Re:Do “sin taxes” work?
by jessriedel on Sunday August 12, 2018 @09:51PM
(#17747525)
> “smokers tend to die earlier, meaning that they probably save governments money since they draw less from state pensions.”
OK, let's call the above sentence "the claim". Looking at the nine "Main Results" of your first link, the authors do not directly address the claim, they just choose to focus on something different (all emphasis mine):
> We conclude that the direct costs and externalities to society of smoking far outweigh any benefits that might be accruable at least when considered from the perspective of socially desirable outcomes (ie, in terms of a healthy population and a productive workforce)...
> Apart from the income benefits of tobacco smoking, another source of benefit, especially to the government, of smoking is the substantial cost savings in pension payments from premature death of smokers. This is a highly debated issue in the literature, because it is premised on the thinking that a shorter life expectancy implies a reduced expenditure on pensions. Thus, attempts to promote this will be deemed socially undesirable and hence cannot be incorporated into social policy design.
Note that they don't give a figure for the total savings on pensions, which suggests to me that they know it's very large. They only number they give is
> Manning et al. have estimated that every pack of cigarettes smoked reduces the life expectancy by 137 minutes and pension costs by $1.82.
If we go to Manning et al, we find
> Although nonsmokers subsidize smokers' medical care and group life insurance, smokers subsidize nonsmokers' pensions and nursing home payments. On balance, smokers probably pay their way at the current level of excise taxes on cigarettes...In contrast, drinkers do not pay their way...
OK, let's call the above sentence "the claim". Looking at the nine "Main Results" of your first link, the authors do not directly address the claim, they just choose to focus on something different (all emphasis mine):
> We conclude that the direct costs and externalities to society of smoking far outweigh any benefits that might be accruable at least when considered from the perspective of socially desirable outcomes (ie, in terms of a healthy population and a productive workforce)...
> Apart from the income benefits of tobacco smoking, another source of benefit, especially to the government, of smoking is the substantial cost savings in pension payments from premature death of smokers. This is a highly debated issue in the literature, because it is premised on the thinking that a shorter life expectancy implies a reduced expenditure on pensions. Thus, attempts to promote this will be deemed socially undesirable and hence cannot be incorporated into social policy design.
Note that they don't give a figure for the total savings on pensions, which suggests to me that they know it's very large. They only number they give is
> Manning et al. have estimated that every pack of cigarettes smoked reduces the life expectancy by 137 minutes and pension costs by $1.82.
If we go to Manning et al, we find
> Although nonsmokers subsidize smokers' medical care and group life insurance, smokers subsidize nonsmokers' pensions and nursing home payments. On balance, smokers probably pay their way at the current level of excise taxes on cigarettes...In contrast, drinkers do not pay their way...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2918654
Your second link does not address the claim. And your last link doesn't attempt to rebut the industry-funded results they discuss.
I have no idea what the right way to think about this topic is, but you've hardly given a definitive answer.