13.10 Arguments against tax increases promoted by the tobacco industry

Last updated: March 2021 Suggested citation: Scollo, M 13.10 Arguments against tax increases promoted by the tobacco industry . In Greenhalgh, EM, Scollo, MM and Winstanley, MH [editors]. Tobacco in Australia: Facts and issues. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria; 2021. Available from http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-3-the-price-of-tobacco-products-in-australia

 

The tobacco industry recognises the effectiveness of tax increases in decreasing smoking and therefore sales volumes. Internal documents released as part of settlement of litigation by US attorneys-general against Philip Morris and British American Tobacco include the following statements:

Of all the concerns there is one–taxation–that alarms us the most. While marketing restrictions and public and passive smoking do depress volume, in our experience taxation depresses it much more severely. Our concern for taxation is therefore central to our thinking about smoking and health.¹

 

Increases in taxation, which reduce consumption, may mean the destruction of the vitality of the tobacco industry.²

Given such concerns it is not surprising that the industry has in many instances vehemently opposed large increases in taxes. Opposition to tax increases historically–such as in submissions to government inquiries during the early 1980s to mid-1990s^3,4–invariably included one or more of the following arguments.

• First, that the tobacco industry was important to Australia's economy, and that increases in taxes on tobacco (and other tobacco-control measures) would lead to an increase in unemployment.
• Second, that increases in the price of tobacco products were inflationary–that they would result in unwelcome increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which would be in conflict with the inflation-control policies set by central banks and international lending agencies.
• Third, that increases would be likely to have unintended consequences, forcing consumers to switch to more dangerous alternatives such as higher-tar and higher-nicotine cigarettes.
• Fourth, that very large tax increases would lead to such significant declines in smoking that government revenue will be put under threat.^5,6
• Fifth, that taxes were paternalistic and that governments should 'stay out of people's lives'.^7,8
• Sixth, that increases in tobacco taxes were regressive–that they impact most severely on the poor and underprivileged.^8,9–11

None of these arguments has been openly articulated by tobacco companies in recent years, the first four most likely because they have clearly been at odds with governments' experience with tax increases over three decades since the 1980s; the fifth and sixth perhaps because the self-interest would be too apparent. Persons employed by organisations that have received tobacco industry funding⁸ or who have done consulting work for tobacco companies⁷ however have produced articles exploring the issue of paternalism and questioning the theoretical rationale for tobacco taxes. Each of the first five arguments is examined in the following five sections.ⁱ The issue of regressivity is discussed in detail in Section 13.11.

The major current argument against tax increases is:

• Finally, that they will lead to an increase in illicit trade–that the resulting price differences between countries will lead to incentives to smuggle, and that high prices will increases incentives for counterfeiters.¹³

This argument is discussed in detail in Section 13.7.4.

13.10.1 Do increases in tobacco taxes threaten Australia's economy?

Tobacco is no longer grown in Australia and very few people are employed by importers and the major manufacturers. The number of people involved in selling tobacco products at the retail level is difficult to estimate, but almost all would be involved in businesses that sell products in addition to tobacco. Collins and Lapsley have demonstrated that the flow-on effects of employment in the tobacco industry are dwarfed by the social costs in Australia.¹⁴ And as they point out (as has been pointed out before by economist Ken Warner¹⁵) any reductions in tobacco-dependent employment following increases in tobacco taxes or other tobacco-control measures would be offset by increases in employment in other sectors as spending on tobacco products is replaced by spending on other goods and services.

13.10.2 Are increases in taxes on tobacco products inflationary?

Very large increases in the price of tobacco products could affect a country's CPI, particularly if a large proportion of the country's population smokes and daily consumption is high. This issue, and the falling proportion of many populations who smoke, has led many in tobacco control to suggest removal of tobacco from the basket of goods used to calculate the CPI. Indeed, in 1992, Tasmanian Democrat Senator Robert Bell presented a Bill that proposed just such an approach in Australia.¹⁶ The proposal was never supported, mostly because of concerns about the integrity of the index. Modern economic management puts great store by a country's official CPI. It is regarded as a key indicator of economic performance and is taken into account when establishing international credit ratings. CPIs are also often used to determine increases in pensions and benefits. The Australian Bureau of Statistics and most economists have opposed the exclusion of tobacco from the CPI on technical grounds. The integrity of the index relies on a very high degree of consistency over time and with other jurisdictions internationally.

