You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Already high tobacco taxes are still a burden on low-income households
  1. Dahlia K Remler1,2
  1. 1 Marxe School of Public & International Affairs, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York City, New York, USA
  2. 2 CUNY Institute of Demographic Research, New York City, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Dahlia K Remler, Marxe School of Public & International Affairs, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, NY 10003, USA; Dahlia.Remler{at}baruch.cuny.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055734

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    High tobacco taxes have become widely adopted, partly in order to discourage smoking and thus improve public health. Critics of high tobacco taxes are concerned that, because tobacco smoking is often more prevalent (especially in higher income countries) among lower income people, tobacco taxes are regressive and harm low-income households. Policymakers considering further increases in tobacco taxes worry about further increasing the financial burden on low-income households.

    In this issue of Tobacco Control, Verguet et al 1 provide valuable information to such policymakers. They estimate the circumstances (including smoking prevalence, income gradient in prevalence of smoking and income gradient in the price elasticity of smoking) under which an increase in tobacco taxes will not further increase the average financial burden on lower income households, relative to higher income households. The authors conclude from these results that there are many specific circumstances under which increases in tobacco taxation are not regressive.

    While their conclusion is entirely accurate with the regressivity definitions used, I am uncomfortable with how they frame it as ‘question[ing] the doctrine that …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @DahliaRemler

    • Contributors I am the sole contributor.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles