tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post8399772612270746464..comments2023-11-19T20:38:50.237-08:00Comments on Economic Logic: Smoking bans versus tobacco taxationEconomic Logicianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171296292101248614noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-16911504576130203372010-02-11T14:01:49.680-08:002010-02-11T14:01:49.680-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03549636117159802228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-66810219372927662142010-02-08T20:51:55.770-08:002010-02-08T20:51:55.770-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.watsonrodrighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07360946471570722280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-46035852861221892002010-02-07T13:27:34.588-08:002010-02-07T13:27:34.588-08:00OK, I researched. According to the State Budget Au...OK, I researched. According to the <a href="http://www.in.gov/sba/files/revreport_january2010.pdf" rel="nofollow">State Budget Authority</a> [pdf], cigarette tax revenue amounted to $154.5 million in January 2010, Total revenue for the state was $6770.9 for the same period. Losing 2,28% of state revenue is not as dramatic as you state it, and has nothing to do with real estate taxes that are levied at the local level.<br /><br />And all this has nothing to do with the point of the post, so I will not elaborate further.Economic Logicianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171296292101248614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-49727081650827408252010-02-07T13:01:40.340-08:002010-02-07T13:01:40.340-08:00Research the amount of tobacco tax revenues that f...Research the amount of tobacco tax revenues that fund state budgets and say with a straight face that it wouldn't take much to make up the loss. State budgets and fiscal conditions would collaspe. States would have to enact massive sale and property taxes increases if tabacco taxes were removed from revenue rolls. Right now, the States want it both ways: they need tobacco tax by increasing that tax by cessation legislation and political marketing. Smokers are picking up the revenue slack that most non-smoking voters would not stand for and elected legislators know it. The States, as well as the federal government, are enacting anti-tobacco legislation like tobacco pimps. <br /><br />Here in Indiana, for example, sales tax would have to increase from its 6% to 20% to make up the loss of tabacco tax. Property taxes would have to increase by one-third if tobacco taxes disappeared. Most people don't know the amount of money going into their state coffers from tabacco taxes, which is the problem. If they did it would amaze them. Tobacco was America's first cash corp and it will be for sometime to come. Because state governments know reality by tax revenues and legislators know how far they can push the public annd receive positive attention. It hypocritical but reality.<br /><br />Danny L. McDaniel<br />Lafayette, Indiana<br />Life-long non-smokerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-44000081943633642492010-02-06T10:38:07.889-08:002010-02-06T10:38:07.889-08:00""But given that the tax-elasticity of p...""But given that the tax-elasticity of passive smoking is larger than for active smoking, the tax increase need not be as large as you think."<br /><br />Ah! I think I get it now. A tax on smoking in the presence of non-smokers will have more of an effect on that behavior than the equivalent tax on smoking in general (via a tax on tobacco). Right?Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-79837994318354166032010-02-06T10:14:47.993-08:002010-02-06T10:14:47.993-08:00Min, I guess an increase in taxes affects differen...Min, I guess an increase in taxes affects different types of smokers differently, and more those who live with non-smokers.Vilfredonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-77925493545818434152010-02-06T02:53:41.487-08:002010-02-06T02:53:41.487-08:00Just stumbled upon this blog.Glad to see there'...Just stumbled upon this blog.Glad to see there's a place for serious economic discussions on the web.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-40811983885256461092010-02-05T12:51:00.679-08:002010-02-05T12:51:00.679-08:00"But given that the tax-elasticity of passive..."But given that the tax-elasticity of passive smoking is larger than for active smoking, the tax increase need not be as large as you think."<br /><br />You went a little fast for me there. It sounds like you are saying that a tax will differentially affect the behavior of the smoker in regard to smoking in the presence of non-smokers vs. smoking alone or in the presence of other smokers. How does that work? Thanks. :)Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-18002501223139977992010-02-05T08:39:56.005-08:002010-02-05T08:39:56.005-08:00Is the utility-maximization model in this setup ov...Is the utility-maximization model in this setup overkill? Does it contribute to the results in a meaningful way?<br /><br />It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that having a max problem in there does not capture the g.e. interactions, if any, nor does it improve on the basic logic that comes from assuming a downwards sloping demand curve with reasonable elasticity in the relevant range.Agent Continuumhttp://agentcontinuum.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com