Inter-party negotiations at the Legislative Yuan reached a consensus to make amendments to the Tobacco and Liquor Tax Law (菸酒稅法) to raise the health tax levied on cigarettes from NT$5 to NT$8 per pack.
Neither NT$5 nor NT$8 is big money, yet a 60 percent rise is quite startling. Those who advocate heavy taxes on cigarettes, however, may still not be satisfied about the increase. They stress again and again that cigarette prices in Taiwan are among the lowest in the world and it is necessary to control quantity via pricing, thus cutting down tobacco consumption in Taiwan. Such a stance is echoed by people in medical circles, who see smoking as a leading cause of cancer and blame heavy smokers for wasting medical resources. The current deficit in the national health insurance (NHI) system also seems to provide some legitimate grounds for the anti-smoking movement, as a government official revealed that the increased revenue from the tax on cigarettes would be used to help fund the NHI system.
These arguments sound quite familiar. However, if we treat the health tax levied on cigarettes as a way of reducing the government's financial burden, then the good moral image of the health tax would be completely lost and the 60 percent increase in the tax could be seen as looting by the government.
A majority of tobacco consumers come from the working class. Increasing the tax on cigarettes will not help promote fairness and justice in our financial system. Instead, it will make it more unfair. Laborers are not high-income earners and have no way to dodge their tax duties. And now they have to shoulder another tax imposed on them indirectly.
Besides, the concept of controlling quantity via pricing does not apply to consumer behavior in tobacco products. The need for tobacco products endures, and few consumers would reduce their consumption of cigarettes because of higher prices. The same behavior can be found in betel-nut consumption, which continues to see great demand despite a sky-rocketing prices. Therefore, raising the health tax levied on cigarettes simply entitles the government to enjoy extra income in the name of preserving the public's health.
It is worthwhile noting that from ethical, medical and NHI perspectives, the best way to control consumption is through price. They all mistakenly individualize the issue of tobacco consumption rather than treat it as a social issue. The smoking habits of the working class have a lot to do with their working conditions and life style.
Strictly speaking, if we really want to curb smoking or cut down the use of medical resources, we should first deal with the cruel structural reality that Taiwanese work more hours every year than anyone else in the world. The mainstream anti-smoking ethic ignores this fact and worships the control of quantity via pricing. As a result, tobacco consumers often fall victim to criticism and the NHI is being treated like a commodity. For example, in an attempt to control quantity via pricing, the NHI has raised premiums, forcing the main users of the service, namely the elderly, handicapped and laborers, to pay more for their medical needs.
The cigarette issue exemplifies Taiwan's mainstream discourse, which worships the market economy in controlling quantity via pricing, making Taiwan's social security system tilt to the right. This, of course, also reveals that fact that the health tax is healthy only in name, as it badly distributes wealth in a form of a regressive tax [ie, the poorer you are, the more tax you pay]. Under such circumstances, the 60 percent tax hike would continue the class inequality in Taiwan's wealth distribution.
Wu Ting-feng is a PhD candidate in sociology at Tunghai University.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with