A way around the problems of the inflationary impact of increases in tobacco prices would be to use an adjusted form of CPI that excludes tobacco and alcohol as the index used for wage increases and indexation of pension and benefits. This has been done in Luxembourg, France and Belgium since the early 1990s.¹⁷ This way, increases in the price of cigarettes are not offset by increases in those wages, benefits and pensions that are regularly increased in line with the CPI.

Concerns about the inflationary effects of tobacco price increases have waned over time in an era of much lower rate of inflation and as the cigarettes and tobacco sub-group has come to make up a progressively smaller component of the overall CPI. In Australia, the CPI is reviewed regularly to take account of changing patterns of consumer spending,ⁱⁱ and the sub-indices are re-weighted accordingly after each review.¹⁸ The changing weightings of the cigarettes and tobacco sub-group are set out in Table 13.10.1.

,

13.10.3 Do tax increases have unintended consequences?

Opponents of tax increases often cite a study by Evans and Farrelly,²² which found that smokers in high-taxing states in the US were more likely to switch to high-tar cigarettes to maintain nicotine intake. There is no evidence of such a phenomenon having ever occurred in Australia, where the move away from high-tar brands began in the 1970s.^23–27 Euromonitor International reported continuing declines over the 2000s, including a decline of 9% in 2010.²⁸ Machine-measured tar levels are no longer reported on cigarette packaging in Australia.

Harrison points to the example of people putting on weight when they quit smoking and suggests an apparent rise in obesity associated with increases in taxes on tobacco.⁷ This proposition is not supported in a much more sophisticated analysis by Courtmanche, which shows the opposite effect.²⁹ Obesity is a serious problem in Australia, but the contribution of smoking cessation to this is minor^30,31 and the health risk of putting on a few kilos pales into insignificance compared with the risks of continuing smoking (see Chapter 3, Section 3.29).

All policies have 'downsides' or costs as well as benefits. While increases in taxes have been associated with some smokers making product-related changes in preference to behaviour-related changes (see Chapter 3, Section 13.5), not all such changes result in any greater harm for continuing smokers. For example, while use of roll-your-own tobacco may have increased in Australia following increases in taxes on tobacco products,²⁸ this kind of tobacco is not necessarily more harmful to smokers than smoking manufactured cigarettes provided that filters are used (see Chapter 3, Section 3.27.1).

13.10.4 Do very high taxes threaten government revenue?

It is sometimes argued that, by raising tobacco taxes too sharply, governments risk decreasing tobacco consumption so much that they will actually begin to lose taxation revenue. This proposition is often tied to the work of Laffer, who proposed a curve of diminishing revenue if incentives to work decrease with increasing taxes on incomes.³² Could a large increase in tobacco taxes kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

The answer is no, at least not immediately, for a number of reasons.

Because taxes contribute a proportion but do not constitute the whole of the price of tobacco products, prices do not increase in direct proportion to tax increases.¹⁵ As discussed in Section 13.1, because demand is only moderately responsive to prices increases, overall consumption only drops at about half the rate of price increases–not enough to offset the increased revenue gained from increases in the rate of duty. There does not appear to be any documented case internationally of reduced tax revenues when tobacco taxes were increased, even where increases were high and problems with smuggling documented.¹⁵

However, the combined impact of tobacco tax and other tobacco-control policies in the community will reduce tobacco consumption and hence revenue from taxes on tobacco over time. This is to be welcomed as evidence of the success of public health policies, and should be planned for in the longer term. It was partly in recognition of the likely decline in excise revenue that the Australian Coalition government in 1998 decided to introduce a goods and services tax.³³

It should be remembered that people who do not consume tobacco products will consume other goods and services. This will result in revenue to government from the goods and services tax they pay on these products and services, and revenue from tax on the profits of companies that sell them. Lower tobacco consumption will also reduce costs to business, thereby increasing revenue to governments from taxes on company profits.

