Nanny State

It's Time We Learned from Sin Taxes' Impressive History of Failure

Advocates of new sin taxes would prefer to repeat same mistakes

|

Samuel Johnson reportedly joked that a second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience. But marriage at least has sex to recommend it. The screwing that politicians give us when they return to the same failed policies time and again are far less enjoyable. But return they do, most recently to sin taxes on cigarettes, booze and, now, junk food and sugary drinks. They promise that these taxes will both discourage disfavored behavior and stuff government coffers with proceeds mugged from ill-living sinners—mutually incompatible goals that such taxes have never fulfilled.

And, in their courting of false hope and spurning of actual experience, politicians ignore the unintended consequences that sin taxes always have delivered.

In budgets adopted last month, Connecticut, Kansas, and Nevada hiked state cigarette taxes amidst flurries of predictions of a new influx of cash nabbed from the nicotine-stained fingertips of smokers. Nutmeg State advocates predicted that a $1.50 hike in Connecticut "would yield more than $60 million annually while driving tens of thousands of state residents away from tobacco." (Connecticut ultimately boosted the take by $0.50 to $3.90 per pack.) Nevada's one dollar rise to $1.80 per pack would "prompt more than 15,400 adult smokers in Nevada to quit, all while raising more than $192 million in new revenue in the first two years," insisted Christopher W. Hansen, President of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. The Kansas City Star editorial board similarly called a cigarette tax hike ($0.50 to $1.29 per pack) "a victory for a healthier Kansas while generating a few more dollars to keep the state out of debtor's prison."

But legislators can only hope to reap cash rewards while punishing smoky pleasures by ignoring history. After Connecticut's recent sin tax victory dance, The Hartford Courant noted that cigarettes sales have dropped for years, not necessarily inspired by the tax rate. "From 2012 through the first few months of 2015, when there haven't been any tax increases, the average monthly consumption rate for the year as a whole has decreased by 7.4 percent from the prior year."

The cigarette tax take has similarly eroded, along with sales. The newspaper concluded that declining smoking rates doomed efforts to turn tobacco into a revenue bonanza. That may be true, but it's also true that cigarette taxes have become so punitive, and so disparate across jurisdictions, that the ranks of remaining smokers—dedicated to their vice and resistant to efforts to make them quit—are acquiring their smokes outside the usual channels, in defiance of efforts to empty their pockets or scrub their lungs.

It's "Prohibition by price," Michael LaFaive tells me. He's an economist with Michigan's Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which, among other things, studies the effects of skyrocketing cigarette taxes. And just as overt efforts to snatch booze from Americans spawned a dynamic and dangerous black market in smuggled liquor, his organization's research reveals that implicitly prohibitionist schemes to make tobacco unaffordable have already done the same.

In New York, where authorities boasted just weeks ago of busting a $3 million smuggling ring, 58 percent of all cigarettes sold in the state are smuggled. With state taxes at $4.35 per pack, and New York City imposing another $1.50 charge, it's a no-brainer to load trucks at Virginia's $0.30 per pack rate and illegally drive them up Interstate 95 to customers suffering the country's most onerous tax.

The recent tax hikes "are going to fuel additional smuggling," LaFaive warns.

Scott Drenkard, an economist with the Tax Foundation, which co-publishes cigarette tax studies with Mackinac agrees.

"I think it's very likely that cigarette tax increases in Kansas will contribute to new smuggling activity there, especially because bordering Missouri has the lowest cigarette excise tax in the country at $0.17 per pack," he says. Fifteen percent of Kansas's smokes are already purchased on the black market; that figure isn't going down.

Both economists expect Connecticut to see similarly increased smuggling, and Drenkard even fingers the likely source: New Hampshire, where cigarettes are taxed at a far cheaper $1.78 per pack.

LaFaive points out that the modern phenomenon of illicit "loosie" sales of single cigarettes are a direct descendant of Prohibition-era sales of single shots of whiskey outside factory gates. Even as we try to reinvent policy, we recreate old mistakes, and their unintended consequences.

Or maybe we just go back to the source and stupidly copy them over again.  

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) originally wanted to hike liquor taxes too, though that plan was shot down. Connecticut doubles down on the stupid by taxing consumers without profiting state coffers—the state sets minimum prices for retailers. These schemes are in keeping with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Community Preventive Services Task Force which "recommends increasing the unit price of alcohol by raising taxes based on strong evidence of effectiveness for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms."

So… how high is high enough?

The Tax Foundation helpfully reveals that excise taxes range across the country from zilch in Wyoming to $35 per gallon of liquor in Washington. That range of rates is an open invitation to fill the backs of trucks and haul loads of booze across borders, which is exactly what happens.

Mackinac's LaFaive points to the Michigan-Indiana border as a high-traffic area for liquor smugglers. Michigan's state government maintains a wholesale monopoly on spirits, and charges $11.90 per gallon in taxes. Indiana allows a competitive market with taxes at $2.68 per gallon.

The result, as the Michigan Liquor Control Commission complained (PDF) in 2007 is that alcohol smuggling contributed to a "conservative annual estimate of $14 million dollars in loss to the state" in revenues. Indiana and Wisconsin (PDF) were fingered as the major sources of the black market stuff.

But should prohibitionists at least give themselves a pat on the back for sacrificing a little revenue in the name of blessed sobriety?

Really no.

