tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post8267406746274805388..comments2024-03-11T00:31:41.186-07:00Comments on The Oregon Economics Blog: Oregon Econ Blog Comments & M50Patrick Emersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17242234148546323374noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post-56469379757306509312007-10-23T10:01:00.000-07:002007-10-23T10:01:00.000-07:00"maybe you could make an argument that nicotine ma..."maybe you could make an argument that nicotine makes people so extra-productive in their working years"<BR/><BR/>i only have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but here it is anyway:<BR/><BR/>i work in a small office with 4 other people. i'm a non-smoker, but everyone else is. about every 30 minutes or so, the smokers head outside to take a "smoke break" wherein they are gone for 5-10 minutes (presumably, smoking). i, on the other hand, take no breaks beyond my 1/2 hour lunch break.<BR/><BR/>however, this may not be indicative of the average American workplace. just saying...iggihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16850262619920188497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post-76556231210247470362007-10-19T22:26:00.000-07:002007-10-19T22:26:00.000-07:00I still think we need to take into consideration w...I still think we need to take into consideration whether the tax is a fair tax. For people who have smoked for some time, it would seem to me exceedingly unlikely that they would quit because the price has raised 20%. Rather, the law makes sense as a source of revenue, because the lawmaker understands that the smoker won't quit. By contrast, a similar special sales tax on, say, brown shoes or a certain variety of tea would be far less successful as a source of revenue; people, lacking the factor of addiction, would simply stop buying the product. In this sense, this would be a punitive tax on a particularly vulnerable segment of society. In a political climate of antismoker sentiment -- in part, no doubt, an attack on a segment of the population with a minority appreciation of the utility of extreme old age -- this would seem to be a choice by the majority to shoulder a discreet minority with a heightened share of the tax burden.<BR/><BR/>I believe that taxation should, as a general rule, be progressive; that is, the share of taxation should shift somewhat in the direction of those most able to pay. I believe that this point of view, when considered on its own merits, garners a majority of support here in Oregon, and in part expresses our historical opposition to sales taxes. If we are not sure of the argument that smokers qua smokers are an exceptional draw against public funds -- and we accept the argument that, today, smokers are more likely than average to be poor persons (as will be observed passing by any area where homeless persons congregate) -- than, I think we arrive at a place where we are faced with a question of unfairness in the tax system. Poor children need health care, of course; but why is paying for this the special burden of people who smoke cigarettes?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06716070847246332896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post-37280478390386680802007-10-19T14:44:00.000-07:002007-10-19T14:44:00.000-07:00Both China and France, two countries famous for th...Both China and France, two countries famous for their smoking, spring to mind as pretty productive countries. But it seems like there are a lot of variables in the productivity calculation, and it would be hard to know how nicotine fits in. (France, for example, also abets nicotine with coffee, while China has relatively milder tea. So.)<BR/><BR/>As to the costs of a smoker versus a non-smoker, there are a couple of datasets you could look at which I instinctively believe must already exist: the cause of death and its costs in smoking versus nonsmoking populations and the cost of health care for the same two populations during life.<BR/><BR/>I don't know this, but I imagine that smokers suffer greater rates of illness and have higher health costs even during their productive years. Since many die of lung cancer, the costs associated with treating that could be calculated against all other costs associated with death. <BR/><BR/>But public policy must include factors beyond economics, even when we're talking about revenue. For anyone seriously considering an issue like the value to a society of early death versus longer, healthier lives, cost can only be one small consideration.Jeff Alworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02930119177544342495noreply@blogger.com