Both the two articles raise doubts about the function of some governmental taxation like cigarette tax and called ‘nanny taxes’, including tobacco, alcohol, and processed food. At first sight, this kind of tax can kill two birds with one stone, because it is not only beneficial to public health but also increase the governmental revenue rapidly in a short run to serve the development of national economics. However, based on the two articles, these benefits are just the government’s wishful thinking, which may hurt citizens’ interests and Australian economics in the future.
As the title of the first article, when the ‘nanny taxes’ increased further, the poor class may feel their life cost grow in the same step with these taxes. The author argue that this taxation just focus on governmental revenue in a short term rather than considering the rationality of economics. Due to the income and preference, there is a direct demand influence on different customers. From the table attached the first article, although the rich class should pay more money on most products, these expenditures account for a low proportion of gross income comparing with the poor class. It is also worth to mention that the rich class common spend less money on smoking. In addition, the government ought not to neglect the elasticity on the same product in different class. Besides tobacco, according to the estimation of Julie Novak, the researcher of Institute of Public Affairs, under the condition of GST on processed food, imposing tax on processed food is also a punishment to most common customers. To tobacco, processed food, junk food included, some customer hardly give them up, especially poor class. This is to say these products are inelastic goods, therefore taxation can not change people’s life style, and may be a burden to a poor family, which violate the government original purpose to serve public.
In the second article, focusing on cigarette tax, the author also come up...