“Sin” taxes—eg, on tobacco—are less efficient than they look
But they do help improve public health
TOBACCO was new to England in the 17th century, but even then, smoking had plenty of critics. The most famous was King James I, who in 1604 described smoking as “a custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmful to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke and stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomless”. The king increased the import tax on the “noxious weed” by 4,000%.
This article appeared in the International section of the print edition under the headline “The taxes of sin”
More from International
Inside the Houthis’ moneymaking machine
After a ceasefire in Gaza, they may continue their Red Sea racket
Marco Rubio will find China is hard to beat in Latin America
China buys lithium, copper and bull semen, and doesn’t export its ideology
Donald Trump has a strong foreign-policy hand, but could blow it
Bullying foreigners can be sadly effective, but also a dangerous distraction
Women warriors and the war on woke
Trump’s Pentagon pick wants women off the battlefield
Young people are having less fun
Youthful excess continues to decline
Why people over the age of 55 are the new problem generation
Baby-boomers are keeping their bad habits into retirement