The U.S. Senate Rejected The E-cigarette Tax Approved By The House Of Representatives

Democrats in the U.S. Senate rejected the idea of imposing a new federal tax on nicotine e-cigarette products, which would be detrimental to a potentially life-saving alternative to cigarettes, and violated President Joe Biden’s proposal to avoid imposing an annual income of less than 400,000 yuan. Commitment to taxation of American households in dollars.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, promoted the abolition of the tax, which has been included in the House version of the better spending plan for reconstruction. And help force deletion.

House Democrats initially proposed a consumption tax of US$100.66 for every 1,810 mg of nicotine in e-liquid, which would increase the cost of a high-strength 60-ml bottle containing 18 mg of nicotine per ml by approximately US$60.

Retailers report that for certain products, taxes can double or triple the retail prices. The same proposal would also increase federal excise taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products, generating approximately US$96 billion in new revenue within a decade.

Last month, the proposal was replaced by a plan to levy a tax of $50.33 per 1,810 mg of nicotine for e-liquid, which is still a huge tax and will greatly increase the cost of e-cigarettes. Unlike earlier plans, this rule will not increase federal taxes on cigarettes, so it will reduce the relative economic attractiveness of e-cigarettes, and it has only raised about $9 billion in ten years.

Proponents of the nicotine tax describe it as a public health measure aimed primarily at preventing consumption by minors. But it will prevent current smokers from switching to a much lower risk source of nicotine, leading to more tobacco-related deaths. The increased costs will also encourage former smokers who are now smoking e-cigarettes to change back to more deadly habits.

“There is no valid reason to impose new taxes on tobacco-free nicotine products, especially when American families feel the impact of rising inflation.” Gregory Conley, president of the American Electronic Cigarette Association, said. He pointed out that House Democrats aim to make smoke-free alternatives more expensive than smoking.

Cortez Masto did not mention the impact of taxation on public health, but focused on the inconsistency of the clause with Biden’s commitment. Last month, she described the proposed tax as a regressive tax on those we are trying to cut costs and reduce taxes.

Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said in November that the nicotine tax does not make any sense to me, and also did not mention the potential of e-cigarette products to reduce harm. Senator Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona Democrat) also opposed the tax.

Michelle Minton, a senior researcher at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who is concerned about tobacco policy, welcomed the decision to abolish the tax on e-cigarettes. “By removing the nicotine tax from the Build Back Better Act,” Minton said in a press release, “Democrats have avoided a public health disaster. Taxation of safer nicotine products will not meaningfully address young people’s problems. The e-cigarette problem, to make matters worse, will prevent adult smokers from turning to life-saving alternatives, especially among low-income Americans. It is not better to get income from the increasing suffering and poverty of mainly low-income Americans. To rebuild.”

In an article of the American Journal of Public Health in August, David JK Balfour and 14 other leading tobacco researchers warned that “policies aimed at reducing the use of e-cigarettes among young people”, including tax and fragrance bans, “also it may reduce the use of e-cigarettes by adult smokers during the quit period.” They emphasized that “the potential life-saving benefits of e-cigarettes for adult smokers are as worthy of attention as the risks for young people.”