5 ms·

And yet it is empirically effective. What alternative would you suggest? It's true that rich people are not burdened by cigarette tax, but then again smoking ra

by tmvphil 11y ago

And yet it is empirically effective. What alternative would you suggest? It's true that rich people are not burdened by cigarette tax, but then again smoking rates are already much lower among the rich (at least in the US).

rory096 11y ago
Tax and dividend. Don't toss Pigovian tax money into the general fund, return it to the people by sending everyone a check for their share. Solves progressivity, forms the basis of a basic income, and ideally directly defrays some of the damages from externalities. (Last is somewhat less true with tobacco, where the biggest externality tends to be health problems that society ends up paying for.)
- joosters 11y ago
  Tax from the poor and give to the rich(er)? Plus lots of extra bureaucracy costs with all the paperwork and administration. I won't be voting for you!
  - rory096 11y ago
    You're right about inferior goods making a T&D program somewhat regressive (the canonical example is probably carbon). Still, the biggest winner is the non-smoking poor - there's just not as many rich people. Plus the whole point is to reduce bureaucracy - a simple dividend that everyone qualifies for is much lower overhead than pretty much anything else you can do with that tax revenue. (And hey, I never said I supported it. tmvphil asked for less regressive alternatives to a straight Pigovian tax.)
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
What alternative would you suggest? Banning it. I'm not even joking. If your only goal is to lower consumption rates, prohibition works. If you use cirrhosis deaths as a proxy, then alcohol consumption declined during the Prohibition era. [1] The problem, of course, is everything else that happens in the wake of enforcing it. An alternative option is to do nothing, because it's kind of a bikeshed issue, anyway. [1] http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-3/209-219.htm http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-3/209-219.htm
- igravious 11y ago
  I'd unreservedly support banning the substance except that (1) organised crime would profit from it, and (2) nicotine itself is not the problem, but rather the combustion of tobacco leaves which is not the same thing at all. I think prohibition is not a great idea but I wouldn't be averse to some jurisdictions trying it out and analysing the outcomes of the long term, like 25 years or so.
  - kweinber 11y ago
    "nicotine itself is not the problem" Be careful with this... It is the vapor salesman's false pitch. Nicotine is a known neurotoxin, it increases inflammation, lowers your hdl, raises your ldl, and stresses your endocrine system (adrenal et al.). While ecigs may deliver fewer toxins than analogs, that doesn't erase the fact that you are much better off without nicotine.
    - Frozenlock 11y ago
      Be careful with this... some think that it can help with Alzheimer and Parkinson. Unless there's a demonstrable, important (life affecting) effect, I wouldn't care too much about nicotine. Maybe some people are even naturally balancing some of their brain chemistry with it. I wouldn't surprised if in 30 years we 'discover' that nicotine was okay all along, just like eating fat. By the way, what is your opinion on caffeine?
      - kweinber 11y ago
        I support the right of folks to do either drug if they want, but I don't think it is fair for nicotine to be portrayed as safer than it is... it fairly well understood to be an addictive cardiac nightmare. I miss the neurostimulant effect badly... if you are right about nicotine being exonerated, I'll jump for joy and pick some up that day.
- snarfy 11y ago
  I actually do believe this could work if implemented correctly. You have to show ID to purchase tobacco products. They even have signs at some convenience stores which say the year you must be born to purchase tobacco products, which the year is the current year minus 18. Stop changing the cutoff year. This will allow the current generation of tobacco users to continue, but ban future generations from it.

by tmvphil 11y ago

rory096 11y ago

Tax and dividend. Don't toss Pigovian tax money into the general fund, return it to the people by sending everyone a check for their share. Solves progressivity, forms the basis of a basic income, and ideally directly defrays some of the damages from externalities. (Last is somewhat less true with tobacco, where the biggest externality tends to be health problems that society ends up paying for.)

joosters 11y ago
Tax from the poor and give to the rich(er)? Plus lots of extra bureaucracy costs with all the paperwork and administration. I won't be voting for you!
- rory096 11y ago
  You're right about inferior goods making a T&D program somewhat regressive (the canonical example is probably carbon). Still, the biggest winner is the non-smoking poor - there's just not as many rich people. Plus the whole point is to reduce bureaucracy - a simple dividend that everyone qualifies for is much lower overhead than pretty much anything else you can do with that tax revenue. (And hey, I never said I supported it. tmvphil asked for less regressive alternatives to a straight Pigovian tax.)

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

What alternative would you suggest? Banning it. I'm not even joking. If your only goal is to lower consumption rates, prohibition works. If you use cirrhosis deaths as a proxy, then alcohol consumption declined during the Prohibition era. [1] The problem, of course, is everything else that happens in the wake of enforcing it. An alternative option is to do nothing, because it's kind of a bikeshed issue, anyway. [1] http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-3/209-219.htm http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-3/209-219.htm

igravious 11y ago
I'd unreservedly support banning the substance except that (1) organised crime would profit from it, and (2) nicotine itself is not the problem, but rather the combustion of tobacco leaves which is not the same thing at all. I think prohibition is not a great idea but I wouldn't be averse to some jurisdictions trying it out and analysing the outcomes of the long term, like 25 years or so.
- kweinber 11y ago
  "nicotine itself is not the problem" Be careful with this... It is the vapor salesman's false pitch. Nicotine is a known neurotoxin, it increases inflammation, lowers your hdl, raises your ldl, and stresses your endocrine system (adrenal et al.). While ecigs may deliver fewer toxins than analogs, that doesn't erase the fact that you are much better off without nicotine.
  - Frozenlock 11y ago
    Be careful with this... some think that it can help with Alzheimer and Parkinson. Unless there's a demonstrable, important (life affecting) effect, I wouldn't care too much about nicotine. Maybe some people are even naturally balancing some of their brain chemistry with it. I wouldn't surprised if in 30 years we 'discover' that nicotine was okay all along, just like eating fat. By the way, what is your opinion on caffeine?
    - kweinber 11y ago
      I support the right of folks to do either drug if they want, but I don't think it is fair for nicotine to be portrayed as safer than it is... it fairly well understood to be an addictive cardiac nightmare. I miss the neurostimulant effect badly... if you are right about nicotine being exonerated, I'll jump for joy and pick some up that day.
snarfy 11y ago
I actually do believe this could work if implemented correctly. You have to show ID to purchase tobacco products. They even have signs at some convenience stores which say the year you must be born to purchase tobacco products, which the year is the current year minus 18. Stop changing the cutoff year. This will allow the current generation of tobacco users to continue, but ban future generations from it.