Center for Tobacco Research, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 3650 Olentangy River Rd, Columbus, OH 43214, USA.
Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Oncology Division, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43201, USA.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Nov 2;21(11):1465. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21111465.
States adopt different tax bases for smokeless tobacco (SLT), making tax incidence on SLT not directly comparable across states. In addition, how taxes are passed through to SLT prices among states that impose specific taxes, and whether the pass-through rates for SLT are affected by the uptake and evolution of e-cigarettes, is unknown.
This study will calculate the tax incidence on SLT and investigate how SLT taxes are passed to prices at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile levels, as well as whether these pass-through rates vary by e-cigarette uptake and evolution.
We regressed SLT prices on specific taxes using ordinary least square regressions while controlling for state-, year-, and quarter-fixed effects. We then tested the difference in tax pass-through rates by different periods.
The average tax incidence on chewing tobacco, moist snuff, dry snuff, and snus was 22%, 22%, 23%, and 20%, respectively. For moist snuff, taxes were fully passed to prices at the 25th and 50th percentiles (rate = 1.01, < 0.001) and overly passed to prices at the 75th percentile (rate = 1.25, < 0.001). The e-cigarette uptake and evolution significantly raised taxes by 13 cents and 14 cents per ounce, respectively, for moist snuff at the 75th percentile prices ( < 0.05).
If harm is considered a criterion for taxing tobacco products, the tax incidence on SLT could be further increased. Considering that lower-priced SLT have lower tax pass-through rates, price promotion restrictions and minimum pricing laws may be needed to increase the cost of lower-priced products. Additionally, we observed that tobacco companies tended to increase tax pass-through for premium SLT products as e-cigarettes gained popularity, which may indicate a strategic response to shifting consumer preferences.
各国对无烟烟草（SLT）采用不同的税基，因此无法直接比较各州之间对 SLT 的税收负担。此外，在征收特定税的州中，税收是如何通过 SLT 价格传递的，以及 SLT 的传递率是否受到电子烟的采用和演变的影响，这些都是未知的。
本研究将计算 SLT 的税收负担，并调查 SLT 税收在 25%、50%和 75%分位数水平上是如何传递给价格的，以及这些传递率是否因电子烟的采用和演变而有所不同。
我们使用普通最小二乘法回归，在控制州、年和季度固定效应的情况下，将 SLT 价格与特定税收进行回归。然后，我们测试了不同时期的税收传递率差异。
咀嚼烟草、湿鼻烟、干鼻烟和鼻烟的平均税收负担分别为 22%、22%、23%和 20%。对于湿鼻烟，税收在 25%和 50%分位数完全传递到价格（比率=1.01，<0.001），在 75%分位数过度传递到价格（比率=1.25，<0.001）。电子烟的采用和演变分别使湿鼻烟在 75%分位价格上的税收增加了 13 美分和 14 美分（<0.05）。
如果将危害视为征收烟草产品税的标准，那么 SLT 的税收负担可能会进一步增加。考虑到价格较低的 SLT 的税收传递率较低，可能需要限制价格促销和实行最低定价法来提高较低价格产品的成本。此外，我们观察到，随着电子烟的普及，烟草公司倾向于提高优质 SLT 产品的税收传递率，这可能表明这是对消费者偏好转移的一种策略性反应。
