While there exist a large literature and extensive policy discussion on the issue of cigarette taxation, smokeless tobacco has received comparatively little attention.
Chew Death
January 15, 2010
While millions of Americans pop a daily Prozac to dissociate themselves from the ever-disappointing trial that we call reality, I have something different. It’s a magical little stick that you can bring anywhere, which, the moment you snip its head and torch its foot, will make you happier. Few things please me more than my demure, dainty, dignified lover, the cigar.
While millions of Americans pop a daily Prozac to dissociate themselves from the ever-disappointing trial that we call reality, I have something different. It’s a magical little stick that you can bring anywhere, which, the moment you snip its head and torch its foot, will make you happier. Few things please me more than my demure, dainty, dignified lover, the cigar.
But I’ve read the reports: cigars pose a much greater health risk than their smokeless counterparts, dip, snuff, chew and Swedish snus. Britain’s Royal College of Physicians has found that smokeless tobacco is 10 to 1,000 times less dangerous than cigars and cigarettes. Furthermore, doctors Brad Rodu and Philip Cole of the American Council on Science and Health have found that smokeless tobacco is 98 percent safer than smoking. I, like most of my hominan brethren, awake each morning fearing the day when that “sure extinction that we travel to/ and shall be lost in always” draws me again home. So, I decided to take a walk to College Convenience to investigate these smokeless tobacco options that promise to increase my longevity on this earth.
I was horrified to read upon the friendly can of Copenhagen dip the words “not a safe alternative to cigarettes.” Sure, a lucky lipper of mint Skoal is no glass of orange juice, but it is certainly safer than chain-smoking a pack of unfiltered Newports. Why was this label deceiving me so?
My friend Ted King?provides an entertaining account of similarly deceptive methods in the anti-smoking campaign in his book, “The War On Smokers and the Rise of the Nanny State.” The anti-smoking movement has done a fine job of decreasing the prevalence of our nasty habit, but its fascistic insistence upon the total vilification of the leaf that built America has begun to undermine its ultimate goal of persuading the 46 million smokers in the United States to lead healthier lives. In the words of Oscar Wilde, it appears “the [T]ruth is rarely pure and never simple.”
Review: Perdomo Grand Cru Corojo
Strength: Medium-Full
Shape: Robusto
Cost: ~$7
Made entirely of Nicaraguan tobacco from the 2004 crop, the Grand Cru may have superceded the Oliva V Robusto in my estimation as the best bang for your buck. With hints of nut to complement its full and complex flavor, it burns perfectly and fills the room with clouds of thick, luscious ether. A far more pleasant experience than a lower lip of Skoal, the Grand Cru is well worth its smoky health hazards.
What is Proper Tax Policy for Smokeless Tobacco Products?
September 22, 2006
by Gerald Prante
by Gerald Prante
Fiscal Fact No. 65
While there exist a large literature and extensive policy discussion on the issue of cigarette taxation, smokeless tobacco has received comparatively little attention. In recent years, controversy in many state legislatures has erupted over the proper way of taxing smokeless tobacco. The goal of this Fiscal Fact is to clarify the rationale for excise taxation in general, and specifically to explain the proper method of taxation of smokeless tobacco products and how it compares to cigarette taxation.
The Fallacies of Current Tax Policy on Smokeless Tobacco Products
Even though the federal government taxes smokeless tobacco at a per unit rate based upon weight, most states tax it based upon the sale price. This can be seen in the following table of the tax rates on smokeless tobacco across the country.
Even though the federal government taxes smokeless tobacco at a per unit rate based upon weight, most states tax it based upon the sale price. This can be seen in the following table of the tax rates on smokeless tobacco across the country.
Table 1: Smokeless Tobacco Tax Policy Is Highly Inconsistent Across States
State
Tax Rate on Moist Snuff Tobacco (MST)
Type of Tax
Tax Rate on Moist Snuff Tobacco (MST)
Type of Tax
Alabama
2 cents per typical can1
Per Unit
Alaska
75% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Arizona
13.3 cents per ounce
Per Unit
Arkansas
32% of manufacturer’s price
Ad Valorem
California
46.76 percent of wholesale price2
Ad Valorem
Colorado
40% of manufacturer’s price
Ad Valorem
Connecticut
40 cents per ounce3
Per Unit
Delaware
15% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Florida
25% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Georgia
10% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Hawaii
40% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Idaho
40% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Illinois
18% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Indiana
18% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Iowa
22% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Kansas
10% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Kentucky
9.5 cents per unit4
Per Unit
Louisiana
20% of manufacturer’s price
Ad Valorem
Maine
78% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Maryland
15% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Massachusetts
90% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Michigan
32% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Minnesota
70% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Mississippi
15% of manufacturer’s price
Ad Valorem
Missouri
10% of manufacturer’s price
Ad Valorem
Montana
85 cents per ounce
Per Unit
Nebraska
20% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Nevada
30% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
New Hampshire
19% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
New Jersey
75 cents per ounce
Per Unit
New Mexico
25% of product value
Ad Valorem
New York
37% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
North Carolina
3% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
North Dakota
60 cents per ounce
Per Unit
Ohio
17% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Oklahoma
60% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Oregon
65% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Pennsylvania
No tax
na
Rhode Island
$1.00 per ounce
Per Unit
South Carolina
5% of manufacturer’s price
Ad Valorem
South Dakota
10% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Tennessee
6.6% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Texas
35.213% of manufacturer’s price
Ad Valorem
Utah
35% of manufacturer’s price
Ad Valorem
Vermont
$1.49 per ounce
Per Unit
Virginia
10% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Washington
75% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
West Virginia
7% of wholesale price
Ad Valorem
Wisconsin
25% of manufacturer’s price
Ad Valorem
Wyoming
20% of wholesale price (or 10% of retail)
Ad Valorem
1 Alabama charges 1.5 cents per ounce of chew tobacco, and a varying rate on snuff tobacco per can, depending upon the size.
