> i would argue that if taxes are so onerous as to support a black market for a legal good, the taxes are probably much too high.
Nah, when something has large negative externalities you set the tax to the point of mostly discouraging it. That'll be pretty high. It's supposed to be.
> in addition to being an absurd tax from the get-go (in my opinion), it is also quite regressive, since poor people are significantly more likely to be smokers.
"Regressive tax" only applies to necessities. Cigarettes are a luxury item, like lottery tickets or whiskey. Nobody ever starved or froze or lost their job for lack of a cigarette.
> Nah, when something has large negative externalities you set the tax to the point of mostly discouraging it. That'll be pretty high. It's supposed to be.
you really think each pack of cigs does $5.35 worth of damage to people other than the smoker?
When their insurance premiums or taxes go up to have to cover a million dollars in claims when you get cancer or other long-term chronic health conditions, yes.
Nah, when something has large negative externalities you set the tax to the point of mostly discouraging it. That'll be pretty high. It's supposed to be.
> in addition to being an absurd tax from the get-go (in my opinion), it is also quite regressive, since poor people are significantly more likely to be smokers.
"Regressive tax" only applies to necessities. Cigarettes are a luxury item, like lottery tickets or whiskey. Nobody ever starved or froze or lost their job for lack of a cigarette.