Unless I’m mistaken but correlation isn’t causation. Meaning that an increase in tax revenue from cigarettes around the time some new subs were ordered doesn’t mean that one is paying for the other.
Is it unreasonable to make the assumption that the extra tax revenue in fact goes into public health to combat the effects of smoking on an aging population?
The current excise policies were implemented around 2010, at which point the global decline was already well underway. As I mentioned originally, there has been no stage following implementation of the respective policies in which the decline in smoking accelerated. It has only slowed since that time, and in Australia is increasing as of 2023.
It’s unreasonable to assume that allocations of tax contributed by smokers and tobacco companies is proportionately allocated to areas relevant to the stated intent of the tax policy. That just isn’t a thing for really any tax policy in any government - there’s no point at which the public health cost of using tobacco nationally is reconciled against the tax income from those products to see if things are evening out. They’re entirely separate vectors that are unrelated.
correlation isn’t causation
Do you think these are magic words or something? The entire stated intent of the policy is to cause a correlation that is inverse to the one that’s been observed since. Nowhere above did I say that tobacco excise causes the problems I mentioned - I responded to someone putting forward the idea that it is a viable solution to those same problems. I have trouble considering your response to be in good faith, since I already disclaimed this in my original comment. I’m sorry, I misread yours. I was just making a joke dude - it’s just meant to be an example of how 1. government expenditures are fundamentally disconnected from the tax funding source and 2. the government having an excess in tax funding often doesn’t result in them doing anything of significant benefit to anyone with it. Who are the subs meant to to protect us from, Indonesia? Wait, that’s right, it was just to piss off our #1 trading partner
Hey I misunderstood you there and corrected my comment. Just in case you didn’t see that. I thought you were referring to a correlation of increased tobacco usage not equalling a causation by the excise tax policies, given the sub thing was kinda completely aside from the central point of what I’m saying
Unless I’m mistaken but correlation isn’t causation. Meaning that an increase in tax revenue from cigarettes around the time some new subs were ordered doesn’t mean that one is paying for the other.
Is it unreasonable to make the assumption that the extra tax revenue in fact goes into public health to combat the effects of smoking on an aging population?
smoking for those abive 15 has dropped from 24% in 1991 to around 11% in 2019
although i will concede that this tax disproportionately impacts lower income people
The current excise policies were implemented around 2010, at which point the global decline was already well underway. As I mentioned originally, there has been no stage following implementation of the respective policies in which the decline in smoking accelerated. It has only slowed since that time, and in Australia is increasing as of 2023.
It’s unreasonable to assume that allocations of tax contributed by smokers and tobacco companies is proportionately allocated to areas relevant to the stated intent of the tax policy. That just isn’t a thing for really any tax policy in any government - there’s no point at which the public health cost of using tobacco nationally is reconciled against the tax income from those products to see if things are evening out. They’re entirely separate vectors that are unrelated.
Do you think these are magic words or something? The entire stated intent of the policy is to cause a correlation that is inverse to the one that’s been observed since. Nowhere above did I say that tobacco excise causes the problems I mentioned - I responded to someone putting forward the idea that it is a viable solution to those same problems.
I have trouble considering your response to be in good faith, since I already disclaimed this in my original comment.I’m sorry, I misread yours. I was just making a joke dude - it’s just meant to be an example of how 1. government expenditures are fundamentally disconnected from the tax funding source and 2. the government having an excess in tax funding often doesn’t result in them doing anything of significant benefit to anyone with it. Who are the subs meant to to protect us from, Indonesia? Wait, that’s right, it was just to piss off our #1 trading partnerActual quote
So no I don’t believe they’re magic words and I find your quote disingenuous.
Have a nice day and we can end this here. No hard feelings.
Hey I misunderstood you there and corrected my comment. Just in case you didn’t see that. I thought you were referring to a correlation of increased tobacco usage not equalling a causation by the excise tax policies, given the sub thing was kinda completely aside from the central point of what I’m saying