2 Adjusted annually by the California Board of Equalization
3 Connecticut charges a tax of 20 percent on other tobacco products besides snuff.
4 Kentucky charges a tax of 7.5 percent on other tobacco products besides snuff.
2 Adjusted annually by the California Board of Equalization
3 Connecticut charges a tax of 20 percent on other tobacco products besides snuff.
4 Kentucky charges a tax of 7.5 percent on other tobacco products besides snuff.
Source: Federation of Tax Administrators; various updates compiled by Tax Foundation
As the chart shows, the lowest tax burdens on smokeless tobacco are found in the tobacco-producing South, which also imposes the lowest tax rates on cigarettes. But outside of the South, why do some states tax smokeless tobacco so heavily and some so lightly? Why do some base their tax on the weight and others on the price of the product?
To answer these questions and determine which states, if any, are practicing proper tax policy, we must develop a framework for explaining proper tax policy with regard to smokeless tobacco. Tobacco taxation policy should follow the framework of three crucial questions:
(1) Should products like smokeless tobacco have a special tax imposed?
(2) By what method should they be taxed, i.e. based on the sale price (ad valorem) or per unit?
(3) What is the proper level of taxation?
Should Tobacco Products Have a Special Tax?
Assuming that the role of government is to prevent individuals from harming one another, and not to prevent individuals from harming themselves, then special taxes on tobacco products should exist only if those products impose significant costs on third parties. A frequently cited example is the healthcare costs to other taxpayers associated with tobacco consumption.1 Another often cited external cost of tobacco products, cigarettes in particular, is second-hand smoke—both in public places and in homes where children reside. Smokeless tobacco, however, imposes no such harm. Other costs unfairly imposed on society from tobacco consumption have been cited, such as the unattractiveness of witnessing certain behavior associated with chew tobacco, and the message children receive as a result of viewing adult tobacco consumption.
Assuming that the role of government is to prevent individuals from harming one another, and not to prevent individuals from harming themselves, then special taxes on tobacco products should exist only if those products impose significant costs on third parties. A frequently cited example is the healthcare costs to other taxpayers associated with tobacco consumption.1 Another often cited external cost of tobacco products, cigarettes in particular, is second-hand smoke—both in public places and in homes where children reside. Smokeless tobacco, however, imposes no such harm. Other costs unfairly imposed on society from tobacco consumption have been cited, such as the unattractiveness of witnessing certain behavior associated with chew tobacco, and the message children receive as a result of viewing adult tobacco consumption.
To the extent that tobacco imposes undue costs on society, specific taxation of the product may be warranted. But a government official who merely desires to influence individual consumption decisions because of his own anti-tobacco sentiment cannot be justified by an appeal to principles of sound tax policy.
By What Method Should Tobacco Products Be Taxed?
There are two methods of levying an excise tax on any product. The first and most common type of excise tax is a per-unit tax. In this case, the tax is independent of the price of the product. The other type of excise tax is an ad valorem tax, which is akin to a typical general sales tax where the tax is a percentage of the sale price.
There are two methods of levying an excise tax on any product. The first and most common type of excise tax is a per-unit tax. In this case, the tax is independent of the price of the product. The other type of excise tax is an ad valorem tax, which is akin to a typical general sales tax where the tax is a percentage of the sale price.
Regardless of the rationale for the government’s attempt to limit tobacco consumption via taxation—whether it is through the proper framework of controlling for negative costs imposed on others or through the authoritarian method of trying to control individual decisions—tobacco products should be taxed via a per-unit tax. The harm caused by a unit of tobacco is essentially unrelated to its price. A $5 pack of cigarettes would not impose any cost to society or harm any individual more than a $2 pack of cigarettes would. With respect to cigarettes, most tax-levying officials have properly understood this because every state imposes the tax based on the number of cigarettes, not based upon the sale price.
However, with respect to smokeless tobacco, most states have gone in the opposite direction of sound tax policy, and have imposed ad valorem taxes, which are based upon the sale price of the smokeless tobacco. Only nine states impose the tax on a per-unit basis even though the federal government taxes moist smokeless tobacco based on weight, which is essentially a tax on quantity, and is the proper way of taxing the product.
