We are prepared to agree that good economics is often not consistent with good politics. We would insist that, in such cases of a clash, it’s the politics that is wrong but there we are. The prime example is that the only economically rational approach to trade is unilateral free trade - we’ll buy what we want, whenever, you can do what the heck you like - but politics just so rarely does work out that way. Perhaps the UK 1846 to the late 1860s and Hong Kong all the time it was getting rich.

But we’ve now a new example. The vape tax. This is an idea of crushing stupidity. Taxing that substitute which leads to less smoking. That smoking that we’ve been trying to wipe out by ever higher taxes upon smoking. But, you know, politics.

But this gives us the why Pigou Taxes might not be all that great. As shown here.

OK, great, so smoking is Bad, M’Kay? So we’ll impose that Pigou Tax which will price people out of doing it. Great economics! But the problem then becomes that politics becomes hooked itself on those revenues from that Pigou Tax. We’ve changed who is addicted to what but not the addiction problem. So, as smoking does actually decline - the reason we imposed the Pigou Tax - politics is looking for its now mainline fix of the cash to micturate up against the wall.

At which point we get the tax on the substitute - recall, the tax was imposed in order to get people to substitute - imposed. Because there’s nothing as crazed and angry as a politician deprived of a revenue stream to micturate up that wall. Cold turkey simply is not to be thought of, no way.

As Dizzy points out this might not be quite logically sound, this tax upon vaping. But there we are. And just think, there are people who disagree with our idea that perhaps politics isn’t the best way to run a place or economy. Not all of whom are politicians mainlining on other peoples’ cash.