Consumption tax?Poll tax?Regressivity of tobacco taxes go on further

The rich man was sucking a cigar, it seems only a good old image of the times.

In (-0.67 to 0.03 95% confidence interval) -0.318, it is in the 10% significance level Once you have estimated the income elasticity of tobacco in passing that you derive the income elasticity of electricity bill but was value that can be classified as inferior goods and (habitual it is not the inferior goods in the strict sense because there is no alternative to the other there is a gender).I smoke about poor.I considered dispersion of large, and because non-smokers and smokers, divided exogenously.

Given the income elasticity of this negative, tobacco tax’s taxation strong regressivity.Poll tax or consumption tax is not the eye.Become (0.44 to 0.55 95% confidence interval) 0.497 When you measure the income elasticity of consumption expenditure in the same way.To say poll tax, there must be zero income elasticity, it has become negative beyond it.

There was a survey image of smokers that are worse, and I see a rare news smokers say low-income internationally, but also to analyze data more easily household survey report, At the same consistency a result that comes out.

And because they are strong and addictive, I do not think that there is an effect on smoking income.The person who people think that can not suppress a bad habit and fall into poverty would be natural.Tax increase of tobacco tax, the measures bear a heavy burden in such low-income earners to statistical.Politicians and bureaucrats will know the data of Japan no doubt this information, but does not seem to want to say a big voice.

(: 10 things you should know about “tobacco tax” related article) is said to be the social cost of smoking to the health care burden faced such as the 5 trillion yen.It’s cost such as burdening the health insurance smokers sick.Possibility of starting a non smoking tobacco tax increase also seems high young people and the poor, and there is no problem even if asked to stop tax revenue is reduced, but to think of the social cost that much.In a sense, to say that or quit smoking, and get the cost burden, tobacco tax has the support of many people there is a meaning.So the fact of regressivity that is less likely to raise taxes, those in power do not speak in a loud voice.

In fact, the tobacco tax is hard to receive criticism and, with expected revenue growth is easy, politician have allowed the easy tax increase.Tax of liquidation for the National Forest Special Account Act and the Railways, and has been applied to the tobacco I do not think in a rational reason.Also for reconstruction funding of the Great East Japan Earthquake, tax increases of tobacco tax has been studied (Yomiuri).

Not be a problem it’s cigarette tax of poor bullying in regressive taxation, but non smoking spontaneous possible, those who do not smoke also morally desirable because.Sense of morality is important also in tax.