Britain's Institute of Economic Affairs reported in 2012 that high alcohol taxes don't discourage drinking anywhere they looked on the planet. "[T]his research shows that the amount of drink consumed in high tax countries is exactly the same as in low tax countries."

Taxes just fuel black markets, including smuggling and illegal production.

The latest frontier in government efforts to tax us into a future of healthy virtue and budgetary black ink involves levies on sugary drinks and junk food. In April, the Navajo Nation became the first U.S. jurisdiction to impose a specific tax on chips, cakes, and other foods the experts say we're not supposed to eat. The tribal government adopted the measure shortly after Berkeley, California voters subjected themselves (and their unwilling neighbors) to a penny-per-ounce tax on sodas, sports drinks, sweet teas and other sugary beverages.

Learning from past experience, could we be in for the cakes and cokes Mafia?

Actually, maybe not. LaFaive and Drenkard say that these sorts of taxes are even more problematic than those on booze and smokes, since they target tastes rather than specific products. Junk food and sugary drinks have lots of substitutes, and it's impossible to chase them all down.

Chips can be replaced by popcorn that you salt and butter yourself, LaFaive points out.

"The health literature on soda taxes shows that they decrease soda consumption, yes, but people just increase their calorie intake from other sources to make up the difference," notes Drenkard. "A 2010 study showed that adolescents often switch to milk (which actually has more calories), and a 2012 study showed that older consumers switch to beer."

So people want what they want and aren't so easy to bully into preferred behavior—or be forced to pay for the privilege. You don't say. Maybe that's a lesson politicians should have gleaned from the historical evidence long ago.

And maybe we all should have learned by now, despite our hopes to the contrary, that politicians and their control freak friends don't acknowledge their failures.

Advertisement

NEXT: 'U.S. military tells recruiting centers to step up security,' by (among other things) closing blinds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They don’t care. It’s the political points they gain by proclaiming they only want to make people healthier.

  2. How much tax on a two women bj?

    1. Penny per ounce, to discourage chubby chasing.

      1. I’d prefer to pay for the superior technique, regardless of the extra cost.

  3. very simple. just place a sin tax on everything and call it a day…well…until we need to have a Super Double Sin Tax to really show the masses what the elites think.

  4. What’s that old line about trying to fix stupid…

    1. They say that you can’t fix stupid – not even with duct tape. . .

      I find that a staple gun works.

  5. …or that one about the definition of insanity?

  6. I will remember this article the next time I see a Reasonoid arguing that legalizing marijuana will allow governments to tax it like alcohol, as if that were a good or desirable thing. I always thought that was a strange argument for a libertarian magazine to be making.

    1. I don’t see it being unreasonable if it’s subject to the same taxes as any other legal product. But sin tax? Yep, I see your argument and agree.

      1. I’ve been annoyed by the suggestion that legalizing and taxing is a good thing, but I’ve become to see it as more of a simple reality. A friend told me decades ago drugs would be legal as soon as they could figure out a way to tax them. Recent history shows that to be fairly true.

        If you want to legalize drugs, a good argument to make for bureaucrats, as well as Joe and Jill Sixpack, is the taxes they would bring in. Taxes are inevitable anyway. Why not use them as an argument?

        As this article points out, it doesn’t always work that way. There also seems to be no end in sight to how high sin taxes can go. That’s the reality. It would seem to make sense to use taxes as an argument in favor of legalization since they’re an already here.

  7. Let’s tax becoming a politician, because THAT is the one biggest sin of ALL TIME!!!

  8. Chicago has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the country: a pack of cigarettes currently runs about $13 all-in within city limits. To get around this, Chicago residents have long driven across the border to Indiana to load up on smokes. This is such common practice that the State actually includes in their tax return instructions how to get information on the Cigarette Use Tax you owe. So keen is Chicago to tax smokers into health that I’ve recently seen advertisements on the L encouraging citizens to report illegal (non-tax-stickered) cigarette sales. The stated purpose is to discouraging under-aged smoking, but it’s hard to believe that the only thing enabling minors to smoke is the lack of (such heavy) taxation by neighboring states.

  9. It will interesting to see the fallout when states jack taxes on legal weed to the sky making it in effect more expensive than when it was illegal. And since liquor is taxed according to the amount of alcohol in it they will likewise have to tax weed per its chemical concentration. That means they will institute an entire regime to ensure no one cheats.

  10. The other tax revenue that is forgotten is the sales tax on the already taxed items(liquor, cigs, and you name it). You know the tax on the tax!

  11. The other tax revenue that is forgotten is the sales tax on the already taxed items(liquor, cigs, and you name it). You know the tax on the tax!

  12. The other tax revenue that is forgotten is the sales tax on the already taxed items(liquor, cigs, and you name it). You know the tax on the tax!

  13. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.Careersonline10.tk

  14. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  15. At least with a number of thriving black markets, when the financial system or dollar fail, we’ll have black market experts available to help set up a replacement.

  16. The article at the URL below reports that raising the price of alcohol
    in British Columbia reduced violent crimes 9% and reduced drunk
    driving almost 20%.

    http://www.theguardian.com/soc…..ime-canada

    So mind your sintax!

  17. It hardly takes any cynicism at all to suspect that, despite any of the explicit rationalizations presented by the tax proponents, the bedrock rationale for raising an existing sin tax is to pump the dying cow harder in an effort to maintain the accustomed flow of milk. As the article makes clear several times, the goal of reducing indulgence is incompatible with the goal of raising revenue, and inevitably revenue trumps all other goals.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.