
How Cigarettes Tax the Poor - bpolania
http://priceonomics.com/how-cigarettes-tax-the-poor/
======
hapless
Cigarette taxes are powerfully regressive. It's completely true.

But when cigarette taxes go up, youth smoking goes down. Reductions in youth
smoking mean permanent, ongoing reductions in overall cigarette consumption,
as young people fail to take up the habit.

This is not a controversial assertion. Even priceonomics' cherry-picked
sources primarily discuss price inelasticity in adult smokers, who have been
addicted for decades.

These taxes are cruel, but necessary. It's a pigouvian tax that literally
_saves lives_.

~~~
TelmoMenezes
> These taxes are cruel, but necessary. It's a pigouvian tax that literally
> saves lives.

And with modern technology it can only get better. For example, why not create
an algorithm that scores how healthy your choices at the grocery store are and
introduce the appropriate tax in the end?

We are also on the verge of being able to monitor everyone's every movement.
Why not tax those who don't exercise enough?

Imagine how much the average lifespan will increase when people finally give
up on outdated notions of personal freedom and irrational choices.

~~~
Ao7bei3s
> finally give up on outdated notions of personal freedom and irrational
> choice

Apparently the cigarette industries' attempts to associate smoking with
personal freedom in advertisements have been successful in your case.

I think the health benefits by far outweigh any perceived personal freedom
costs. Smoking is damaging but addictive. Too many people want to but don't
manage to stop.

If higher prices help reduce smoking, I'm for higher prices.

~~~
TelmoMenezes
> Apparently the cigarette industries' attempts to associate smoking with
> personal freedom in advertisements have been successful in your case.

Not really, I used to smoke but I quit.

That's a straw man, and also quite patronizing. You can hold a rational
ethical position without buying into the mythology of Marlboro man. The
question still stands: if you accept that health benefits can outweigh
personal freedom, where do you draw the line?

~~~
IanDrake
> if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do
> you draw the line?

Agreed. I hate using these terms, but the "progressive liberal agenda" that
wants to make "HealthCare Free For All" will make your health choices
everyone's business.

I'm not paying for your triple bypass surgery, therefor red meat is going to
be taxed higher. Etc...etc... Carry it all out to it's logical conclusion and
you'll see that soon enough personal freedom won't mean much in a collectivist
society and there will be no line to draw.

~~~
logfromblammo
This is when you line up an army on one side of the field that believes heart
disease is exacerbated by the saturated fats, cholesterol, and sodium in red
meat, and you line up the army on the other side of the field that believes
that heart disease is exacerbated by sugars, simple carbohydrates, and
insufficient magnesium, vitamin D, and vitamin K.

Then they converge in the middle, and methodically slaughter any chance at
rationally examining the science, with their sharp blades made from laminated
dollar bills.

Politics and science do not mix well. Some may not like that other people eat
beef steaks. Others may not like enriched white flour or high fructose corn
syrup. Some people might not like genetically modified whatevers, or
artificial hormone treated this-and-thats. But I don't want my diet to be
constrained on all sides by FUD and scaremongering.

Besides that, I don't believe that cigarettes are taxed heavily as a means to
benefit the public health. I believe that they are taxed heavily because
nicotine addicts will just pay that much for a fix. The supposed health
benefit just makes it easier for other people to ignore that a consumer
product is being selectively taxed at a scandalously high rate.

~~~
bobwaycott
> _Besides that, I don 't believe that cigarettes are taxed heavily as a means
> to benefit the public health. I believe that they are taxed heavily because
> nicotine addicts will just pay that much for a fix. The supposed health
> benefit just makes it easier for other people to ignore that a consumer
> product is being selectively taxed at a scandalously high rate._

Exactly this. Cigarettes aren't being taxed out of any semblance of altruistic
care for public health--that altruistic care is arguably borne out in anti-
smoking laws in public places. The taxes, however, are simply a shakedown,
like every other type of "sin tax" levied to collect money from people who
enjoy a thing that cannot or will not be universally defended as something
that is "okay" to enjoy.

------
SCAQTony
Cigarettes, as a product when used as directed will not only harm the
individual 100% of the time but will also tax the remaining non smokers.
Cigarettes do not cover existential damages such as harm to nonsmokers,
litter, garbage and damage to wildlife albeit through fires, avian or sea
life.

