3 ms·

I wonder if there’s ever been a study comparing the effects of banning compared to ultra high taxation of products. I understand that there are groups that are

I wonder if there’s ever been a study comparing the effects of banning compared to ultra high taxation of products. I understand that there are groups that are negatively affected but is banning even effective in improving health outcomes in this case? In my imaginary world the tax would be extremely high and diverted to things in the same area that have the opposite effect: e.g make cheeseburgers more expensive and subsidize leafy greens and produce with the same funds on a municipal level.

andiareso 6y ago
Honestly I completely agree. Taxation seems to be the only way to actual instigate change. Too high though you would likely lead to the same result as a full ban. I could see no real reason for a "blackmarket" to exist for menthol cigarettes as the consumption of them has remained pretty much the same over the last 10 years.
- ksherlock 6y ago
  Eric Garner was choked to death by the NY police for selling loose cigarettes. That was 7 years ago.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    That's not a result of taxation, it's because the US has a pathologically terrible police culture that sees extra-judicial killing as acceptable.
aaronbrethorst 6y ago
Googling for "effects of banning compared to ultra high taxation of products" produces useful results that answer your question. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151217165607.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151217165607.h... tl;dr: they have different, but complementary effects.
Alupis 6y ago
People will rationalize the choice (since it's still available) and end up spending more on the same item, which doesn't reduce usage - it just means the people using this item now have less money than before. So, if the goal is to remove the item entirely, it has to be banned from production/import rather than highly taxed. I don't really think bans are great either - we're all adults and can make our own choices. Provide better education about the effects/impacts of the choice, then let the informed adults make their own decision.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  The point isn’t just to tax, but to use the funds to create things that are significantly cheaper and reverse the effect. Taxing obviously affects the demand and cost of consumption but that money should go somewhere useful, ideally not into the ether that is government spending.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    Your plan falls apart when it comes to the "vices" and "Sin Taxes", in my opinion. You won't prevent people from indulging in their choice of "vice" or "sin", you'll just make those people more poor than before. People who smoke and are addicted won't suddenly substitute smoking with chewing bubble gum or eating salads simply because those are cheaper options...
    - endisneigh 6y ago
      It’s not about those specific people, it’s about the aggregate. They probably won’t chew gum, but you can probably help other poor people in the same community. Compared to what- banning it which creates some level of a black market and more waste by policing what was previously a legal activity. Not to mention fining or otherwise enforcing the new law also makes those poor people even poorer and removes choice.
      - Alupis 6y ago
        Or you could just not try to Social Engineer society... It rarely works anyway, and often leads to unintended consequences. Educate people about the choices and why it might be bad for them to choose one way over the other - then hands off, let the now-educated adults make their own decisions. We can look at smoking as a good example of this. Decades of hard-core educational efforts about the negative effects have inarguably led to a massive reduction in smoking. Has it eliminated it entirely? No... but it certainly has reduced it to benign levels when compared to historical smoking. When someone considers trying cigarettes for the first time, do they consider the costs of an addiction/habit - or do they consider the effects on their own health? The massive taxes on a pack of cigarettes has little-to-zero impact on the choice to smoke the first one...
aidenn0 6y ago
At a certain point of taxation, banning is more effective because it's much harder to tell if you have an untaxed menthol cigarette than to tell if you have a menthol cigarette. So tax evasion becomes a limiting factor in such taxes.
Scoundreller 6y ago
Higher prices do reduce alcohol consumption. The problem is for the people it doesn’t reduce consumption of. Plenty of people will happily spend less on their children or education or safer products or whatever to continue their dependence instead. There are solutions to these issues, but governments love to say “see, we have scientific proof that this tax is good for you”. Similarly, a common anti-diarrheal (loperamide) is believed to help reduce opiate withdrawals if you eat a massive number of tablets (like 50-100). It doesn’t. But the FDA still “asked” manufacturers to only sell in smaller packs. Now that my family has gone through their bottle of 200 after several years, it costs me 5x more than last time. Meanwhile, anyone in opiate withdrawal will do anything to ward off those withdrawals. Logic will go out the window. Cost is irrelevant and anything will be done to get the funds/materials required.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  My point is less about the tax and more about the money being used to help in the same community directly using the tax revenue from bad things directly. I mean we could just ban everything that produces poor outcomes even in moderation: gambling, smoking, certain types of alcohol, vaping, etc. If we can’t trust our own citizens to do things in moderation then what?
GloriousKoji 6y ago
The broader term is a pigovian tax and there's tons of (economic) studies on the effects of them. The problem with crazy high taxes is it also increases the incentive to circumvent them, legal or otherwise. One easy example off the top of my head is a person could stop buying them from a corner store and start directly importing them from outside the US. According to the press release at least one study suggests it would lead to 923,000 smokers to quit, which is a definite health improvement.
throwawayboise 6y ago
Make the tax high enough and you just create illegal markets. We should have learned from Prohibition and the War on Drugs that if people want to get high, they will find a way, and other people will be happy to provide what they are looking for.

