Regressive Sin Taxes

66 Pages Posted: 23 Jan 2017 Last revised: 29 Jan 2025

See all articles by Benjamin B Lockwood

Benjamin B Lockwood

University of Pennsylvania - The Wharton School

Dmitry Taubinsky

Harvard University

Date Written: January 2017

Abstract

A common objection to “sin taxes”—corrective taxes on goods like cigarettes, alcohol, and sugary drinks, which are believed to be over-consumed—is that they fall disproportionately on low-income consumers. This paper studies the interaction between corrective and redistributive motives in a general optimal taxation framework. On the one hand, redistributive concerns amplify the corrective benefits of a sin tax when sin good consumption is concentrated on the poor, even when bias and demand elasticities are constant across incomes. On the other hand, a sin tax can generate regressivity costs, raising more revenue from the poor than from the rich. Sin tax regressivity can be offset by targeted transfers or income tax reforms if differences in sin good consumption are driven by income effects, but not if they are driven by preference heterogeneity, and not if the indirect incentives the sin tax generates for labor supply decisions are not salient. The price elasticity of demand determines the extent to which corrective benefits versus regressivity costs determine the size of the optimal tax. We implement our optimal tax formulas in a calibrated model of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption for a range of parameter values suggested by empirical work.

Suggested Citation

Lockwood, Benjamin B and Taubinsky, Dmitry, Regressive Sin Taxes (January 2017). NBER Working Paper No. w23085, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2903786

Benjamin B Lockwood (Contact Author)

University of Pennsylvania - The Wharton School ( email )

3641 Locust Walk
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6365
United States

Dmitry Taubinsky

Harvard University ( email )

Cambridge, MA
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
156
Abstract Views
1,063
Rank
402,084
PlumX Metrics