The legalization and taxation of recreational marijuana remains one of the hottest trends in state taxation.

Currently, 16 states and D.C. have passed bills or approved ballot measures that allow for the sale of recreational marijuana: tax.foundation/3cFu2Wm Image
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, D.C., Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington have passed bills or approved ballot measures that allow for the sale of recreational marijuana.
And more states are poised to pass legislation this session.

In total, actual recreational marijuana sales are happening in 11 states.
The Virginia legislature now has passed a bill that would legalize sales starting in 2024; legislators are currently working with Gov. Northam (D) to amend and finalize legislation.
New Mexico lawmakers are very likely to pass legislation during an ongoing special session.
Voters in four states approved ballot measures in November, but only one state (Arizona) has established an operational marketplace.
Vermont, which passed legalization back in 2018, has finally approved legislation, and the state plans to be operational starting in 2022.
Recreational sales are delayed due to pending legal action in South Dakota and federal prohibition in the District of Columbia, although change is on the horizon in DC.
The unique legal framework under which marijuana use and sales operate—that of differing state and federal legality—means that every state market is essentially a siloed market.
Marijuana products cannot cross state borders, so the entire process (seed to smoke, so to speak) must occur within state borders.

This unusual situation, along with the novelty of legalization, has resulted in a wide variety of tax designs.
The multitude of approaches makes any apples-to-apples comparison of rates difficult, but Washington state has the highest statewide retail-level excise tax, at 37 percent.
New York, the most recent addition, is the first state to implement a potency-based recreational marijuana tax by milligrams of THC.
Most states have applied a price-based (ad valorem) tax on retail sales of recreational marijuana.

Although levying the tax on retail sales (ad valorem) allows for simplicity, it's neither neutral nor equitable.
In order to tax marijuana efficiently, the tax should be levied at a rate that corresponds to the societal costs, called externalities, associated with the product.

These externalities share no association with the price.
A profitable new industry to tax is understandably enticing to many lawmakers, but an excise tax on recreational marijuana should be based on the following principles: Image
A tax system following these principles would be based on weight or potency, have relatively low rates, and allocate revenue to offset societal costs associated with recreational marijuana consumption.
Of the states that have passed legislation, all but Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Montana, and Oregon levy the general sales tax on marijuana sales in addition to excise taxes.
Alaska, Montana, and Oregon do not levy a statewide general sales tax in the first place, and Maine and Colorado levy retail-level excise taxes in lieu of, and with higher rates, than their general rates.
One of the great challenges with tax design for recreational marijuana is the amount of product types available on the market.
Today, consumers can purchase THC-containing products in many different shapes and forms. Anything from traditional pre-rolled joints and brownies to THC-containing sparkling water and the yet unknown products to come.
Any tax system should either be nimble enough or updated frequently enough to capture new products as they enter the market.
There are still many unknows when it comes to the taxation of recreational marijuana, but as more states open legal marketplaces and more research is done to understand the externalities of consumption, more data will be available.
For more discussion on the trade-offs of marijuana tax structures and general excise tax design, see our recent report: taxfoundation.org/excise-taxes-e… @UBoesen Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tax Foundation

Tax Foundation Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TaxFoundation

31 Mar
The government of Hartford County, Connecticut is in line to receive $173 million in local aid under the American Rescue Plan Act.

There’s only one problem: the government of Hartford County doesn’t exist.

buff.ly/3dle6rn @JaredWalczak
Nor do any of Connecticut’s other counties have county-level government despite being allocated a collective $691 million under the bill.
The traditional county lines are useful for certain purposes, like electing a few countywide officials, but there is no proper county government to receive, let alone spend, these funds.
Read 11 tweets
31 Mar
Our new study outlines how several OECD countries allowed businesses to more quickly expense investments during the pandemic: buff.ly/39xKzto @ElkeAsen
While the temporary nature of most of these expensing and accelerated depreciation provisions reduces their tax revenue impact in the long run, it also limits their long-run economic benefits.
Temporary provisions may encourage businesses to shift future investments forward to take advantage of the larger deductions but would not raise the level of investment permanently.
Read 9 tweets
30 Mar
Income tax repeal is on the agenda in West Virginia, with Gov. Jim Justice and Republicans in both the House and Senate releasing plans for dramatically lowering or eliminating the state’s individual income tax. buff.ly/3fEia9d @JaredWalczak #wvleg
Despite their shared aims, these plans represent vastly different approaches. They are not even aligned on which income should benefit from rate reductions.
House Republicans propose a straightforward reduction in income tax rates, while their Senate counterparts initially exclude investment income, and the governor excludes pass-through business income as well as investment income.
Read 10 tweets
30 Mar
President Biden and congressional policymakers have proposed several changes to the corporate income tax to raise revenue for new spending programs.

Our new modeling analyzes the economic, revenue, and distributional impact of these proposals. 👇

buff.ly/3qUbeHz
President Biden has proposed raising the U.S. corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent and imposing a 15 percent minimum tax on the book income of large corporations.
An increase in the federal corporate tax rate to 28 percent would raise the U.S. federal-state combined tax rate to 32.34 percent, highest in the OECD and among Group of Seven (G7) countries, harming U.S. economic competitiveness and increasing the cost of investment in America. Image
Read 4 tweets
29 Mar
President Biden could provide business and household relief by eliminating Trump tariffs: buff.ly/3oXN0v2 @ericadyork Image
Tariffs raise prices and reduce the quantity of goods available to U.S. businesses and consumers, which results in lower incomes, reduced employment, and lower economic output in the United States.
Using the Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, we estimated that the Trump administration tariffs would amount to an annual tax increase of $80 billion (the 17th largest tax increase since 1940).
Read 8 tweets
29 Mar
Excise taxes are commonly employed to deter consumption or internalize societal costs, but in West Virginia, Gov. Jim Justice (R) is proposing to increase the excise tax on soft drinks to pay for part of an income tax reform. buff.ly/3wcSIgu @UBoesen
He’s not alone in considering ways to raise revenue as state lawmakers look to a time after the pandemic and ponder how their tax codes impact taxpayer behavior.
It seems almost certain, for example, that the post-pandemic world will include more remote work opportunities, which will allow taxpayers more freedom to shop for competitive tax environments with less considerations of the physical location of their employer.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!