Here is a little exercise in Economic Understanding,
courtesy of the Indianapolis Star. The
subject is the tobacco settlement that was the result of a lawsuit filed by
states Attorneys General to “punish” the tobacco companies for selling a
dangerous product and trying to lure new, young customers with cartoon
characters and other marketing schemes.
Here is the history as they report it. “Indiana was among 46 states that signed the
master settlement agreement in 1998 with four of the largest manufacturers of
cigarettes in the country. About 40 other tobacco companies later joined the
settlement.
“Since 1999, Indiana has received more than $1.9 billion
from the tobacco companies.
“The agreement requires tobacco companies to pay states
annually. The money is intended to reimburse them for the health-care costs of
cigarette smoking-related diseases, such as lung cancer and heart disease. The
payments vary year to year and are largely based on how many cigarettes a
manufacturer sells in each state.”
How is this different from imposing a higher sales tax on
cigarettes? The money comes directly
from the tobacco companies making it look like a punitive measure. The states receive money proportionate to
sales. But the tobacco companies get the
money from their customers in the form of higher prices. It’s not coming out of profits or out of the
pockets of the “greedy” CEOs.
Look at this chart based on the financial information of
Altria, the largest tobacco company, courtesy of the Motley Fool website. It shows that profits (Net Income) for the
past 4 years are basically rising. The
scale is in billions of dollars. The profits
for the same company since 1999 (courtesy of wikinvest.com) have dropped, but
the pattern is more in line with the overall economy than with fines imposed by
the settlement. The big drop occurs long
after the settlement, concurrent with the beginning of the recession.
The main difference between the settlement money collected by
the states, which was taken indirectly from smokers by way of the tobacco
companies, and a straight sales tax, which would have been collected by the
states directly from the smokers, is the political credit the states got by
taking on the big, bad tobacco moguls. (Another
difference is that a large amount of money was probably spent on lawyers for
both sides and by the government to pay arbitrators.) Economically speaking it’s pretty much the
same effect, but the image of a settlement vs. a “sin tax” makes it look like a
display of great courage, caring and child protection.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment