Northerner.com will sell in USA but will follow the Pact Act

[Liandri]

SHIPPING SHOULD BE FREE WITH YOU GUYS! Everyone else is doing it!

[AtreyuKun]

Man, Alabama has the lowest tax rate on chewing tobacco or moist snuff at 1.5%. I can live with that.

[berlinbilly]

state by state

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1858.html

State
Tax Rate on Moist Snuff Tobacco (MST)
Type of Tax

Alabama
2 cents per typical can1
Per Unit

Alaska
75% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Arizona
12.3 cents per ounce
Per Unit

Arkansas
32% of manufacturer's price
Ad Valorem

California
46.76 percent of wholesale price2
Ad Valorem

Colorado
40% of manufacturer's price
Ad Valorem

Connecticut
40 cents per ounce3
Per Unit

Delaware
54 cents per ounce
Per Unit

Florida
25% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Georgia
10% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Hawaii
40% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Idaho
40% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Illinois
18% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Indiana
24% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Iowa
$1.19 per ounce
Per Unit

Kansas
10% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Kentucky
9.5 cents per unit4
Per Unit

Louisiana
20% of manufacturer's price
Ad Valorem

Maine
78% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Maryland
15% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Massachusetts
90% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Michigan
32% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Minnesota
70% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Mississippi
15% of manufacturer's price
Ad Valorem

Missouri
10% of manufacturer's price
Ad Valorem

Montana
85 cents per ounce
Per Unit

Nebraska
20% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Nevada
30% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

New Hampshire
19% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

New Jersey
75 cents per ounce
Per Unit

New Mexico
25% of product value
Ad Valorem

New York
37% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

North Carolina
10% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

North Dakota
60 cents per ounce
Per Unit

Ohio
17% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Oklahoma
60% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Oregon
65% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Pennsylvania
No tax
N/A

Rhode Island
$1.00 per ounce
Per Unit

South Carolina
5% of manufacturer's price
Ad Valorem

South Dakota
35% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Tennessee
6.6% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Texas
40% of manufacturer's price
Ad Valorem

Utah
75 cents per ounce
Per Unit

Vermont
$1.49 per ounce
Per Unit

Virginia
10% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Washington
75% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

West Virginia
7% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Wisconsin
$1.31 per Ounce
Per Unit

Wyoming
20% of wholesale price (or 10% of retail)

[justintempler]

Re: state by state

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1858.html

Florida
25% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem

Wrong:
and becasue there are 50 states, I'd rather see tax rates and corrections in their own thread:

lxskllr started a thread: *USA* State Tobacco Taxes By State
http://www.snuson.com/viewtopic.php?t=9008&highlight=

[Snusdog]

Frank any word? What did you find out from Customs and etc...

dog :?:

.

[spirit72]

We have no intention of telling the FDA sweet fanny Adams. I am starting to get rather cross about this whole thing.

I am a citizen of the United Kingdom, I am not at the beck and call of pompas American senators who are too stupid to realise their authority doesn’t cover the whole world.

........YEAHHHHHH!!!!!!

Furthermore I would welcome a visit from the FDA. I would have them arrested as soon as they entered my premises, but I doubt they’d know which state Berwick upon Tweed is in.

Hmmmmm. I looked it up awhile back.....I think it's on the northeast coast of England. Just south of the Scottish border?

Can I run for Senator now?? :lol:

[spirit72]

Hmm, I wonder how much the tax is going to be ...

In nearly every case, you'll still be saving a considerable amount over what you used to pay for cigarettes--assuming you were a smoker previously, of course

[Snusdog]

I just got finished reading through the entire PACT act bill in its final form.

The key to understanding the bill is definition section of the bill. The restrictions concern sales "into a state" which is clearly defied as interstate commerce between states or tribal nations. The bill says nothing about legal international commerce operating under already existing laws/treaties

The Second key is the reconciliation section where the bill seeks to reconcile its requirements with other existing laws. This section says nothing by way of amendment or qualification concerning existing international trade and tobacco laws.

In short there is nothing in this bill that even addresses legal international sales. Period. The end.

Here is my take from a different thread

Did you notice what was missing?

There is no mention of legitimate foreign companies selling to USA consumers. The wording of the entire law assumes interstate commerce. This is a USA directed law. I see absolutely nothing in it that even remotely concerns foreign companies operating legally with in already existing trade agreements with the USA.

The language of this law would have to rescind existing international tobacco trade laws or further qualify them (and I’m not even sure a domestic bill can do that without several other measures and steps).

