Geboers Cloé, Candel Math J J M, van Walbeek Corné, Nagelhout Gera E, de Vries Hein, van den Putte Bas, Fong Geoffrey T, Willemsen Marc C
Department of Health Promotion (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Netherlands Expertise Centre for Tobacco Control, Trimbos Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2025 Mar 24;27(4):733-740. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntae227.
The public health impact of a tobacco tax increase depends on the extent to which the industry passes the increase onto consumers, also known as tax-pass through. In 2020, the Netherlands announced tax increases aimed at increasing the retail price by €1 per 20 factory-made (FM) cigarettes and €2.50 per 50 g of roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco. This study examines the pass-through rate after the tax increase, and whether this differed by type of tobacco and brand segment.
Self-reported prices of 117 tobacco brand varieties (cigarettes = 72, RYO = 45) pre- and post-tax increases were extracted from the 2020 International Tobacco Control Netherlands Surveys (n = 2959 respondents). We calculated the tax pass-through rate per variant, examining differences between the type of tobacco and brand segments.
On average, cigarette prices increased by €1.12 (SD = 0.49; 112% of €1) and RYO prices by €2.53 (SD = 0.60; 101% of €2.50). Evidence of differential shifting across segments was found, with evidence of overshifting in non-discount varieties. The average price of discount varieties increased by €0.20 less than non-discount varieties. Similarly, the net-of-tax price decreased in discount varieties (cigarettes = -€0.02; RYO = -€0.05), but increased in non-discount varieties (cigarettes = +€0.14; RYO = +€0.20).
Despite the large tax increase, the industry increased prices in line with or above the required level. Through differential shifting, the price gap between discount and non-discount varieties has widened, which may reduce the public health impact of the tax increase. Measures aimed at reducing price variability should be strengthened in taxation policy, such as the European Tobacco Tax Directive (TTD).
We found that the industry used differential shifting after a significant tobacco tax increase in the Netherlands. Prices increased more than required in higher-priced products, but not in lower-priced products. This pattern was found both for FM cigarettes and RYO tobacco. Through differential shifting, the industry undermines the potential public health impact of tobacco tax increases, by offering a relatively cheaper alternative, which discourages people to quit or reduce consumption. The revision of the European TTD provides an opportunity to address the widening price gap-both between and within product segments-across the European Union.
提高烟草税对公共卫生的影响取决于烟草行业将税收增加部分转嫁给消费者的程度，即所谓的税收转嫁。2020年，荷兰宣布提高烟草税，目标是将每20支机制卷烟的零售价格提高1欧元，每50克手卷烟丝的价格提高2.50欧元。本研究考察了增税后的税收转嫁率，以及这一比率是否因烟草类型和品牌细分而有所不同。
从2020年荷兰国际烟草控制调查（n = 2959名受访者）中提取了117种烟草品牌品种（卷烟 = 72种，手卷烟 = 45种）在增税前和增税后的自报价格。我们计算了每个品种的税收转嫁率，考察了烟草类型和品牌细分之间的差异。
平均而言，卷烟价格上涨了1.12欧元（标准差 = 0.49；为1欧元的112%），手卷烟价格上涨了2.53欧元（标准差 = 0.60；为2.50欧元的101%）。发现各细分市场存在差异转嫁的证据，非折扣品种存在过度转嫁的证据。折扣品种的平均价格涨幅比非折扣品种少0.20欧元。同样，折扣品种的税后价格下降（卷烟 = -0.02欧元；手卷烟 = -0.05欧元），而非折扣品种的税后价格上升（卷烟 = +0.14欧元；手卷烟 = +0.20欧元）。
尽管大幅提高了烟草税，但烟草行业提高价格的幅度与要求水平相符或高于要求水平。通过差异转嫁，折扣品种和非折扣品种之间的价格差距扩大了，这可能会降低增税对公共卫生的影响。税收政策中应加强旨在减少价格差异的措施，如《欧洲烟草税指令》（TTD）。
我们发现，在荷兰大幅提高烟草税后，烟草行业采用了差异转嫁策略。高价产品的价格涨幅超过了要求，但低价产品并非如此。这种模式在机制卷烟和手卷烟丝中均有发现。通过差异转嫁，烟草行业通过提供相对便宜的替代品，削弱了提高烟草税对公共卫生的潜在影响，这不利于人们戒烟或减少消费。修订欧洲TTD为解决欧盟范围内产品细分市场之间以及细分市场内部不断扩大的价格差距提供了一个契机。
