Cigarette Tax: Good!
In response to the recent tax increase on tobacco manufacturers and the pending increase on tobacco sales, chain smokers are expressing their discontent with the authorities' decision. Although I favor a more gradual approach to reducing the number of smokers, I definitely support this decision.
One smoker, the Assistant Manager of Smoker Friendly Brandon Pitrolo, explained that he has been "smoking Marlboros since [he] was 18 and [he] just can't afford to do it anymore". Great. That's the point. Another smoker complains that he's "going to have to quit smoking soon", while yet another claims that he's "just going to cut back elsewhere". Although smokers may not like it, it seems like taxing these public grievances does work.
Let's do it some more.
- Jinghao's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
While I think the decision
While I think the decision has good intentions, it is going to be really bad for people who are hopelessly addicted.
This is one type of person that this won't be good for. Since nicotine is addictive, many people will make bad choices in order to continue smoking (not that smoking in the first place was a good choice, but it's still not fair to put such a burden on another party).
I think there are much better ways to deal with smoking. Something as simple as outlawing smoking in public, I would be perfectly fine with. I believe people who want to smoke should have the right to do so, and the taxing method I find to be just a less effective, more painful way of essentially outlawing it. The public health argument is legitimate though, so if smokers can just stay away from the people they bother, I'd much prefer that.
In general, smoking should be discouraged, in my opinion, but I don't agree that it's the government's place to discourage it in this way.
I understand where you're
I understand where you're coming from, but as an economist my understanding is that with every activity that is detrimental to someone (society in this case), there is a remuneration large enough to compensate for it. (Even death can be compensated apparently, if you look at the government statistics, but let's disregard the complex case of death for now) What I mean is, if I feel like my health and comfort is damaged by 20 bucks by smelling cigarette smoke for an hour, a fair demand is for me to get at least 20 dollars; and if I do, I should end up happier than otherwise.
So the 20 dollars will come in the form of taxes where the rest of society is compensated for the ill the smokers cause them. Sure, if they can smoke in a place where the particles won't ever affect anyone I don't think it's fair to assess a tax on them, but that is never possible--I know. Last year there was a guy who tried all sorts of places--his apartment (set off the fire alarm), the restroom (TERRIBLE), outside in a park (No), or the parking lot (also, no)--but failed to find a place where his activities had only PERSONAL (rather than social) consequences.
The other is logistics. How hard is it to keep track of people who smoke where others may be affected and places where none will be affected? Very. But levying an across-the-board tax is simple. We just take the average case where 1 stick causes 1 dollar of social harm (say 75 cents to the guy who's living nearby who's trying to quit smoking, 25 cents to the woman who's walking by, -50 cents to the smoker who didn't have the chance to buy his smokes today, and 50 cents to the kid who is somewhat sensitive to smoke), then the fair tax assessment is 1 dollar per stick. Do you get what I mean? The tax should only be enough to compensate for the social costs.
Of course, being a non-smoker I'd much prefer the tax to be as high as possible to maximize revenue and minimize social cost, but as a fair unbiased assessment a unit tax equal to the average social cost of each stick will be sufficient and most efficient.
A cigarette tax doesn't only
A cigarette tax doesn't only discourage people from smoking; it also is a good way to earn money. Of course, I don't smoke, either. ;)
Another idea would be to force cigarette companies to pay for cigarette smokers' healthcare. Or perhaps to pay only for treating problems closely related to smoking. This might have the opposite effect, though... smokers would feel less responsible for their own health.