See Myth 3: The Economics of Tobacco at 'The World Bank' site.

[http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUT...](http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/EXTETC/0,,contentMDK:20365226~menuPK:478891~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:376601,00.html)

~~~
rahimnathwani
s/existential damages/externalities

------
rcavezza
The lottery taxes the poor in a very similar way. [http://metrocosm.com/could-
the-lottery-be-the-largest-tax/](http://metrocosm.com/could-the-lottery-be-
the-largest-tax/)

~~~
Kesty
That works for most taxes on consumer products since it's fixed and not based
on income.

If two people have the same exact habit it will cost them the same amount. If
I have a higher income than you I'm actually paying less relative of my income
than I would with a normal tax.

This is true even not considering the social aspect of it. Some of this taxes
are on addictive things like drugs (tobacco, alchool) and gambling (lottery).
And one social influence of addictive behaviour is poverty.

~~~
fennecfoxen
A sales tax on groceries or a sin tax on cigarettes may be regressive because
poor people spend a larger portion of their income on groceries and
cigarettes, true.

The lottery, however, is worse. It is actively advertising to these people,
encouraging them to have hopes and dreams about a way out of their situation,
but instead it just kicks them while they're down. And it's not just some
soulless corporate entity doing this, no: it's the same government which
purports to care about their plight, not just exploiting them but encouraging
them to passively hope for unearned success, instead of pursuing goals as an
independent actor or something which might actually improve their lot.

"Hey, you never know!" is a dystopian lie, a few increments worse than "A new
life awaits you in the off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden
land of opportunity and adventure!"

~~~
xixi77
Buying vs. not buying lottery tickets has very little to do with pursuing vs.
not pursuing any particular goals, so I'm not sure why you frame it as a
choice between the two.

Buying lottery tickets looks irrational on basis of expected value, but it is
a very narrow and somewhat self-contradictory definition of rationality.

------
propellerhat
I'm not really surprised by this. Starting to smoke and continuing to smoke
are bad life choices and indicate a lack of will power and long-term thinking.
Yes, cigarettes are incredibly addictive and quitting is hard (I smoked for 6
years when I was a teen and young adult). The same poor life choices and lack
of long-term planning also lead to a low-income existence. Not applying
yourself in school because you'd rather "have fun now." Not attending college.
Not eating healthy foods. Not exercising. Smoking cigarettes. The fact that
these things are all related shouldn't be a mystery or revelation. Poor people
smoke more because poor people make bad choices in general.

~~~
steauengeglase
I'd imagine depression also plays a huge role.

"Why stop? You are going to die anyway. And don't you deserve to die? You are
smoking after all. No point in stopping now. Not like your life was ever going
to go anywhere."

------
cmurf
Sugar and foods with processes carbohydrates strongly correlates to diabetes
in children. So where's the sugar and process foods taxes? It'd save lives.

~~~
seunosewa
Really poor people benefit from processed, calorie dense, vitamin-enriched
food because it's the cheapest way to get fed. The harmful effects barely
affect them because they cant afford to over-eat the stuff. So a processed
food tax would be more harmful to the poor than a cigarette tax which, though
burdensome, saves a lot of their lives. Food is good except its consumed in
excess. Cigarettes are bad, period.

------
pingou
Doesn't seem so unjust to me, as long as the government is efficient.

It seems to me that taxes are beneficial to poor people, as government
spending benefits the poor the most. At least that's the theory.

Or they can directly redistribute the cigarette tax money to the poor.

