Four in five adult smokers started before they were 18; only one in started after age It is also worth noting that on average low-income smokers tend to respond to tobacco tax increases by reducing their consumption of cigarettes, rather than by spending more on cigarettes and reducing their consumption of other goods.
Saffer and Dave [ 17 ] found both smokers with mental disorders and those without were similarly price-responsive. Although some studies examined the independent effects of tobacco control policies in addition to price, few looked at the synergistic effects or interactions between these policies.
Or, policymakers may prefer to add another financing source. Some have used the likely decline in tobacco revenues to argue against using them to finance preschool education. First, its numerous health risks impose costs on non-smokers as well as smokers, both because they raise overall U.
Tobacco revenues are expected to continue falling beyond the budget window. Synergistic Effects Although some studies examined the independent effects of tobacco control policies in addition to price, few looked at the synergistic effects or interactions between these policies.
Policymakers can revisit the financing mechanisms toward the end of the ten-year period. Smoking tends to provide smokers with instant gratification but at the risk of long-term harm.
However, several considerations support taxation as a mechanism to reduce tobacco use.
It mentions two reserves that implemented a seven percent tax on tobacco products but found no significant decreases in smoking behavior.
One study found relatively high rates of illicit cigarette consumption in three psychiatric populations in Toronto [ ]. Cigarette taxation research paper three factors can help mitigate the reduced enjoyment from smoking that some low-income people facing an increased tobacco tax might experience.
For example, a tobacco industry representative said: In addition, because people of lower socioeconomic status SES have higher smoking rates, they pay more tobacco tax per capita than those with higher incomes [ ].
Two studies found that increased price resulted in greater demand for smuggled cigarettes among low SES smokers . The majority of studies on youth smoking rely on data from school-based surveys.
They could elect to raise the tobacco tax further at that time particularly given that incomes will likely be higher and, therefore, the cost of cigarettes per hour of work lower. Five indicated that low SES groups have the same responsiveness to price as the general population, that is, increased price appears to benefit all socioeconomic groups equally in terms of reducing both smoking participation and consumption [ 13— ].
Increased tobacco taxes, passed on to consumers in the form of higher cigarette prices, provide an economic disincentive to those who smoke or may be contemplating smoking. For example, several studies recommended that price increases should be combined with a comprehensive tobacco control program for maximum effectiveness, but did not provide evidence regarding specific contributions from individual policies or combinations of policies.
However, it is critical to understand their main and interactive effects for designing interventions that will improve the effectiveness of tobacco control programs. Nineteen published and two unpublished studies were rated as strong or moderate. While most studies of young adults found that increased prices also result in reductions in smoking behavior, the magnitude tends to be smaller than for youth.
Which combinations of policies are most effective in influencing smoking behavior in the six subpopulations examined in this study? The majority of studies found that persons of low socioeconomic status are more responsive to price than the general population.
This means that the health benefits of the tax increase would be progressive. Therefore, tobacco taxes are regressive in percentage terms, as lower income individuals devote a higher percentage of their income to paying the tobacco tax than do higher income individuals.
It has been argued that cigarette taxes are a regressive tax on the poor. Raising cigarette prices is an effective tobacco control policy in reducing smoking among youth. Recommendations The following recommendations address policy and research needs for reducing the disproportionate burden of tobacco use among the six subpopulations Table 4 gives further details: While prevalence rates in this group are often difficult to ascertain, they are thought to be substantially higher than those of the general youth population.
Price has an impact on encouraging cessation, but as with youth, the impact of price on smoking initiation is less clear. The two most commonly reviewed policies were: However, it is critical to understand their main and interactive effects in order to design interventions that will improve the effectiveness of tobacco control programs.
If tobacco only harmed smokers, and if people were fully aware of its health costs, the rationale for tobacco taxes would be less powerful.
The impact of increased price on smoking initiation among youth and young adults is less clear. Approximately half of the decline in smoking is due to fewer smokers people either quitting or not starting to smokewhile the other half is due to fewer cigarettes consumed by people who smoke.
Some propose that increasing tobacco taxes is actually progressive at the population level because of the potentially greater accrued health benefits of reduced smoking [ ]. The majority of studies found that price is inversely related to both smoking participation and consumption.
While there are numerous studies that support the effectiveness of increasing prices, most declare that equity implications need to be paramount.Taxes on Cigarettes The article “Smoke Signals”, by the New York Times and the New Jersey Sunday edition, presented an overview of for the state of New Jersey’s recent decline in cigarettes bought in the last year.
which only shows the cons of decriminalization. [tags: drugs, taxes] Research Papers words ( pages).
Cigarette Excise Taxation: The Impact of Tax Structure on Prices, Revenues, and Cigarette Smoking Frank J. Chaloupka, IV, Richard Peck, John A. Tauras, Xin Xu, Ayda Yurekli. NBER Working Paper No. Oct 26, · The issue of whether or not cigarette taxes are a regressive tax on the poor remains contentious.
However, many studies strongly agree on the importance of addressing poverty and social disparities for those who continue to smoke. To date, the literature on cigarette excise taxation has focused on demand, its elasticity, and state revenue from the taxes.
By examining the factors that influence cigarette excise tax rates across U.S. states, this paper helps to fill the under-researched aspect of cigarette taxation.
Empirical. There is a general consensus among policymakers that raising tobacco taxes reduces cigarette consumption. However, evidence that tobacco taxes reduce adult smoking is relatively sparse. In this paper, we extend the literature in two ways: using data from the Current Population Survey Tobacco Use.
Do Taxes Really Affect the Consumption of Cigarettes? Sanjay Kumra The issue of smoking has recently been under close scrutiny by the government. Tobacco.Download