Analysis Of Raising Taxes On Alcohol And Tobacco

This article is very informative toward the purpose of increasing excise taxes. I believe that Joey Connor did an excellent job at pointing out the effects of the tax increase on tobacco products. He provided information on previous tax rates, so readers can have a clear idea of the increase percentage of taxes. He also supported his arguments by incorporating other sources in his article. For instance, he incorporated the analysis done by the National Public Radio on how the increase in price of cigarettes will affect the consumer behavior.

If 90% of United States smokers could have another chance to redo it, they reported that they would not even have their first puff that initiated their tobacco addiction (Winickoff, Gottlieb, and Mello 2014). The Tobacco 21 bill is a fairly new legislation and already it has shown a decline in underage smokers as a result of its implementation. The results of the survey presented that the public opinion was largely accepting and supportive of the bill. The main argument against the bill is the harm that will come to retailers of tobacco products. Correspondingly, the argument is proven inaccurate and in favor of the bill. The past has shown the improved outcome of the country from the raise in the minimum alcohol age, and researchers regard

Tobacco is a very large industry in Canada, providing very large tax revenue for the Canadian government. This paper examines the two sides to the argument; should Tobacco be made illegal in Canada? Is smoking tobacco ruining the Canadian economy? Or should Canadians be given the freedom to chose, and current rulings upheld?

History has proven that government penalties, in the form of taxes, deter smoking. The 2000 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report, Reducing Tobacco Use, found that raising tobacco-product prices decreases the prevalence of tobacco use, and tobacco tax increases produce significant long-term improvements in health. From its review of existing research, the report concluded that raising tobacco taxes is one of the most effective tobacco prevention and control strategies (7). Along with price increases, mass-media campaigns and smoking bans have made cigarette smoking pretty much unacceptable in today’s society. “Today, approximately 22 percent of adults age twenty-two and older are smokers, compared with 33 percent in 1979” (Thorpe 1440). It is clear, from these examples, the use of penalties to deter the unhealthy behavior of smoking is a successful intervention.

be covered by health insurance plans. Increase unit price for tobacco products through local or

Tax implications and its effect on alcohol consumption were studied in detail in working paper 8962. This study was done in Canada. What the writer found was that higher tax rates for cigarettes wouldn’t stimulate alcohol consumption as a replacement habit. When smuggling was factored into the equation, it was found that in Canadian smuggling could have increased both cigarette and alcohol consumption.

Also, the United State’s experience with alcohol and tobacco shows that tax revenue from these substances does not come close to covering the costs associated with

Tobacco has existed for long as we have known about history, but due to the negative effects of it to the broader community Tobacco has sparked greater controversy across the globe. Many people argue that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the individual but on the contrary some disagree and believe it’s up to the individual. This essay will elaborate above mentioned aspects and lead to a logical conclusion.

Tobacco has been the center of much controversy in America since the late twentieth century. Increasing numbers of studies showing the harmful side effects of tobacco has also caused many insurance companies to increase coverage costs to those who use the product. Insurance rates have a directly proportional relationship with risk factors, so the increase in coverage costs of tobacco users means that they have a higher risk of health complications. The raising of insurance rates is a safety net for the company to protect their stock. On average, individuals who use tobacco products in Florida often pay twenty dollars more per month than individuals who do not

Jim Anthony raises the question where are the affected cases more likely to be found with respect to characteristics, conditions, and processes of person, place and time? In regard to location, these aspects will be covered predominantly at the state level, given the pertinent tobacco tax policy discussions. However, we will also explore what is occurring at the local and regional level.

Lowering the debt cancer patients acquire and lowering the use of tobacco products will not only reduce the amount of cancer diagnoses altogether, but it would also make a tremendous difference in allowing millions of cancer patients to be relieved of financial stress once treatments are completed. In order to achieve this goal, we propose to adopt the National Cancer Fund Act of 2008, which aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase Federal excise taxes on tobacco products and to dedicate the revenues from the increased taxes to the war on cancer6. Thus, taking the increased taxes from tobacco products and rerouting the money to fund cancer patient's debt will better prepare them for the expected financial load that accompanies medical treatments, and lower the impact of individual suffering. In addition, this bill will help support the improvement of scientific research and advance the use of breakthrough medical technology to detect cancer in earlier stages to insure that the most beneficial course of action is

Recently, the company I work for had to renew its insurance policy. To our surprise, our premiums increased by 60%. And, when we began shopping around, we learned no other company would give us any better of a deal. Doing some research on the matter, I discovered our company wasn 't alone in this. Most other companies were also experiencing a drastic increase in their premiums. And, some were even dropping their insurance just so their employees could take the state sponsored insurance instead. At the pace this trend is continuing, most Americans will find themselves without adequate medical insurance and, since they probably won 't be able to pay the bills out of pocket, our health care industry will suffer. After much thought and study, I 've concluded the best solution to the problem is banning tobacco use in the United States. I 'm not just talking about banning smoking in public. I am referring to making it illegal to sell tobacco products in this country and treating those who sell cigarettes as criminals. I know this isn 't going to be popular among the estimated 26% of Americans who currently smoke cigarettes. But, that doesn 't mean it isn 't the right decision. Let 's look at the facts. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Americans spend roughly $75.5 billion in health care costs directly related to people who smoke. That is in addition to nearly $100 billion in lost productivity due to smoking related illnesses and deaths. In 1997,

One of the primary goals of the Cadillac tax is to reduce the growing costs of national health care (Lowry 2015). The government is hopeful that implementation of the Cadillac tax will reduce overall health care expenditures and impede the growth of health care costs by encouraging a change in consumer behavior through discouraging the provision and obtainment of overly generous health coverage plans (Herring, 2011). Generally, individuals who are insured spend greater amounts on health care than those who are not as they can consume greater amounts of healthcare with a lesser personal burden. In the case that the insurance provided to an individual is overly generous, it encourages over spending on health care due to the fact that they incur a only a portion of costs of consumption. In this manner, the consumption of an inefficient amount of health care is perpetuated by the provision of overly generous health care coverage. This inefficiency and associated increase in demand for healthcare causes the price of healthcare to rise, which exacerbates the undesirable growth in national health care costs (Gravelle, 2015). The Cadillac tax aims to discourage the provision and obtainment of overly generous health care coverage by employers in an effort to decrease inefficient over-consumption of health care and stagnate the growth in healthcare costs. The intent of the Cadillac tax is to alter consumer behavior to decrease the provision of unnecessarily

The primary reason I think these two items are taxed the most is because they are easy targets politically. It's always a sensitive topic when the government starts discussing tax increases, but when they can make the argument that they are raising revenue in the name of public health, it kind of softens the objections. I do think the tax increases have been implemented to curb the usage of alcohol and tobacco. Most of the efforts have been to try and decrease the number of young people who start smoking and drinking at an early age, these choices made early on can lead to a lifetime of bad health and disease. I think tobacco and alcohol are easy targets because it doesn't affect the majority of the population like say a tax on soda or

The tobacco industry is important to the economy. In 1991, worldwide tobacco sales exceeded $59.8 billion and in 1992 the industry was rated as one of the top one hundred advertisers (Pechmann and Ratneshwar, 1994). However, there are high prices to pay - socially, economically, and personally - as a result of this industry. Annual mortality figures indicate that cigarette smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in the United States. An estimated 390,000 people die each year of smoke related illnesses, which is greater than the combined mortality for cocaine, crack, AIDS, homicide, suicide, and alcohol abuse (Botvin, G., Baker, Botvin, E., Dusenbury, Cardwell, and Diaz, 1993).