Is the Federal Cigarette Tax Truly About Health or Revenue?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soaring Crane
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications and motivations behind the proposed federal cigarette tax increase, questioning whether it is primarily a health initiative or a revenue-generating measure. Participants explore various economic concepts related to taxation and the broader social implications of such policies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the tax could be seen as a form of life-cycle cost pricing, while expressing uncertainty about the correct classification among several options.
  • Another participant argues that the tax is a form of social engineering aimed at discouraging smoking, questioning the legality of smoking if it is deemed harmful.
  • A different viewpoint posits that if the government truly wanted to stop smoking, it could simply outlaw it, rather than imposing a tax, which raises questions about the true motivations behind the tax.
  • Concerns are raised about the fairness of taxing cigarettes while other harmful activities, such as pollution from hydrocarbons, are not taxed similarly.
  • One participant challenges the notion of social engineering, asking for clarification on what that entails in the context of taxation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the motivations behind the cigarette tax, with some viewing it as a health measure and others as a revenue strategy. There is no consensus on whether the tax is justified or effective in achieving its purported goals.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various economic theories and concepts related to taxation, but there are unresolved definitions and assumptions regarding the terms used in the discussion. The implications of the tax on different demographics and its effectiveness in changing behavior remain unclear.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying economics, public policy, health policy, or social sciences, particularly in relation to taxation and behavioral economics.

Soaring Crane
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
Adding a $2-4 federal tax to the price of a cigarette pack is a form of

A. life-cycle cost pricing
B. externalizing internal costs
C. operating cost pricing
D. full-cost pricing
E. subsidy

All I know is that this is a users-pay approach, but A seems to strike out at me.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

While we do encourage homework questions, we also require that you show your own work up until the point at which you got stuck. Please post definitions for the answer choices, and why you think the answer is or is not correct.

Thank you,

Tom
 
Hi,

The answer is that it is an example of a government gone wild. This tax is aimed at stopping smokers from smoking. It is a form of social engineering.

It's like this is bad for you so you have to pay more. If it's so bad, why is it still legal. O, it's not so bad.

The feds should put a tax on hyrocarbons since pollution from this source is much more damaging to health that smoking is. By a long shot.

juju
 
"This tax is aimed at stopping smokers from smoking"

If the government wants to stop smokers from smoking, couldn't they just outlaw it? Would that stop people? If so then do that instead of the tax, if that's the government's true agenda. But if not, then $2.00 a pack will stop them? Smokers are going to smoke, why not make a buck from it? That's what tax is for. Uncle Sam doesn't care about your personal choices, he just wants your money! Lots of things besides ciggarettes are taxed. Is owning a house a bad thing? If not, then why should I pay $2500 a year to the county? If I were a two pack a day smoker, then the feds make $1460-2920 per year off me. The justification for the tobacco tax is not because it's bad, but because it's optional. You can take the tollroad instead of the local road if you want, but then you should throw down a dollar for it. Food at the market carries a low tax because people have to eat. "Social engineering" sounds like speculation, can you elaborate on that?

"If it's so bad, why is it still legal. O, it's not so bad."

There are other considerations when determining laws then good or bad. Is pollution bad? Sure, but should we outlaw it and become Amish? The government already does make companies pay for their pollution, just like the smokers pay. It's all about the money.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
933
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
29K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
12K