Should taxes be utilized to modify behavior?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Behavior Taxes
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the taxation of tobacco products, highlighting the disparity in state tax rates, which range from $0.17 in Missouri to $4.35 in New York. Pamela Villarreal from the National Center for Policy Analysis emphasizes that while cigarette taxes aim to reduce smoking rates and generate revenue, they often fail to account for less harmful alternatives like smokeless tobacco. Participants argue that taxes on unhealthy behaviors could alleviate the financial burden on healthcare systems, but question the effectiveness and fairness of such taxes, especially given the addictive nature of tobacco. The conversation also touches on the potential for corruption and the impact of taxes on consumer behavior and trade.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of tobacco taxation policies
  • Familiarity with economic concepts such as price elasticity and negative externalities
  • Knowledge of public health implications related to smoking
  • Awareness of state and federal tax structures
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effects of tobacco taxes on smoking rates and public health outcomes
  • Explore the concept of Pigouvian taxation and its application to other harmful products
  • Investigate the relationship between state tax rates and consumer purchasing behavior
  • Examine case studies on the effectiveness of sin taxes in various jurisdictions
USEFUL FOR

Policy analysts, public health officials, economists, and anyone interested in the implications of taxation on consumer behavior and public health outcomes.

  • #31
WhoWee said:
Given all of these assumptions - why isn't it reasonable to levy a tax that represents the actual cost related to the behavior - why not charge $135 per pack of cigarettes and save the taxpayers on the back end?
Oh yipee! Can we then charge tax on gasoline to pay for all traffic-accident related injuries and damage?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
mheslep said:
Then he's in good company, as the phrase is originally from http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch15.htm" .

It was just a joke.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
brainstorm said:
Oh yipee! Can we then charge tax on gasoline to pay for all traffic-accident related injuries and damage?

Would it eliminate lawyers from the equation - might be a good thing and cost less too?

A more serious answer is the costs of long term care for smoking-related illnesses can be measured with a level of certainty - traffic accidents might be less predictable - but historical data could be analyzed for trends.

As strange as these concepts (with regaards to cigarettes) sound - they might be effective in the long term?
 
  • #34
WhoWee said:
A more serious answer is the costs of long term care for smoking-related illnesses can be measured with a level of certainty - traffic accidents might be less predictable - but historical data could be analyzed for trends.
I am serious about the gas tax for traffic-related injuries and damage. You could say that not everyone who uses gasoline should be responsible for those who abuse it and cause accidents - but then why should everyone who buys cigarettes be responsible for those people who smoke at health-damaging levels? I think it's just part of the addictive nature of both that the more people do it, the more the risk of harm increases - and the amount they do it keeps increasing because of the nature of addiction. More driving allows more consumption, which creates more demand for more products and shipping, which creates more reason to drive around shopping, which increases traffic and thus the risk, number, and severity of accidents.
 
  • #35
brainstorm said:
I am serious about the gas tax for traffic-related injuries and damage. You could say that not everyone who uses gasoline should be responsible for those who abuse it and cause accidents - but then why should everyone who buys cigarettes be responsible for those people who smoke at health-damaging levels? I think it's just part of the addictive nature of both that the more people do it, the more the risk of harm increases - and the amount they do it keeps increasing because of the nature of addiction. More driving allows more consumption, which creates more demand for more products and shipping, which creates more reason to drive around shopping, which increases traffic and thus the risk, number, and severity of accidents.

I'm not sure what would be accomplished by discouraging people from driving - the cost of smoking and the benefits of not smoking are quite evident. Use of gasoline in and of itself is not addictive nor is an accident predictable.
 
  • #36
WhoWee said:
I'm not sure what would be accomplished by discouraging people from driving - the cost of smoking and the benefits of not smoking are quite evident. Use of gasoline in and of itself is not addictive nor is an accident predictable.

I think driving still has the popularity-legitimizing effect that smoking once did. If mobility culture was widely divided between driving and other forms of transit, driving could appear generally dangerous to those who were completely alienated from it. Think of how dangerous the cultures of weaponry we hear about in Iraq/Afganistan/etc. seem to people who are accustomed to only police carrying firearms. Many Europeans have a similar view of the US, as if the streets are filled with gun-carrying vigilantes ready to shoot at the slightest conflict. The question is not whether popular usage contributes to abuse and damage but whether responsible users of tobacco, cars, or guns should be penalized for the culture of abuse that evolves from their popularity. Is the cost to responsible users worth the benefit to those who are less responsible or simply victims of cultural pressures that arise from popularity.
 
  • #37
brainstorm said:
I think driving still has the popularity-legitimizing effect that smoking once did. If mobility culture was widely divided between driving and other forms of transit, driving could appear generally dangerous to those who were completely alienated from it. Think of how dangerous the cultures of weaponry we hear about in Iraq/Afganistan/etc. seem to people who are accustomed to only police carrying firearms. Many Europeans have a similar view of the US, as if the streets are filled with gun-carrying vigilantes ready to shoot at the slightest conflict. The question is not whether popular usage contributes to abuse and damage but whether responsible users of tobacco, cars, or guns should be penalized for the culture of abuse that evolves from their popularity. Is the cost to responsible users worth the benefit to those who are less responsible or simply victims of cultural pressures that arise from popularity.

I read an article yesterday about an electric car with approx. 800 hp and a top speed over 300 mph. Even if gasoline were obsolete - driving will (apparently) continue.
 
  • #40
WhoWee said:
I read an article yesterday about an electric car with approx. 800 hp and a top speed over 300 mph. Even if gasoline were obsolete - driving will (apparently) continue.
Well then maybe there should be a list of non-harmful modes of transit and shipping and those should be exempt from a general distance-travelled tax. Maybe these things shouldn't be done by taxation but by laws. Either way, it's unlikely that any kind of legal control of popular culture will ever be implemented until sufficient public support is garnered - and by that time lots of people have decided to self-govern anyway and any formal laws become just bullying of social-cultural minorities.
 
  • #41
brainstorm said:
Well then maybe there should be a list of non-harmful modes of transit and shipping and those should be exempt from a general distance-travelled tax. Maybe these things shouldn't be done by taxation but by laws. Either way, it's unlikely that any kind of legal control of popular culture will ever be implemented until sufficient public support is garnered - and by that time lots of people have decided to self-govern anyway and any formal laws become just bullying of social-cultural minorities.

How many of the accidents cited (in earlier posts) involved alcohol or illegal substances?