Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Feb 18;21(3):293-299. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty213.
Australia's excise and customs duty on tobacco has been automatically increased biannually since 1984. Increases in duty on par with inflation ensured that tobacco stayed at least as costly as other goods. This would be expected to maintain, rather than drive down, smoking prevalence. We examined the association between smoking prevalence and duty over a 10-year period.
Using monthly data from five Australian capital cities, collected from March 2001 to March 2010 among Australians aged at least 18 years, multiple linear regression modeled associations between smoking prevalence and the two components (duty and non-duty) of the recommended retail price of an average packet of cigarettes, adjusting for policy covariates.
Prevalence declined from 23.6% in March 2001 to 17.0% in March 2010 [absolute difference 6.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.5 to 6.8]. Duty increased from $0.2026 to $0.2622 per cigarette over the same period. In the adjusted model, a 1-cent increase in the duty component of price was not associated with changes in prevalence (0.019; 95% CI = -0.035 to 0.028). Increased non-duty component of price was associated with a decline in prevalence (-0.027; 95% CI = -0.052 to -0.002). This effect was stronger when changes in income were controlled for.
In line with expectations, inflation-adjusted duty was not associated with changes in smoking prevalence, but it may have prevented upward pressure on prevalence that increasing affordability could have exerted. Frequent increases in duty greater than the growth in both wages and goods would more effectively reduce smoking than regular indexation.
Few countries inflation-adjusted excise duty to ensure that tobacco products do not become more affordable; however, Australia experienced a decade of inflation adjustment alone, enabling the impact of this policy to be studied. This study shows that inflation-adjusted duty likely did prevent tobacco becoming more affordable and that indexation was associated with declines in smoking when tobacco companies over-shifted the duty rises (ie, increased price over and above duty rises).The study also suggests that frequent increases in taxation that exceed both wage growth and increases in costliness of other goods are needed to prompt increased rates of quitting.
自 1984 年以来，澳大利亚对烟草的消费税和关税每两年自动提高一次。与通货膨胀保持一致的关税增长确保了烟草的价格至少与其他商品一样昂贵。这有望维持，而不是降低，吸烟率。我们在 10 年期间检查了吸烟率与关税之间的关联。
使用 2001 年 3 月至 2010 年 3 月期间在澳大利亚五个首府城市收集的至少 18 岁澳大利亚人每月的数据，采用多元线性回归模型，调整政策协变量后，分析吸烟率与建议零售价中香烟平均一包的两个组成部分（税和非税）之间的关联。
吸烟率从 2001 年 3 月的 23.6%下降到 2010 年 3 月的 17.0%[绝对差异为 6.6%；95%置信区间（CI）为 6.5 至 6.8]。同期，每支香烟的税从 0.2026 澳元增加到 0.2622 澳元。在调整后的模型中，价格中税的增加与流行率的变化无关（0.019；95%CI=0.035 至 0.028）。非税价格成分的增加与流行率的下降有关（-0.027；95%CI=-0.052 至-0.002）。当控制收入变化时，这种影响更强。
与预期一致，经通货膨胀调整的关税与吸烟率的变化无关，但它可能阻止了随着可负担性的提高而可能对流行率施加的上行压力。与定期指数化相比，高于工资和商品增长的频繁增加的关税更能有效地减少吸烟。
很少有国家对消费税进行通货膨胀调整，以确保烟草产品不会变得更便宜；然而，澳大利亚仅经历了十年的通货膨胀调整，从而能够研究这项政策的影响。本研究表明，经通货膨胀调整的关税可能确实阻止了烟草变得更便宜，并且当烟草公司过度转移关税上涨（即，超过关税上涨的价格上涨）时，指数化与吸烟率下降有关。该研究还表明，需要频繁提高税收，使其超过工资增长和其他商品成本增加，以促使戒烟率提高。
