6 ms·

This is a wonderful idea, but wouldn't it be simpler to increase the tax on cigarettes to pay for the cleanup that's currently an externality?

liquid_x 5y ago
That is on it's way too (link in swedish https://tobaksfakta.se/nedskrapningsavgift-foreslas-pa-cigaretter-och-snus/ https://tobaksfakta.se/nedskrapningsavgift-foreslas-pa-cigar...)
henvic 5y ago
No. This is a bad idea just like any other that involves taxing more for the sake of... well... anything. People would just have even another incentive to buy even more smuggled cigarettes.
- polk 5y ago
  Source? A quick Google suggests it does in fact work as intended https://i.redd.it/jrn155a2gf4z.png https://i.redd.it/jrn155a2gf4z.png
- Majestic121 5y ago
  Taxing seems to work fine on other products, even including people shopping elsewhere, for example with soda : https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=3302335 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=3302335 > We find the tax is passed through at an average rate of 97%, leading to a 34% price increase. Demand in the taxed area decreases by 46% in response to the tax. A large amount of cross-shopping to stores outside of Philadelphia offsets more than half of the reduction in sales in the city and decreases the net reduction in sales of taxed beverages to only 22%. You might be against taxing for ideological reason, or maybe you have other arguments than "it's a bad idea" and I'm open to hearing them, but so far it seems like a good idea.
  - b112 5y ago
    In most places cigs are already taxed. I think it is 10000% here in Canada, eg 100x the cost from the manufacturer. The logic is to pay for the additional health care. If the same is happening in Sweden, then there is already plenty of tax. But I guess more could be added.
    - hydrok9 5y ago
      Manitoba has some of the highest cig prices in the world. I think the cheapest packs of smokes you can get is around $16? (i don't smoke but some friends do)
bayesian_horse 5y ago
That would make smokers feel entitled to leave their buds everywhere... The crow-sourcing approach also means continuous delivery of cigarette buds whereas Humans would only go through one area on a particular schedule.
pfdietz 5y ago
Why spend more to clean it up if this approach is cheaper?
- lostlogin 5y ago
  Why not do both? That may be what you are saying.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    How you pay for the cleanup, and how you do the cleanup, are indeed separable concerns.
- garblegarble 5y ago
  Yes indeed, although it seems like there must be drawbacks we're risking, for instance: 1. If this takes the crows out of the workforce, are we missing out something else they could be trained to do? 2. What are the risks the crows could start getting smart and stealing things that will be treated as litter, or stealing actual litter from bins? What if they learn they can harass people on the street for their "litter"? :) 3. Would it be better for the economy to give a humans jobs doing the cleanup vs supervising crow learning / reward? 4. Is it right to use crows like this? Are we impacting their ability as wild animals to survive independent of humans?
alkonaut 5y ago
I wouldn't say it's an either/or situation. There have been fines recently added for littering (including throwing cigarette butts). Tobacco tax increases is the Swedish national sport. I don't have a breakdown of what a pack costs today but a rough guess is that the price would be first 50% tobacco tax and then 25% VAT on top of that. Don't quote me on those figures though. It gives you a rough estimate.

liquid_x 5y ago

That is on it's way too (link in swedish https://tobaksfakta.se/nedskrapningsavgift-foreslas-pa-cigaretter-och-snus/ https://tobaksfakta.se/nedskrapningsavgift-foreslas-pa-cigar...)

henvic 5y ago

No. This is a bad idea just like any other that involves taxing more for the sake of... well... anything. People would just have even another incentive to buy even more smuggled cigarettes.

polk 5y ago
Source? A quick Google suggests it does in fact work as intended https://i.redd.it/jrn155a2gf4z.png https://i.redd.it/jrn155a2gf4z.png
Majestic121 5y ago
Taxing seems to work fine on other products, even including people shopping elsewhere, for example with soda : https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=3302335 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=3302335 > We find the tax is passed through at an average rate of 97%, leading to a 34% price increase. Demand in the taxed area decreases by 46% in response to the tax. A large amount of cross-shopping to stores outside of Philadelphia offsets more than half of the reduction in sales in the city and decreases the net reduction in sales of taxed beverages to only 22%. You might be against taxing for ideological reason, or maybe you have other arguments than "it's a bad idea" and I'm open to hearing them, but so far it seems like a good idea.
- b112 5y ago
  In most places cigs are already taxed. I think it is 10000% here in Canada, eg 100x the cost from the manufacturer. The logic is to pay for the additional health care. If the same is happening in Sweden, then there is already plenty of tax. But I guess more could be added.
  - hydrok9 5y ago
    Manitoba has some of the highest cig prices in the world. I think the cheapest packs of smokes you can get is around $16? (i don't smoke but some friends do)

bayesian_horse 5y ago

That would make smokers feel entitled to leave their buds everywhere... The crow-sourcing approach also means continuous delivery of cigarette buds whereas Humans would only go through one area on a particular schedule.

pfdietz 5y ago

Why spend more to clean it up if this approach is cheaper?

lostlogin 5y ago
Why not do both? That may be what you are saying.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  How you pay for the cleanup, and how you do the cleanup, are indeed separable concerns.
garblegarble 5y ago
Yes indeed, although it seems like there must be drawbacks we're risking, for instance: 1. If this takes the crows out of the workforce, are we missing out something else they could be trained to do? 2. What are the risks the crows could start getting smart and stealing things that will be treated as litter, or stealing actual litter from bins? What if they learn they can harass people on the street for their "litter"? :) 3. Would it be better for the economy to give a humans jobs doing the cleanup vs supervising crow learning / reward? 4. Is it right to use crows like this? Are we impacting their ability as wild animals to survive independent of humans?

alkonaut 5y ago

I wouldn't say it's an either/or situation. There have been fines recently added for littering (including throwing cigarette butts). Tobacco tax increases is the Swedish national sport. I don't have a breakdown of what a pack costs today but a rough guess is that the price would be first 50% tobacco tax and then 25% VAT on top of that. Don't quote me on those figures though. It gives you a rough estimate.