3 ms·

>Estimates indicate that, for adults, the association between cigarette taxes and either smoking participation or smoking intensity is negative, small and not u

>Estimates indicate that, for adults, the association between cigarette taxes and either smoking participation or smoking intensity is negative, small and not usually statistically significant. Our evidence suggests that increases in cigarette taxes are associated with small decreases in cigarette consumption and that it will take sizable tax increases, on the order of 100%, to decrease adult smoking by as much as 5%. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18326 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18326

vacri 11y ago
So... your link agrees with what jogjayr is saying? It's just saying that a trivial level of taxes on a relatively cheap item won't do anything, which I don't think surprises anyone. Australia has near-punitive levels of tax on cigarettes, and smoking levels have dropped considerable over the past few decades. About 50% of the price of a pack of cigarettes is tax here, which marries up with your quote. Taxes aren't the only thing making smoking rates drop here, but among the smokers I know, most of them have reduced their rates simply due to the expense. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/a-dollar-to-light-up-smokers-brace-for-another-jump-in-tobacco-excise-20140831-10aln2.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/a-doll...
- roghummal 11y ago
  >So... your link agrees with what jogjayr is saying? ... yes. And I believe the "smoking tax" punishes the poor. You haven't shown that it doesn't; I haven't shown that it does. What we've established is that taxing smoking doesn't stop smokers--Until it's too high a cost to pay. For the poor. If you think reducing from two packs a day to one and a half packs is a meaningful reduction, enjoy the sensation. That's all you're getting. Savor it. s/my number/your number/ and the same people are getting sick and dying. They're just paying more for the privilege.

vacri 11y ago

So... your link agrees with what jogjayr is saying? It's just saying that a trivial level of taxes on a relatively cheap item won't do anything, which I don't think surprises anyone. Australia has near-punitive levels of tax on cigarettes, and smoking levels have dropped considerable over the past few decades. About 50% of the price of a pack of cigarettes is tax here, which marries up with your quote. Taxes aren't the only thing making smoking rates drop here, but among the smokers I know, most of them have reduced their rates simply due to the expense. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/a-dollar-to-light-up-smokers-brace-for-another-jump-in-tobacco-excise-20140831-10aln2.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/a-doll...

roghummal 11y ago
>So... your link agrees with what jogjayr is saying? ... yes. And I believe the "smoking tax" punishes the poor. You haven't shown that it doesn't; I haven't shown that it does. What we've established is that taxing smoking doesn't stop smokers--Until it's too high a cost to pay. For the poor. If you think reducing from two packs a day to one and a half packs is a meaningful reduction, enjoy the sensation. That's all you're getting. Savor it. s/my number/your number/ and the same people are getting sick and dying. They're just paying more for the privilege.