This is a crock

[yasmina27]

Family feels blindsided by state's tax bill for online cigarette purchases

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07114/780435-85.stm

I heard this guy interviewed on the big blowtorch. He was close to tears.

If my parents hadn't quit smoking a year before my dad passed in Dec. 06, chances are they would have received one of these bills. They used to buy their smokes online, and my dh & I looked into it, but never did.

Legal or not, it's a slippery slope.

Who hasn't bought something online & not paid tax on it? My favorite is at christmas time, when all the merchants are offering free delivery, then not only don't you have to leave your house, but it's cheaper too. Yeah, technically, you're supposed to report and pay, but - in all honesty - who does?? No one I know!

You would think the repukes - party of less gov't and big-brother - lol - would be all over this. To give credit where credit is due, honzman is totally against this & is trying to help this couple. But what about God knows how many other folks who got bills and aren't being made into news items? Who's coming to their rescue?

[Igel]

1. Is it a law? A new one or one of long standing targetting internet sales?

Offhand, and with 5 minutes' worth of Google, it doesn't sound like a new law or one specifically aimed at the Internet--just at recovering taxes for things purchased from out of state. As such, it looks like it's the revenue secretary pushing for a new implementation of the law.

The rev. secretary has (D) after his name. Unless it's a law passed by repubs when they controlled things (did they ever recently in PA?), and the revenue secretary is compelled by law to enforce it, it looks like it's an administrative initiative ... with a dem governor, dem rev. secretary, and dem House, you're asking the repub senate to speak up to embarrass the dems to back down. Perhaps they will.

It's probably in an attempt to close the budget; and, if they get into the black, increase services.

I don't blame families for feeling blindsided. Start a campaign to get the dem House to revoke the law--the repub Senate will feel forced to approve it; and I assume that the dem governor will most assuredly sign it.

[yasmina27]

2. 58 yr. old law - Jenkins Act

http://www.timesleader.com/business/20070420_20_SMOKE_TAX_BIZ_ART.html

The names and addresses are being supplied through the Jenkins Act, a 58-year-old federal law that only recently has been enforced with vigor when it comes to online sales. Originally designed to target interstate cigarette smugglers, the law requires vendors to supply buyers’ names to their home states if the buyers aren’t licensed tobacco distributors, such as a supermarket.

Wow, terrific thinking on your part. I never thought of the political slant to this - I figured it was just another example of PA - the best of what's worst (in the words of my HS civics teacher). Whatever the reason, it sucks!

[PhishWithLemon99]

3. if it sucks, dont smoke...

...or start paying up. The law's the law. Trying to evade paying cigarette taxes through online, out-of-state purchases is no ethically better than the big corporations who shelter their income overseas. It's an excise tax, it's one of the fairest taxes around. Paying it is purely optional.

[yasmina27]

4. oh, give me a break

Did you read the article? This guy and his wife took advantage of this apparent loophole because they are on a fixed income. As far as my parents, they were in a similar situation. My husband & I, as stated previously, never bought them online.

People in this state have been ordering smokes online tax-free for years and never had to pay taxes. So now all of a sudden these folks have to pay over $3000.00 that they never anticipated, that is all predicated on a law that's over 50+ yrs. old that was passed in order to catch resellers.

Get a life :puke:

[PhishWithLemon99]

5. great...

so if they're on a fixed income...

a) cigarettes are a very wise choice for their scarce money. Owing $3000, at $1.35 per pack plus sales tax, means they bought over 1,100 packs...that's a lot of money, and a lot of risk for health problems.

b) they're probably receiving government-subsidized health benefits. So the taxpayers will have to foot the bill to treat any potential health problems they may have as a result of their behavior choices.

Pay up, don't smoke, or don't take any government-subsidized health benefits.

[yasmina27]

6. No, the point is

don't start enforcing without warning a law on the books for many years . These people ordered their smokes under the old, non-enforced rules. Like the new smoking ban, give people warning that this is going to start being enforced, then if they continue, slap them with the fines.

These folks had no idea the law even existed - and yes, I know, ignorance of the law is no excuse - then they get slapped with this fine. Why not give them a warning, and let them know that all FUTURE purchases will be monitored and subject to taxation? What about all the people who ordered cigarettes before '05 who never paid taxes? What about all the people who made any kind of mail or online orders? Why aren't they going after them too?

If this happened to me, I think I'd be filing a lawsuit. Not sure what for, discrimination maybe?

Regarding your arguments:

a) Who are you, the money police? Who is to say how anyone spends their money?

b) Are you also opposed to government subsidized health care for other life-style choice problems? Obesity? Cirrhosis of the liver? Medical concerns of anyone on Medicare?

[PhishWithLemon99]

7. well...

people who suffer from obesity paid sales tax on the not-so-good-for-them diet that worsens the disease in many people. Not all food is tax exempt. People with cirrhosis paid a hefty 18% liquor tax on their alcohol, plus sales tax on top of that. They contributed financially to the costs of their health problems.

The non-sugar coated answer to your question is that the administration is trying to drive up revenue collections as much as possible this year, in order to make the budget negotiations go smoother. Closing the deficit caused by Washington cutbacks is a major hurdle to tackling the issues that matter, like health care and transportation funding. So as a result, some people have to pay their taxes this year. The Department of Revenue issued a press release on April 18th announcing they were going to start collecting this year.

[yasmina27]

8. Point taken

My only problem with the state using these people to make up their deficit caused by the feds is that, despite the 4/18 press release, no one had a chance to change their habits in a reasonable amount of time. They want to use this avenue to increase revenue - fine - but don't do it within weeks. Give notice - very publicly (I never heard about the press release, I'm sure those folks didn't)stating that as of such-and-such a date, the state will be collecting taxes on all out-of-state online cigarette sales. And only collect taxes on sales from that day on.