Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Federal Tax on Cigarettes

  1. Apr 5, 2005 #1
    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.

  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 5, 2005 #2

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    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,

  4. Apr 6, 2005 #3

    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.

  5. Apr 8, 2005 #4
    "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: Apr 8, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook