11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Australia’s $40 per pack cigarette tax plans: the need to consider equity

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3
      Tobacco Control
      Tobacco Control
      Taxation, Disparities, Priority/special populations

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In May 2016, the Australian Government announced that it would implement annual increases in tobacco excise of 12.5% up to and including 2020, raising the cost of a pack of cigarettes to $A40. This increase will lead to Australia having one of the highest prices of cigarettes in the world. Increasing the cost of tobacco is considered by public health experts to be one of the most effective strategies to reduce tobacco use, and is generally well supported by the public. However, tobacco tax increases differentially impact various subgroups of the population. Based on a review of existing literature, this paper examines some of the potential (unintended) consequences of the tax to individual and family income; illicit trade; social stigma and opportunities for lobbying by the tobacco industry. In light of these considerations, we offer strategies that might be used by policymakers to mitigate potential harms. While this paper focuses on the impacts primarily on populations in Australia, the consequences and strategies offered may be useful to other countries implementing tobacco excise increases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy.

          Increases in tobacco taxes are widely regarded as a highly effective strategy for reducing tobacco use and its consequences. The voluminous literature on tobacco taxes is assessed, drawing heavily from seminal and recent publications reviewing the evidence on the impact of tobacco taxes on tobacco use and related outcomes, as well as that on tobacco tax administration. Well over 100 studies, including a growing number from low-income and middle-income countries, clearly demonstrate that tobacco excise taxes are a powerful tool for reducing tobacco use while at the same time providing a reliable source of government revenues. Significant increases in tobacco taxes that increase tobacco product prices encourage current tobacco users to stop using, prevent potential users from taking up tobacco use, and reduce consumption among those that continue to use, with the greatest impact on the young and the poor. Global experiences with tobacco taxation and tax administration have been used by WHO to develop a set of 'best practices' for maximising the effectiveness of tobacco taxation. Significant increases in tobacco taxes are a highly effective tobacco control strategy and lead to significant improvements in public health. The positive health impact is even greater when some of the revenues generated by tobacco tax increases are used to support tobacco control, health promotion and/or other health-related activities and programmes. In general, oppositional arguments that higher taxes will have harmful economic effects are false or overstated.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Working Class Matters: Socioeconomic Disadvantage, Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Smoking in NHIS 2000

            American Journal of Public Health, 94(2), 269-278
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Socioeconomic disparities in quit intentions, quit attempts, and smoking abstinence among smokers in four western countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey.

              Lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups have higher rates of tobacco use, are less likely to successfully quit, and may also be less likely to intend or attempt to quit. However, results are inconsistent for some outcomes, and little is known about how socioeconomic disparities vary across countries and over time. This study examined the associations between SES and quitting-related behaviors among representative samples of smokers in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, using data from the first five waves (2002-2006/2007) of the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey (35,532 observations from 16,458 respondents). Generalized estimating equations modeling was used to examine whether education and income were related to intentions to quit, incidence of quit attempts, and smoking abstinence. Potential differences in the associations over time and across countries were also considered. Smokers with higher education were more likely to intend to quit, to make a quit attempt, and to be abstinent for at least 1 and 6 months; smokers with higher income were more likely to intend to quit and to be abstinent for at least 1 month. Some between-country differences were observed: U.K. and U.S. smokers were less likely to intend to quit than Australians and Canadians; and, although U.K. respondents were least likely to attempt to quit, those that did were more likely to be abstinent. The results suggest that socioeconomic disparities exist at multiple stages in the path to smoking cessation. Potential effects on socioeconomic disparities should be considered when implementing cessation interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Tob Control
                Tob Control
                tobaccocontrol
                tc
                Tobacco Control
                Tobacco Control (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0964-4563
                1468-3318
                March 2018
                10 April 2017
                : 27
                : 2
                : 229-233
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentCentre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation , University of New South Wales , Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
                [2 ] Ingham Institute , Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
                [3 ] departmentGlobal Public Health Unit, Social Policy, School of Social & Political Science , University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Ms Katherine T Hirono, Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation, University of New South Wales, 1 Campbell St, Liverpool BC 1871, New South Wales, Australia; k.hirono@ 123456unsw.edu.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1060-4102
                Article
                tobaccocontrol-2016-053608
                10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053608
                5870445
                28396484
                a2f0adaf-ab71-4571-a1e1-3a7acca88114
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 21 December 2016
                : 12 February 2017
                : 7 March 2017
                Categories
                Special Communication
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Public health
                taxation,disparities,priority/special populations
                Public health
                taxation, disparities, priority/special populations

                Comments

                Comment on this article