Escuela de Negocios, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Santiago de Chile, Chile
Millennium Nucleus for the Evaluation and Analysis of Drug Policies (nDP), Santiago de Chile, Chile.
BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Oct;8(Suppl 8). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-011866.
The article reviews the large body of evidence on how taxation affects the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB). There is abundant evidence that demand for tobacco, alcohol, and SSB is price-responsive and that tax changes are quickly passed on to consumers. This suggests that taxes can be highly effective in changing consumption and reducing the burden of diseases associated with consuming these products. Tobacco, alcohol, and SSB industries oppose taxation on similar grounds, mostly on the regressivity of taxes since regressive taxes take a larger percentage of income from low income earners than from middle and high income earners; but also on the effects taxes might have on employment and economic activity; and, in the case of tobacco, the effects taxation has on illicit trade.Contrary to industry arguments, evidence shows that taxation may have short-term negative financial consequences for low-income households. However, medium and long-term financial benefits from reduced healthcare costs, better health, and welfare largely compensate for such consequences. Moreover, taxation does not negatively affect aggregate economic activity or employment, as consumers switch demand to other products that generate employment and may compensate for any employment loss in taxed sectors. Evidence also shows the revenues generated are generally spent on labour-intensive services. In the case of illicit trade in tobacco, evidence shows that illicit trade has not increased globally (rather the opposite) despite increases in tobacco taxes. Profit-maximising smugglers increase illicit cigarette prices along with the increases in licit cigarette prices. This implies that even when increased taxes divert some demand to the illicit market, they push prices up in the illicit market, discouraging consumption.
这篇文章综述了大量关于税收如何影响烟草、酒精和含糖饮料（SSB）消费的证据。有充分的证据表明，烟草、酒精和 SSB 的需求对价格敏感，税收变化很快就会转嫁给消费者。这表明，税收可以非常有效地改变消费行为，减少与消费这些产品相关的疾病负担。烟草、酒精和 SSB 行业出于类似的原因反对征税，主要是因为税收的累退性，因为累退性税收从低收入者那里获取的收入比例高于从中等和高收入者那里获取的收入比例；还因为税收可能对就业和经济活动产生影响；而且，就烟草而言，税收对非法贸易的影响。与行业论点相反，证据表明，税收可能会对低收入家庭的短期财务状况产生负面影响。然而，从减少医疗保健费用、改善健康和福利方面获得的中长期财务收益在很大程度上弥补了这些后果。此外，税收不会对总经济活动或就业产生负面影响，因为消费者会将需求转向其他创造就业机会的产品，并且可能会弥补征税部门的任何就业损失。证据还表明，所产生的收入通常用于劳动密集型服务。就烟草的非法贸易而言，证据表明，尽管烟草税有所增加，但全球非法贸易并未增加（恰恰相反）。利润最大化的走私者会随着合法香烟价格的上涨而提高非法香烟的价格。这意味着，即使增加的税收将部分需求转移到非法市场，它们也会推高非法市场的价格，从而抑制消费。