It is not logical to base the tax on the value of the product. A $6 can of premium smokeless tobacco does no greater harm to the user or to society than a $2 brand of generic smokeless tobacco, but under the current system in most states, the premium brand is charged a tax three times that of the generic brand. Much of the effect of this ad valorem tax is merely to encourage more consumption of the inexpensive brand, thereby making irrelevant much of the government policy designed to limit the quantity of tobacco consumed.
What is the Proper Level of Taxation?
Now that we have defined the conditions under which a government is justified in imposing a special tax on tobacco and explained how that tax should be levied, the obvious question is what the level of taxation should be. In standard economic theory, a tax designed to compensate for a negative externality imposed on society should be levied on a per unit basis and should equal the difference between the social cost of the good (the cost to society at large) and the private cost (the cost to individual consumers). Therefore, if the social cost of tobacco consumption is greater than the total private cost, then the tax should be set at a level that will make the two costs equal, thereby improving overall societal well-being. The problem that governments face is calculating the social cost of tobacco and comparing it to the private cost. Often, those with certain agendas try to overstate the difference between the private cost and the social cost of tobacco in order to impose their principles of morality on everyone else. What constitutes a true cost to society is therefore always a subject of disagreement and should be carefully calculated. Policymakers should be clear about the factors involved in their calculations when they recommend a level of taxation.
Now that we have defined the conditions under which a government is justified in imposing a special tax on tobacco and explained how that tax should be levied, the obvious question is what the level of taxation should be. In standard economic theory, a tax designed to compensate for a negative externality imposed on society should be levied on a per unit basis and should equal the difference between the social cost of the good (the cost to society at large) and the private cost (the cost to individual consumers). Therefore, if the social cost of tobacco consumption is greater than the total private cost, then the tax should be set at a level that will make the two costs equal, thereby improving overall societal well-being. The problem that governments face is calculating the social cost of tobacco and comparing it to the private cost. Often, those with certain agendas try to overstate the difference between the private cost and the social cost of tobacco in order to impose their principles of morality on everyone else. What constitutes a true cost to society is therefore always a subject of disagreement and should be carefully calculated. Policymakers should be clear about the factors involved in their calculations when they recommend a level of taxation.
Summary
Even if the goal of policymakers is to reduce tobacco consumption, in a free society this should be done solely for the purposes of correcting for social costs unfairly imposed on others, not to impose some individuals’ moral agenda on everyone else. Taxes should not be used to impose morality; social engineering through the tax code is never sound tax policy. Because the proper purpose of tobacco taxes is to correct for market imperfections, taxes should be levied only up to the point at which the tax per unit equals the difference between the social cost of a unit of tobacco and the private cost of a unit of tobacco. This can only be accomplished with per-unit excise taxes because the dollar value of the tobacco consumed is irrelevant with respect to reducing overall consumption of tobacco.
Even if the goal of policymakers is to reduce tobacco consumption, in a free society this should be done solely for the purposes of correcting for social costs unfairly imposed on others, not to impose some individuals’ moral agenda on everyone else. Taxes should not be used to impose morality; social engineering through the tax code is never sound tax policy. Because the proper purpose of tobacco taxes is to correct for market imperfections, taxes should be levied only up to the point at which the tax per unit equals the difference between the social cost of a unit of tobacco and the private cost of a unit of tobacco. This can only be accomplished with per-unit excise taxes because the dollar value of the tobacco consumed is irrelevant with respect to reducing overall consumption of tobacco.
Footnote
1 Some economists will note that any healthcare cost imposed on society is technically a transfer that has been created by government through a quasi-socialized healthcare system. Moreover, while it is commonly assumed that individuals’ unhealthful habits must necessarily impose healthcare costs on society, this is not at all the case. A field of economics known as social cost accounting attempts to discern the aggregate fiscal effects of different types of behavior, and its findings are often counterintuitive. Smoking, for example, has been found to not impose healthcare costs on nonsmokers. To the contrary, current federal, state, and local fiscal regimes have been found to transfer tens of billions of dollars from smokers to nonsmokers. See, for example, Patrick Fleenor, “Who Bears the Ancillary Cost of Tobacco Use?,” Tax Foundation Background Paper, No. 36 (January 2001).
1 Some economists will note that any healthcare cost imposed on society is technically a transfer that has been created by government through a quasi-socialized healthcare system. Moreover, while it is commonly assumed that individuals’ unhealthful habits must necessarily impose healthcare costs on society, this is not at all the case. A field of economics known as social cost accounting attempts to discern the aggregate fiscal effects of different types of behavior, and its findings are often counterintuitive. Smoking, for example, has been found to not impose healthcare costs on nonsmokers. To the contrary, current federal, state, and local fiscal regimes have been found to transfer tens of billions of dollars from smokers to nonsmokers. See, for example, Patrick Fleenor, “Who Bears the Ancillary Cost of Tobacco Use?,” Tax Foundation Background Paper, No. 36 (January 2001).
Fiscal Fact No. 65, PDF, 36.7 KB
by Gerald Prante – PDF version to print out.
by Gerald Prante – PDF version to print out.
