3 ms·

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 t

by 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.