Tax Incidence of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) in the USA

Overview

Journal Tob Control

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2021 Dec 23

PMID 34937806

Citations 7

Authors

Ce Shang

Shaoying Ma

Eric N Lindblom

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: A growing number of states or jurisdictions in the USA have imposed excise taxes on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). However, there is no consensus on how best to tax ENDS.

Objectives: We specifically compare the tax incidence or burden for ENDS and cigarettes and analyse how ENDS tax incidence is associated with the choices of tax bases and rates.

Methods: We calculate ENDS excise tax incidence as the percentage of retail prices for each state or jurisdiction. Next, we use ordinary least squares to evaluate how tax incidence is associated with the choices of tax bases (eg, a specific tax base vs a value or ad valorem tax base) and rates and how these associations are moderated by product types.

Results: ENDS and cigarette tax incidence is similar at the state level. Nonetheless, when federal cigarette taxes are considered, the cigarette tax incidence is higher than the tax incidence on closed-system ENDS. The proportion of states that impose value taxes is higher for open systems (65.4%) than for closed systems (46.2%). A value tax base is associated with a 7 percentage point lower tax incidence compared with a specific tax base. Product type further moderates the association between tax base and incidence.

Conclusion: Tax incidence can be used to measure the strength of ENDS tax policies and how they are compared with cigarette taxes. Policymakers who aim to prevent youth from using ENDS may consider a value tax base to raise the tax incidence of closed systems-the product type preferred by young people.

Citing Articles

The impacts of product characteristics and regulatory environment on smokers' preferences for tobacco and alcohol: Evidence from a volumetric choice experiment.

Ma S, Shang C, Do V, Huang J, Pechacek T, Weaver S PLoS One. 2025; 20(3):e0320023.

PMID: 40073034 PMC: 11902124. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320023.

Features of disposable e-cigarettes and their association with pricing and consumer preference: Evidence from web data of US online stores.

Ma S, Ahn S, Kaareen A, Yang Q, Qiu Z, Chen J Addiction. 2024; 120(3):514-523.

PMID: 39711153 PMC: 11813732. DOI: 10.1111/add.16719.

The Tax Incidence and Tax Pass-Through of Smokeless Tobacco in the US.

He Y, Yang Q, Shang C Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024; 21(11).

PMID: 39595732 PMC: 11593845. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21111465.

Recreational cannabis excise taxation in the USA: Constructing a comparable tax measure for empirical analysis.

Park H, Yoon D, Yang Q, He Y, Han B, Shi Y Int J Drug Policy. 2024; 134():104630.

PMID: 39522235 PMC: 11706241. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104630.

Relationship Between Product Features and the Prices of e-Cigarette Devices Sold in Web-Based Vape Shops: Comparison Study Using a Linear Regression Model.

He Y, Yang Q, Alish Y, Ma S, Qiu Z, Chen J JMIR Form Res. 2024; 8:e49276.

PMID: 38723251 PMC: 11117130. DOI: 10.2196/49276.

References

Chaloupka F, Yurekli A, Fong G . Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy. Tob Control. 2012; 21(2):172-80. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050417. View

Chaloupka F, Kostova D, Shang C . Cigarette excise tax structure and cigarette prices: evidence from the global adult tobacco survey and the U.S. National Adult Tobacco Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013; 16 Suppl 1:S3-9. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntt121. View

Pesko M, Huang J, Johnston L, Chaloupka F . E-cigarette price sensitivity among middle- and high-school students: evidence from monitoring the future. Addiction. 2017; 113(5):896-906. PMC: 5895490. DOI: 10.1111/add.14119. View

Cotti C, Courtemanche C, Maclean J, Nesson E, Pesko M, Tefft N . The effects of e-cigarette taxes on e-cigarette prices and tobacco product sales: Evidence from retail panel data. J Health Econ. 2022; 86:102676. PMC: 11268994. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2022.102676. View

Cotti C, Nesson E, Tefft N . The relationship between cigarettes and electronic cigarettes: Evidence from household panel data. J Health Econ. 2018; 61:205-219. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2018.08.001. View

Shang C, Lee H, Chaloupka F, Fong G, Thompson M, OConnor R . Association between tax structure and cigarette consumption: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation (ITC) Project. Tob Control. 2018; 28(Suppl 1):s31-s36. PMC: 6702940. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054160. View

Corrigan J, OConnor R, Rousu M . Which smokers adopt e-cigarettes and at what price? An experimental estimation of price elasticity of demand and factors correlated with e-cigarette adoption. Addict Behav. 2020; 105:106324. PMC: 7050403. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106324. View

Huang J, Gwarnicki C, Xu X, Caraballo R, Wada R, Chaloupka F . A comprehensive examination of own- and cross-price elasticities of tobacco and nicotine replacement products in the U.S. Prev Med. 2018; 117:107-114. PMC: 6195827. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.04.024. View

Chaloupka F, Straif K, Leon M . Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control. Tob Control. 2010; 20(3):235-8. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2010.039982. View

10.

Liber A, Drope J, Stoklosa M . Combustible cigarettes cost less to use than e-cigarettes: global evidence and tax policy implications. Tob Control. 2016; 26(2):158-163. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052874. View

11.

Shang C, Chaloupka F, Fong G, Thompson M, OConnor R . The association between tax structure and cigarette price variability: findings from the ITC Project. Tob Control. 2015; 24 Suppl 3:iii88-iii93. PMC: 4612523. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051771. View

12.

Du Y, Liu B, Xu G, Rong S, Sun Y, Wu Y . Association of Electronic Cigarette Regulations With Electronic Cigarette Use Among Adults in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(1):e1920255. PMC: 7042861. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20255. View

13.

Shang C, Chaloupka F, Zahra N, Fong G . The distribution of cigarette prices under different tax structures: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation (ITC) Project. Tob Control. 2013; 23 Suppl 1:i23-9. PMC: 4009360. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-050966. View

14.

Pesko M, Courtemanche C, Maclean J . The effects of traditional cigarette and e-cigarette tax rates on adult tobacco product use. J Risk Uncertain. 2021; 60(3):229-258. PMC: 7880200. DOI: 10.1007/s11166-020-09330-9. View

15.

Stoklosa M, Drope J, Chaloupka F . Prices and E-Cigarette Demand: Evidence From the European Union. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016; 18(10):1973-1980. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntw109. View

16.

Shang C, Ngo A, Chaloupka F . The pass-through of alcohol excise taxes to prices in OECD countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2020; 21(6):855-867. PMC: 9996670. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01177-w. View

17.

Han D, Seo D, Lin H . Statewide vaping product excise tax policy and use of electronic nicotine delivery systems among US young adults, 2014-2019. Tob Control. 2021; 32(3):352-358. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056653. View

18.

Cantrell J, Huang J, Greenberg M, Xiao H, Hair E, Vallone D . Impact of e-cigarette and cigarette prices on youth and young adult e-cigarette and cigarette behaviour: evidence from a national longitudinal cohort. Tob Control. 2019; 29(4):374-380. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054764. View

19.

Krishnan-Sarin S, Jackson A, Morean M, Kong G, Bold K, Camenga D . E-cigarette devices used by high-school youth. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018; 194:395-400. PMC: 6312472. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.10.022. View

20.

Huang J, Tauras J, Chaloupka F . The impact of price and tobacco control policies on the demand for electronic nicotine delivery systems. Tob Control. 2014; 23 Suppl 3:iii41-7. PMC: 4145658. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051515. View