------
havefunwiththat
Anti-smoking campaigns were offensive and tiring in the 80s. And whoever
brought up pigouvian taxation needs a swift slap upside the head.

~~~
undersuit
Would you rather the ads try and sell you detergents and cars?

The most recent ads by the Truth campaign are great. I'm a very sporadic
smoker of pipes and cigars, but those commercials about cutting off the source
of money for tobacco companies by going after non-cigarette tobacco really got
my attention. If I buy another ounce of tobacco this year I'm going to at
least put on my hipster hat and procure some tobacco that isn't produced by
some massive multinational company with very questionable ethics.

------
dredmorbius
We have two separate problems:

1\. Poverty.

2\. Addiction to a substance and delivery mechanism poisonous to both the user
and those around them.

Taxes are among the methods to reduce the prevalence of the latter, as well as
to capture negative externalities of their sale. No reason to reduce those.

Addressing poverty and inequality generally, however, would be a Good Thing.

------
rdlecler1
If revenue from that tax on an individual is exceeded by the increased
healthcare costs then it's more like an insurance premium.

------
wtbob
Of course, and almost no-one cares. Smokers in 2016 are like blacks in 1900:
they're the pariahs everyone loves to hate. Smoking is banned from buildings;
it's not even an option in many places to allow it. Smokers are scorned and
looked down upon. Historical dramas whitewash smokers out (or make sure that
the villains smoke while the heroes don't); smoking is literally photoshopped
out of historical photos.

------
bobby_9x
Who do people still smoke? It's been know to cause cancer for 50+ years and is
expensive. It's not like the education isn't there (I've seen anti-smoking ads
on TV for the past 10 years and at the theater before seeing a movie).

Just like alcohol, it seems to be people that willingly want to be taxed.

I don't see it as a problem.

~~~
snikeris
> Why do people still smoke?

They're addicted.

~~~
alistairSH
Wrong question... Why do people continue to _start_ smoking?

I grew up in the US in the 80s and 90s, where we were bombarded with anti-
smoking ads, the health effects were well known, and the prices were high.

It blows my mind that I have peers who smoke. They would have seen the same
ads, had the same facts available, and mostly come from similar backgrounds
(middle-class).

~~~
brandonmenc
> where we were bombarded with anti-smoking ads

You've answered your own question: rebellion.

That was the main reason I was sneaking cigs in the alley after school.

~~~
grp
True. And maybe more generally, there can't be pro or anti ads (same with good
or bad ads).

Just ads, ads and ads. That generates a tobacco culture with smokers and non-
smokers, but both just saw ads.

------
charlotteley
Quite smoking please! Good for your health and wallet

------
fiatmoney
Why is it objectionable to tax the poor?

~~~
rtkwe
It's not taxing the poor in general that's bad. It's when the tax has a
disproportionate impact on the poor compared to the rich. They're regressive
and generally considered bad because when designing a tax to pay for say a
welfare project that is supposed to benefit the poor taxing them to pay for it
is counter intuitive.

I'm split on this tax though since it's a sin tax so on one hand it doesn't
really work to tax someone who isn't a smoker but on the other it's not
working so why increase the burden on the poor unless it's preventing new
smokers?

------
peter303
They get it back in social medicine.

------
Avshalom
EVERYTHING taxes the poor.

~~~
smt88
You're right that it's expensive to be poor, but I think you misunderstand
what "___ taxes the poor" means. It means that there is a _disproportionate_
tax burden on people with less income, otherwise called a regressive tax[1].

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax)

------
golergka
So, not only smoking is not something that people need to do to survive, but
people also have an option to roll their own cigarettes to save money. And
yet, these authors decided to use a phrase "cigarettes tax", when "tax" is
usually something that you don't have a choice whether to spend money on
something or not.

Medications tax the sick that need them. Cigarettes sure as hell don't tax
smokers.

(And yes, I smoke myself).

------
ontoillogical
> In the United States, and nearly every other country, smoking is more common
> among the less wealthy and less educated. In the United States, 26.3% of
> people in poverty smoke compared to 15.2% for the rest of the population.
> College graduates are almost a third as likely to smoke as those who did not
> attend college. Because of this difference in smoking prevalence, Americans
> from the bottom third in household income spend nearly twenty times more on
> cigarettes as a proportion of their income than those from the top third.

What a strange statistic! It's conflating the difference in cigarette spend
and the difference in the incomes of top and bottom thirds to give us a
meaningless number.

~~~
oldmanjay
"Spend" as a noun is my second least favorite corporatist word next to "ask"
as a noun. I automatically assume (unfairly) that the speaker is over educated
in some useless way and compensates to appear smarter.

------
gadders
They tax the stupid. A lot of people of lower intellect tend to be poorer (not
all, obviously).