andiareso 6y ago

Honestly I completely agree. Taxation seems to be the only way to actual instigate change. Too high though you would likely lead to the same result as a full ban. I could see no real reason for a "blackmarket" to exist for menthol cigarettes as the consumption of them has remained pretty much the same over the last 10 years.

ksherlock 6y ago
Eric Garner was choked to death by the NY police for selling loose cigarettes. That was 7 years ago.
- DanBC 6y ago
  That's not a result of taxation, it's because the US has a pathologically terrible police culture that sees extra-judicial killing as acceptable.

aaronbrethorst 6y ago

Googling for "effects of banning compared to ultra high taxation of products" produces useful results that answer your question. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151217165607.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151217165607.h... tl;dr: they have different, but complementary effects.

Alupis 6y ago

People will rationalize the choice (since it's still available) and end up spending more on the same item, which doesn't reduce usage - it just means the people using this item now have less money than before. So, if the goal is to remove the item entirely, it has to be banned from production/import rather than highly taxed. I don't really think bans are great either - we're all adults and can make our own choices. Provide better education about the effects/impacts of the choice, then let the informed adults make their own decision.

endisneigh 6y ago
The point isn’t just to tax, but to use the funds to create things that are significantly cheaper and reverse the effect. Taxing obviously affects the demand and cost of consumption but that money should go somewhere useful, ideally not into the ether that is government spending.
- Alupis 6y ago
  Your plan falls apart when it comes to the "vices" and "Sin Taxes", in my opinion. You won't prevent people from indulging in their choice of "vice" or "sin", you'll just make those people more poor than before. People who smoke and are addicted won't suddenly substitute smoking with chewing bubble gum or eating salads simply because those are cheaper options...
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    It’s not about those specific people, it’s about the aggregate. They probably won’t chew gum, but you can probably help other poor people in the same community. Compared to what- banning it which creates some level of a black market and more waste by policing what was previously a legal activity. Not to mention fining or otherwise enforcing the new law also makes those poor people even poorer and removes choice.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      Or you could just not try to Social Engineer society... It rarely works anyway, and often leads to unintended consequences. Educate people about the choices and why it might be bad for them to choose one way over the other - then hands off, let the now-educated adults make their own decisions. We can look at smoking as a good example of this. Decades of hard-core educational efforts about the negative effects have inarguably led to a massive reduction in smoking. Has it eliminated it entirely? No... but it certainly has reduced it to benign levels when compared to historical smoking. When someone considers trying cigarettes for the first time, do they consider the costs of an addiction/habit - or do they consider the effects on their own health? The massive taxes on a pack of cigarettes has little-to-zero impact on the choice to smoke the first one...

aidenn0 6y ago

At a certain point of taxation, banning is more effective because it's much harder to tell if you have an untaxed menthol cigarette than to tell if you have a menthol cigarette. So tax evasion becomes a limiting factor in such taxes.

Scoundreller 6y ago

Higher prices do reduce alcohol consumption. The problem is for the people it doesn’t reduce consumption of. Plenty of people will happily spend less on their children or education or safer products or whatever to continue their dependence instead. There are solutions to these issues, but governments love to say “see, we have scientific proof that this tax is good for you”. Similarly, a common anti-diarrheal (loperamide) is believed to help reduce opiate withdrawals if you eat a massive number of tablets (like 50-100). It doesn’t. But the FDA still “asked” manufacturers to only sell in smaller packs. Now that my family has gone through their bottle of 200 after several years, it costs me 5x more than last time. Meanwhile, anyone in opiate withdrawal will do anything to ward off those withdrawals. Logic will go out the window. Cost is irrelevant and anything will be done to get the funds/materials required.

endisneigh 6y ago
My point is less about the tax and more about the money being used to help in the same community directly using the tax revenue from bad things directly. I mean we could just ban everything that produces poor outcomes even in moderation: gambling, smoking, certain types of alcohol, vaping, etc. If we can’t trust our own citizens to do things in moderation then what?

GloriousKoji 6y ago

The broader term is a pigovian tax and there's tons of (economic) studies on the effects of them. The problem with crazy high taxes is it also increases the incentive to circumvent them, legal or otherwise. One easy example off the top of my head is a person could stop buying them from a corner store and start directly importing them from outside the US. According to the press release at least one study suggests it would lead to 923,000 smokers to quit, which is a definite health improvement.

throwawayboise 6y ago

Make the tax high enough and you just create illegal markets. We should have learned from Prohibition and the War on Drugs that if people want to get high, they will find a way, and other people will be happy to provide what they are looking for.