Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner
Regardless, the end result was that their chart showed that adding the tax did not increase or decrease the rate of decline in revenue over the time period, as the decline over the illustrated period was about 55% (give or take a couple points for roughly interpreting the exact numbers the chart tries to illustrate) both with or without the new tax.
|
I think the red and blue lines have different slopes. The absolute dollar difference gets smaller over time.
I also think the chart's purpose is to give casual viewers a rough visual to illustrate their conclusions. I don't think the chart was meant for a PhD level evaluation of their methodology.
Quote:
|
I don't believe that all four of the above points are true, therefore I doubt the validity of the chart itself.
|
The point is not the chart, the point is in their projections. On one hand it is clear that over time the tax will not support the program for which the tax was intended. Two factors lead to that conclusion, one being the decline in the number of smokers. The second is price elasticity. If you take the position that increasing the price of cigarettes has no impact on demand, at some price increases and demographics this is true, however it is false in many other circumstances. The methodology used tried to take that into account.
Quote:
|
As far as I can tell, a spreadsheet of data points was not there to see, so more precise calculations can not be made.
|
You have to look at their footnotes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
It is not surprising that those who do not pay tobacco taxes would support raising taxes of those who do.
Child health programs seem to be important as long as someone else pays for it. I wonder if the program would have bi-partisan and overwhelming support of the public if we raised everyone's taxes to pay for it?
|
That's a good question. Why not have everyone with a Washington DC zip code pay for the program? Remember it is for the children.
