Comment on Yeah, yeah, yeah...
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months agoUnless I’m mistaken but correlation isn’t causation. Meaning that an increase in tax revenue from cigarettes around the time some new subs were ordered doesn’t mean that one is paying for the other.
Is it unreasonable to make the assumption that the extra tax revenue in fact goes into public health to combat the effects of smoking on an aging population?
smoking for those abive 15 has dropped from 24% in 1991 to around 11% in 2019
although i will concede that this tax disproportionately impacts lower income people
gila@lemm.ee 7 months ago
The current excise policies were implemented around 2010, at which point the global decline was already well underway. As I mentioned originally, there has been no stage following implementation of the respective policies in which the decline in smoking accelerated. It has only slowed since that time, and in Australia is increasing as of 2023.
It’s unreasonable to assume that allocations of tax contributed by smokers and tobacco companies is proportionately allocated to areas relevant to the stated intent of the tax policy.
Do you think these are magic words or something? The entire stated intent of the policy is to cause a correlation that is inverse to the one that’s been observed since. Nowhere above did I say that tobacco excise causes the problems I mentioned - I responded to someone putting forward the idea that it is a viable solution to those same problems. I have trouble considering your response to be in good faith, since I already disclaimed this in my original comment.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
Actual quote
So no I don’t believe they’re magic words and I find your quote disingenuous.
Have a nice day and we can end this here. No hard feelings.
gila@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Hey I misunderstood you there and corrected my comment. Just in case you didn’t see that.