3 ms·
You’d lose that bet. State and local governments collected $19 billion in revenue from tobacco taxes in 2020. Which was high. In 2022 it had dropped to a more
by photonerd 3y ago
You’d lose that bet.
State and local governments collected $19 billion in revenue from tobacco taxes in 2020. Which was high. In 2022 it had dropped to a more normal level of $11.26 billion.
1% of that is $11 million.
Quite a difference.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- xyzzy4747 3y ago1% of 11 billion is $110 million. To go from a million to a billion, you multiply by 1000. Same to go from 1 to one thousand or one thousand to one million. It’s also easy to remember since the commas are every 3 decimal places. 1/1000 is equivalent to 0.1%, not 1%.
- photonerd 3y agoIndeed, a typo, my apologies. The point that it is a LOT less than 2 billion stands however
- MightyBuzzard 3y agoYour math is bad. 1% of recipients is nowhere near the same as the 1% of smokers you used.
- photonerd 3y agoIt’s assuming the 1% of smokers who are recipients are evenly distributed (statistically speaking) across the smoking population. A quite reasonable assumption. Therefore, to generally reduce the population of recipients you’d have to reduce the population of smokers. Unless you have data showing a specific population skew or sampling issue I’d say it is perfectly good math, albeit with an assumption. Now, of course, you could simply deny service to 1% of smokers who would be recipients—or other extremely skewed sampling attacks—but that is somewhat unlikely and in most cases directly against the goals of the program.