Summary of “Sin” Taxes – e.g., on Tobacco – Are Less Efficient than They Look

Looking for the article?
We have the summary! Get the key insights in just 5 minutes.

“Sin” Taxes – e.g., on Tobacco – Are Less Efficient than They Look summary
Start getting smarter:
or see our plans




  • Analytical
  • Scientific


Tobacco, alcohol and sugar are bad for people’s health. Excessive consumption creates direct and indirect costs for taxpayers. So policy makers in the United States and Europe consider taxing harmful substances to offset these costs and nudge people toward making healthier choices. This article from The Economist compares various studies on the effects of these taxes and shows that what may sound straightforward in theory is more complicated in practice. Both sin-tax advocates and skeptics will appreciate this balanced, evidence-supported analysis.   

About the Author

The Economist is a UK-based weekly magazine covering economics and politics. 



The idea of levying taxes on substances a society considers harmful seems like a no-brainer. By imposing a tax on alcohol, tobacco and sugar, governments can earn extra revenue while promoting public health. Evidence suggests that so-called sin taxes succeed at curbing consumption. Studies have found that alcohol and tobacco sales drop by 0.5% for every 1% increase in price. Meanwhile, sales of sugary drinks declined by almost 10% in Mexico and the city of Berkeley, California, after their respective governments started taxing these beverages, while sales of bottled water increased...

More on this topic

Customers who read this summary also read

How Marketers Can Win with Gen Z and Millennials Post-COVID-19
COVID-19 Risks Outlook
A Crisis of Legitimacy
Take Steps to Counter the Loneliness of Social Distancing
When Patients Become Innovators
Covid 19 Has Ravaged American Newsrooms and Why That Matters

Related Channels

Comment on this summary