IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10046.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preferences for Sin Taxes

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias König
  • Renke Schmacker

Abstract

Sin taxes have become a widely suggested policy instrument to discourage the consumption of goods deemed harmful to individuals and society. Using surveys and experiments on a representative sample of the US population, we provide evidence on how individuals think and reason about such corrective policies. We reveal that preferences for taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are driven by normative considerations, including efficiency-related ideas and distributional concerns. In contrast, self-interested motives play only a minor role. Among the efficiency arguments, people place relatively large weight on externality correction, and motives to correct health cost misperceptions matter more than motives to correct a lack of self-control. However, anti-paternalistic attitudes and regressivity concerns are also prevalent, which helps to explain why the majority of respondents oppose SSB taxes, even though they agree that behavioral biases and externalities are relevant. Preferences for SSB taxes turn out to be malleable. Explaining to individuals the idea behind corrective taxation yields significant increases in the support for SSB taxes and the general openness to paternalistic intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias König & Renke Schmacker, 2022. "Preferences for Sin Taxes," CESifo Working Paper Series 10046, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10046.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sofie Kragh Pedersen & Alexander K. Koch & Julia Nafziger, 2014. "Who Wants Paternalism?," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(S1), pages 147-166, December.
    2. Ingvild Almås & Alexander W. Cappelen & Bertil Tungodden, 2020. "Cutthroat Capitalism versus Cuddly Socialism: Are Americans More Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking than Scandinavians?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1753-1788.
    3. Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Fabre, Adrien & Kruse, Tobias & Planterose, Bluebery & Chico, Ana Sanchez & Stantcheva, Stefanie, 2022. "Fighting Climate Change: International Attitudes Toward Climate Policies," CEPR Discussion Papers 17602, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Hunt Allcott & Benjamin B Lockwood & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(3), pages 1557-1626.
    5. Beatrice Ferrario & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2022. "Eliciting People's First-Order Concerns: Text Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Questions," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 112, pages 163-169, May.
    6. Pierre Dubois & Rachel Griffith & Martin O'Connell, 2020. "How Well Targeted Are Soda Taxes?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3661-3704, November.
    7. Emmanuel Farhi & Xavier Gabaix, 2020. "Optimal Taxation with Behavioral Agents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(1), pages 298-336, January.
    8. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    9. Haavio, Markus & Kotakorpi, Kaisa, 2011. "The political economy of sin taxes," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 575-594, May.
    10. Fletcher, Jason M. & Frisvold, David E. & Tefft, Nathan, 2010. "The effects of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and weight outcomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(11-12), pages 967-974, December.
    11. Alberto Alesina & Stefanie Stantcheva & Edoardo Teso, 2018. "Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 521-554, February.
    12. John Cawley & David Frisvold & David Jones, "undated". "The Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes on Purchases: Evidence from Four City-Level Taxes in the U.S," Mathematica Policy Research Reports c082eda4528243fba6be6c99f, Mathematica Policy Research.
    13. Hunt Allcott & Judd B. Kessler, 2019. "The Welfare Effects of Nudges: A Case Study of Energy Use Social Comparisons," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 236-276, January.
    14. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "What Motivates Paternalism? An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(3), pages 787-830, March.
    15. Alberto Alesina & Armando Miano & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2020. "The Polarization of Reality," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 110, pages 324-328, May.
    16. Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Studying Optimal Paternalism, Illustrated by a Model of Sin Taxes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 186-191, May.
    17. Bryan Bollinger & Phillip Leslie & Alan Sorensen, 2011. "Calorie Posting in Chain Restaurants," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 91-128, February.
    18. Erzo F. P. Luttmer & Monica Singhal, 2011. "Culture, Context, and the Taste for Redistribution," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 157-179, February.
    19. Gruber, Jonathan & Koszegi, Botond, 2004. "Tax incidence when individuals are time-inconsistent: the case of cigarette excise taxes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(9-10), pages 1959-1987, August.
    20. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
    21. Schmacker, Renke & Smed, Sinne, 2020. "Do prices and purchases respond similarly to soft drink tax increases and cuts?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    22. Cawley, John & Meyerhoefer, Chad, 2012. "The medical care costs of obesity: An instrumental variables approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 219-230.
    23. Sara Maestre-Andrés & Stefan Drews & Jeroen van den Bergh, 2020. "Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: a review of the literature," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(9), pages 1186-1204, July.
    24. Aguilar, Arturo & Gutierrez, Emilio & Seira, Enrique, 2021. "The effectiveness of sin food taxes: Evidence from Mexico," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    25. Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek & Charles Sprenger, 2020. "Dynamic Inconsistency in Food Choice: Experimental Evidence from Two Food Deserts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 87(4), pages 1954-1988.
    26. B. Douglas Bernheim & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2018. "Behavioral Public Economics," NBER Working Papers 24828, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    27. Fredric Jacobsson & Magnus Johannesson & Lars Borgquist, 2007. "Is Altruism Paternalistic?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(520), pages 761-781, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hunt Allcott & Benjamin B. Lockwood & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Should We Tax Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? An Overview of Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 202-227, Summer.
    2. Osaid Alshamleh & Glenn Paul Jenkins & Tufan Ekici, 2024. "Excise tax incidence: the inequity of taxing obesity and beauty," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(27), pages 3181-3193, June.
    3. G. Andersen, Asbjørn & Franklin, Simon & Getahun, Tigabu & Kotsadam, Andreas & Somville, Vincent & Villanger, Espen, 2023. "Does wealth reduce support for redistribution? Evidence from an Ethiopian housing lottery," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    4. Boadway,Robin & Cuff,Katherine, 2022. "Tax Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108949453, November.
    5. Hoy, Christopher & Mager, Franziska, 2021. "American exceptionalism? Differences in the elasticity of preferences for redistribution between the United States and Western Europe," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 518-540.
    6. James Flynn, 2023. "Do sugar‐sweetened beverage taxes improve public health for high school aged adolescents?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 47-64, January.
    7. Jeffrey, Karen & Matakos, Konstantinos, 2024. "Automation anxiety, fairness perceptions, and redistribution: Past experiences condition the response to future job loss," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 174-190.
    8. Jeffrey, Karen, 2021. "Automation and the future of work: How rhetoric shapes the response in policy preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 417-433.
    9. Nano Barahona & Cristóbal Otero & Sebastián Otero, 2023. "Equilibrium Effects of Food Labeling Policies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(3), pages 839-868, May.
    10. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 40-53, January.
    11. Sandro Ambuehl & Sebastian Blesse & Philipp Doerrenberg & Christoph Feldhaus & Axel Ockenfels, 2023. "Politicians’ Social Welfare Criteria – An Experiment with German Legislators," ifo Working Paper Series 391, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    12. Zarko Kalamov, 2020. "A sales tax is better at promoting healthy diets than the fat tax and the thin subsidy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(3), pages 353-366, March.
    13. Maria Alessandra Antonelli & Valeria De Bonis & Angelo Castaldo & Alessandrao Gandolfo, 2022. "Sin goods taxation: an encompassing model," Public Finance Research Papers 52, Istituto di Economia e Finanza, DSGE, Sapienza University of Rome.
    14. Charité, Jimmy & Fisman, Raymond & Kuziemko, Ilyana & Zhang, Kewei, 2022. "Reference points and redistributive preferences: Experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    15. Renke Schmacker & Sinne Smed, 2023. "Sin Taxes and Self-Control," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 1-34, August.
    16. Kristoffer B Hvidberg & Claus T Kreiner & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2023. "Social Positions and Fairness Views on Inequality," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(6), pages 3083-3118.
    17. Fehr Ernst & Epper Thomas & Senn Julien, 2020. "Social preferences and redistributive politics," ECON - Working Papers 339, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Aug 2023.
    18. Londoño-Vélez, Juliana, 2022. "The impact of diversity on perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    19. AndrÉ van Hoorn, 2022. "Automatability of Work and Preferences for Redistribution," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 84(1), pages 130-157, February.
    20. Roth, Christopher & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2018. "Experienced inequality and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 251-262.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    sin tax; internality; externality; soda tax; self-control;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10046. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.