13.10.5 Are tobacco taxes paternalistic and overly coercive?

Increasing tobacco tax has been just one part of the comprehensive strategy for reducing harm caused by tobacco adopted by Australian governments over time.^34,35 These strategies have also included progressive elimination of all forms of promotion of tobacco products, mandating of clear and comprehensive consumer information, substantial funding of education campaigns, services to quitters and subsidy of pharmaceuticals to help quitters cope with withdrawal symptoms. While all these strategies are valuable, tax increases are by far the most reliable and effective way of reducing consumption, with effects far stronger than for other tobacco-control interventions.^36,37

The idea that governments shouldn't interfere in people's lives is attractive in theory. But in Australia more than three million people still smoke, almost 90% of them regretting they ever started.³⁸ Smoking imposes a cost to taxpayers, but this pales into insignificance compared with the costs to business and to the households of smokers themselves.³⁹

Death of a breadwinner in middle age has disastrous consequences in any family–it can cause middle-income families to become financially insecure, and can propel lower-income families into poverty and welfare dependency. Reducing smoking helps people live more productive and healthier lives, which the government will be able to 'stay out of' for much longer!

The evidence that increasing excise and customs duty on tobacco products would increase prices, reduce consumption and increase the number of Australians who give up smoking is incontestable.^40,41 Failing to act on such a clearly effective policy could be seen as a failure to prevent avoidable premature deaths.

Relevant news and research

For recent news items and research on this topic, click here ( Last updated October 2021)

 

References

1. Philip Morris International. Smoking and health initiatives. Bates no. 2023268375/8382. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco, 1995. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=gvs98e00&fmt=pdf&ref=results

2. Bingham P. Excise Taxation of Tobacco Products, Bates no. 502649609-796 [Conference presentation] . Public Affairs for Profit, BAT International Conference 12–16 July 1992. British American Tobacco, 1992. Available from: http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/data/g/n/x/gnx51a99/gnx51a99.pdf

3. Industry Commission. The Tobacco Growing and Manufacturing Industries. Industry Commission Inquiry Report No. 39. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1994. Available from: http://www.pc.gov.au/ic/inquiry/39tobacc

4. Prices Surveillance Authority. Report no. 52: inquiry into cigarettes declaration. Matter no: PI/94/1. Melbourne, Australia: PSA, 1994.

5. Rothmans of Pall Mall (Australia) Limited. Submission to the Industry Commission of Inquiry into the Tobacco Growing and Manufacturing Industries. North Sydney: Rothmans of Pall Mall (Australia) Limited, 1994.

6. Philip Morris Ltd. Tobacco and Australia: a question of balance. Submission to the Industry Commission of Inquiry into the Tobacco Growing and Manufacturing Industries. Melbourne, Australia: Philip Morris Ltd, 1994.

7. Harrison M and Robson A. Prevention no cure: a critique of the report of Australia's National Preventative Health Taskforce. Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform 2011;18(2):. Available from: http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Agenda,+Volume+18,+Number+2,+2011/7401/Text/ch02-Harrison:Robson.html

8. Novak J. Nanny State taxes: soaking the poor in 2012. Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2012. Available from: http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1335389416_document_novak_nannystatetaxes.pdf

9. Viscusi W. Cigarette taxation and the social consequences of smoking. In: Poterba, J, ed. Tax policy and the economy. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1995. 51–101. Available from: http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com/PDF/TI16741243_1327.PDF

10. Tobacco Institute. The Tax Burden on Tobacco. Washington DC: Tobacco Institute, 1995. Available from: http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com/

11. Tobacco Institute of Australia. A profile of household expenditure on tobacco products. Sydney: Tobacco Institute of Australia, 1992.

12. World Health Organization. WHO technical manual on tax administration. Geneva: WHO, 2010. Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/tax_administration/en/index.html

13. Joossens L, Chaloupka F, Merriman D and Yurekli A. Chapter 16 Issues in tobacco smuggling. In: Jha, P and Chaloupka, F, eds. Tobacco control policies in developing countries. London: Oxford University Press, 2000.

14. Collins D and Lapsley H. Weighing the evidence: evaluating the social benefits and costs of the Australian tobacco industry. Perth: Cancer Council WA, 2009. Available from: http://www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/2009-10-21-Report-Weighing-the-evidence.pdf

15. Warner K. The economics of tobacco: myths and realities. Tobacco Control 2000;9(1):78-89. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/9/1/78

16. The Census and Statistics (Alcohol and Tobacco Statistics) Amendment Bill 1992 (Cth),

17. European Bureau for Action on Smoking Prevention. Tobacco and health in the European Union: an overview. Brussels: European Union, 1994.

18. Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Australian Consumer Price Index concepts, source and methods, 1987 edition, eleventh Series Canberra: ABS, 1988.

19.  Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018). 6431.0 Consumer Price Index: Historical Weighting Patterns, 1948 - 2017 Canberra, ABS. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6431.01948%20-%202017?OpenDocument 

20. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 6401.0 Consumer Price Index, Australia, Table 7, CPI: Group, Sub-group and Expenditure Class, Weighted Average of Eight Capital Cities, December 2020. Canberra: ABS, 2021. Last update: 27 Jan 2021; Viewed 9/03/2021. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/consumer-price-index-australia/latest-release#data-download.

21. Australian Bureau of Statistics. The 2020 annual rewieght of the Australian Consumer Price Index. Canberra: ABS, 2020. Last update: 16 Dec 2020; Viewed 9/03/2021. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/research/2020-annual-re-weight-australian-consumer-price-index. 

22. Evans W and Farrelly M. The compensating behavior of smokers: taxes, tar, and nicotine. The Rand Journal of Economics 1998;29(3):578–95. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11794360

23. Gray N and Hill D. Patterns of tobacco smoking in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 1975;2(22):819–22. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1207580

24. Gray N and Hill D. Patterns of tobacco smoking in Australia II. Medical Journal of Australia 1977;2(10):327–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/927253

25. Hill D and Gray N. Patterns of tobacco smoking in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 1982;1(1):23–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7062879

26. Hill D and Gray N. Australian patterns of smoking and related health beliefs in 1983. Community Health Studies 1984;8(3):307–16. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6518750

27. Hill D and White V. Australian adult smoking prevalence in 1992. Australian Journal of Public Health 1995;19(3):305–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7626682

28. Euromonitor International. Tobacco in Australia, Global Market Information Database, 2010. London: Euromonitor International, 2011. Updated September 2010 [viewed 9 December 2011] . Available from: http://www.euromonitor.com

29. Courtemanche C. Rising cigarette prices and rising obesity: coincidence or unintended consequence? Journal of Health Economics 2009;28(4):781–98. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762960900037X

30. Flegal K. The effects of changes in smoking prevalence on obesity prevalence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 2007;97(8):1510–4. Available from: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/97/8/1510

31. Flegal K, Graubard B, Williamson D and Gail M. Impact of smoking and preexisting illness on estimates of the fractions of deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity in the US population. American Journal of Epidemiology 2007;166(8):975–82. Available from: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/166/8/975

32. Laffer AB. The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future. Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2004. Available from: http://news.heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/15245.pdf

33. Costello P. Not a New Tax: a New Tax System. Canberra: Australian Government, 1998. Available from: http://archive.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?ContentID=167&NavID=022

34. Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. Australian National Tobacco Strategy 2004-2009. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2005. Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-strat

35. Australian Government. Taking preventative action: Government's response to Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2010. Available from: http://yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/report-preventativehealthcare

36. Levy DT, Chaloupka F and Gitchell J. The effects of tobacco control policies on smoking rates: a tobacco control scorecard. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice 2004;10(4):338–53. Available from: http://www.lphi.org/LPHIadmin/uploads/TobaccoControlPolicies-56291.pdf

37. Wakefield M, Durkin S, Spittal M, Siahpush M, Scollo M, Simpson J, et al. Impact of tobacco control policies and mass media campaigns on monthly adult smoking prevalence: time series analysis. American Journal of Public Health 2008;98:1443-50. Available from: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/8/1443

38. Fong G, Hammond D, Laux F, Zanna M, Cummings K, Borland R, et al. The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2004;6(suppl. 3):S341–51. Available from: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a753998174~db=all~order=page

39. Collins D and Lapsley H. The costs of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse to Australian society in 2004/05. P3 2625. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2008. Available from: https://nadk.flinders.edu.au/files/3013/8551/1279/Collins__Lapsley_Report.pdf 

40. World Bank. Curbing the epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control. Washington: World Bank, 1999. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1999/05/437174/curbing-epidemic-governments-economics-tobacco-control

41. Chaloupka FJ, Straif K and Leon ME. Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control. Tobacco Control 2011;20(3):235-8. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/3/235.abstract