Our suppliers don’t need to do anything more than what they are doing

THIS IS A BILL DIRECTED AT DOMESTIC COMPANIES AND SELLERS ONLY

IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT FORIGN TRADE NOR CAN IT BE CONSTRUED TO DO SO OR BE LEGALLY APPLIED TO SUCH.

THIS IS GOOD NEWS

dog 8)

.

[lxskllr]

I like your optimism Dog. I'll have to see it in action before I'm convinced though.

[WickedKitchen]

That certainly sounds nice.

Y'know ordering outside the US for many things has been working pretty good. I guess you could look at it as a lower price in exchange for for less convenience. I'm ok with that. Even if shipping were more. It's not THAT much more all told.

I just get ill over the fact that my snus cost would rise extremely and 100% of that would go to the man. Maaaannnnnn.


It'd be nice to just have to keep more stock and overlap orders to make it work the same but we shall see how it shakes out.

[Snusdog]

I like your optimism Dog. I'll have to see it in action before I'm convinced though.

lx,

I'm really beginning to think this is a giant scam. It pretends to want to stop illegal internet sales to kids that are funding terrorist (not the kids the sales) but in reality it only serves to collect taxes from legally registered US companies (to the point that it seems to actually intend to drive them out of business).

That's about it

I think the move by snus sites to establish a foothold in the US was in fact the very opposite of what they should have been doing.

I just do not see anything that can be construed to alter business as usual for our EU stores. Somebody please show me. I’m absolutely shocked.

[Snusdog]

I mean if I were Frank, or whoever, I’d take the damn law down to the customs director and ask him to show me where the existing compliances have changed. Point to them. I’d do the same with the Post Master General of the United States. I send a copy of PACT together with the existing international trade laws and ask him to show me where PACT either amends or rescinds any one of them.

IT’S NOT OPTOMISM…………..IT’S JUST NOT THERE……..AT ALL

I’m in stunned disbelief

All this hoopla for nothing

Somebody show me.................. correct the ol dog.............point to it in the bill (we are looking for one mention of "legal international sales" or one amendment to existing international trade laws). Until then I'll just sit here in stunnedness.


dog :shock:

.

[LaZeR]

I'm not sure about the bill dawg, and I'm trying to be optimistic like you. My big concern is the transition to USPS? Doesn't the declaration of it being "snus", "nasal Snuff", ect... if the international's still comply in this way legally present the problem. Then needing the 'Other' carriers to pick it up at that point to get it to us once state side and the concerns being raised about UPS, DHL, FEDEX, ect... possibly not wanting to hassle with the tobacco signature requirements and whatnot legalities?

I dunno, PACT has me more confused than my screwed up relationship atm and that is saying a lot. ops:

[Snusdog]

Laz,

Legally, that cannot be an issue.

Roderick put it like this

Shipping snuff to the USA is completely legal, based on the Universal Postal Convention of September 15, 1999 and revised by the UPC in 2004 and 2009. This was ratified by all members of the UPC and all tobacco products were listed as permitted products. Blocking these shipments into the USA and not delivering them would be violating this Agreement.

American Federal Law, sanctions the right of a US citizen to import tobacco products from abroad, with the exception of products from the embargoed country Cuba, as long as these shipments are accompanied by an accurate customs declaration CN22 and CN23. Customs declarations are not only there to state the contents, but also are intended for use by American govt authorities to collect the appropriate taxes/payment of the customs duties, which the US Customs Bureau, for some reason, always fails to collect.

Note: the Universal Postal Convention is a meeting of the national postal services of each member country. The agreement then concerns shipping via the USPS (not FedX, DHL, or UPS).

The PACT does not even address this matter much less alter the existing trade agreements. That would be a violation of international law. Guys, it’s just not there.

PACT concerns domestic sales ONLY

tha D word 8)

.

[LaZeR]

Laz,

Legally, that cannot be an issue.

Roderick put it like this

Shipping snuff to the USA is completely legal, based on the Universal Postal Convention of September 15, 1999 and revised by the UPC in 2004 and 2009. This was ratified by all members of the UPC and all tobacco products were listed as permitted products. Blocking these shipments into the USA and not delivering them would be violating this Agreement.

American Federal Law, sanctions the right of a US citizen to import tobacco products from abroad, with the exception of products from the embargoed country Cuba, as long as these shipments are accompanied by an accurate customs declaration CN22 and CN23. Customs declarations are not only there to state the contents, but also are intended for use by American govt authorities to collect the appropriate taxes/payment of the customs duties, which the US Customs Bureau, for some reason, always fails to collect.

PACT does not even address this matter much less alter the existing trade agreements. That would be a violation of international law. Guys, it’s just not there.

PACT concerns domestic sales ONLY

tha D word 8)

.

Thank you. I just got the urge to start masturbating again.