there is a tax I feel it should be the state the business is located in. Why should Kalifornia get 8.5 percent of a purchase I make in another state?

 
I was thinking about that too, but I think one issue with that is that it could lead internet companies to move their "headquarters" to a state with low internet tax, hindering internet business growth in other states. Keeping taxes on the consumer side keeps it more or less fair imo. Since California as a state has more money and consumers than say Hawaii anyway, they would also hypothetically have more internet purchases, hence more tax revenue as well. 

 

[dcpeters]

In Illinois, I know at a few Cigar shoppes, they impose a 18% tax on all cigars. in July, they are supposed to be increasing it to 36%.

 

[{tpc}]

I don't know, they have beat me into submission with all these taxes. If I want something and the tax makes it unaffordable then I don't buy it. If I need something then I suck it up and pay the tax.

I buy from a couple local b&m because I appreciate having a place to go to in the winter times. Not exclusively, but more often then not. I don't worry about what I'm taxed or not taxed there because I want them to stick around. I get irritated by the prices sometimes but I know what I'm paying for.

 

[MrAnderson41]

I don't know, they have beat me into submission with all these taxes. If I want something and the tax makes it unaffordable then I don't buy it. If I need something then I suck it up and pay the tax.

I buy from a couple local b&m because I appreciate having a place to go to in the winter times. Not exclusively, but more often then not. I don't worry about what I'm taxed or not taxed there because I want them to stick around. I get irritated by the prices sometimes but I know what I'm paying for.

I believe they passed a cap on cigar taxes in Michigan.  Not sure when/if it's gone into effect though because I haven't really seen a drop in prices yet.

 

[MadMonk]

 

Well, for those of us that live in an OVER TAXED state, this taxation will cripple my buying habits and cause me not be able to order new releases ASAP as I REFUSE to pay the additional taxes. Call me un-American all you want, I pay enough taxes already and God knows more than the average tax payer.
 
BUT, my only saving grace is I live a few hours from Pennsylvania and I will drive there to do an occasional mass buy....or just jump in the car and visit Hank once in a while to do my buying at his B&M.  :laugh:

There's a mortadella sandwich and a beer waiting for ya.
 
Doc
 

If they Tax Mortadella, I'm outta here!

 

[{tpc}]

I don't know, they have beat me into submission with all these taxes. If I want something and the tax makes it unaffordable then I don't buy it. If I need something then I suck it up and pay the tax.
I buy from a couple local b&m because I appreciate having a place to go to in the winter times. Not exclusively, but more often then not. I don't worry about what I'm taxed or not taxed there because I want them to stick around. I get irritated by the prices sometimes but I know what I'm paying for.

I believe they passed a cap on cigar taxes in Michigan.  Not sure when/if it's gone into effect though because I haven't really seen a drop in prices yet.

Ya I heard something about it and saw the signs in the store, etc. The effect is probably more profit on the better selling cigars and more volume sold on the ones that didn't. I haven't seen an effect on prices but I really wasn't expecting to see that much effect either.

 

[MadMonk]

 I will buy using whatever and whomever gives me the best value. Of course considering cost, conditions, etc.  I do not have a decent local fellow. One guy, whose humidor smells like bleach, and who charges 8 bucks for a Villazon Punch Robusto. So, I have to mail order. I might even just do one or two large deals a year having the cigar purchased in the state of origin, and shipped to me UPS. I.e., a proxy, so legit as hell. But, realistically, it really isn't an incredible amount of money.
 
I think you'll see some black market activity, but not dramatic. Most folks are honest, especially if it takes extra work or effort not to be.