Marah read the file for a moment. The man made a note of something. He was probably just planning notes for the print version.

"There will also be tax increases next year. The following taxes on consumption will be increased: smoke drug tax, leather tax to 10%, fur tax to 18%, jewelry tax to 10%. However, these are more adjustments than real increases to compensate for changes in corporate taxes, which we will come to later. These increases are intended to prevent trade in these goods from becoming more profitable than it is now. There will also be compensation for the abolition of sales tax on food and beverages. The alcohol tax will be adjusted. There will be a tax on sugar and there will be a tax on beverages containing caffeine. It's best to go through these three first."

"So the caffeine tax is a replacement for the coffee tax and the tea tax?"

"At first glance, it seems that way, but it's not really a replacement. The coffee tax and also the tea tax come from a time when there was only hard cash and the whole system was still somewhat younger. The declared aim of both of these taxes at the time was to raise revenue to finance the state. Taxes that are limited to increasing state revenue are no longer in keeping with the times. The fact that both of these taxes are aimed precisely at the only products with a caffeine content is simply a coincidence. Even today, it would still be a reasonably solid excuse to continue levying both taxes if they were still the only products containing caffeine. But that has not been the case for a long time. There are youth drinks with caffeine, alcohol and sugar in one that are hardly taxed at all. At the same time, fruit tea, which contains none of these things, is taxed. I wonder what effect these taxes are supposed to achieve today? After all, we are not the only ones who levy them. Do we want to steer consumer behavior towards unhealthy products? Do we simply not want to deal with our own tax laws? In any case, these two taxes will be abolished in our country because they no longer fulfill any state objectives apart from raising revenue, which is not sufficient justification for levying these taxes."

"So there will be a caffeine tax and a sugar tax. How exactly will these taxes work? For example, will a coffee at the kiosk become more expensive?"

"That will depend very much on what kind of coffee it is. Ordinary coffee will become cheaper, but very strong coffee will become more expensive. The changes to alcohol tax can also be explained in the same breath. What is relevant for these three taxes is the alcohol content, the caffeine content and the sugar content in terms of quantity. These will not be fixed amounts on quantities, but percentages on the final price, so that this is still a relevant factor even for products with a high base price. They will also not be linear scales. Each additional percentage point, milligram or gram will increase the tax rate more than the last. With these three taxes, the prices of various products will change very differently. One of these youth drinks will become much more expensive, but sweet fruit tea, on the other hand, will become cheaper."

"I assume that these taxes are there to encourage people to lead healthier lives, but are you hoping for a noticeable effect from these taxes? At least the content of alcohol and sugar is already labeled on products. If consumers wanted to live healthier lives, they could certainly choose healthier products even now and manufacturers would adapt to this change in demand. But this is not happening. People still buy booze and fruit gums, even though they know that these things are not good for them. One could therefore assume that these taxes will not have the desired effect. In addition to paternalism, it would therefore be just another tax to raise revenue. What would you respond to this?"

"It would be paternalism to ban these goods. That won't happen. But of course it's still the case that people who live unhealthy lifestyles place a higher burden on society and appropriate compensation must be created for this. And it's not as if we don't need any tax revenue at all. I wouldn't say that. Raising taxes is important for the stability of the currency. I just don't think it is a sufficient basis for levying taxes if that is the only state objective that a tax fulfills. A healthy lifestyle becomes cheaper and an unhealthy lifestyle becomes more expensive, because a healthy lifestyle generates lower costs for society and an unhealthy lifestyle generates higher costs for society. I therefore think a higher tax on these goods is only just. However, these taxes are not so much about imposing a certain way of life on citizens. That is a false perception. The sugar tax in particular is much more about enabling people to lead a healthy lifestyle in the first place. Unfortunately, sugar is used as a cheap flavoring in many products. You could often replace a large proportion of it with other ingredients and it would hardly be noticeable, if at all. So far, this has only not been done because sugar is cheaper than everything else. The aim of the sugar tax is therefore not to stop people from eating sweets, but to make sweets healthier. That is not impossible. The effect I hope these taxes will have is that companies will reduce the amount of alcohol, sugar and caffeine in their products as much as possible so that they can then sell them at a lower price. The figures on the packaging cannot achieve an improvement in the products. Nobody will give up products because they have a higher sugar content as long as there is no alternative or the alternatives is more expensive."

"You say that sugar could often be replaced with other ingredients and I'm sure nobody would disagree with that, but the ingredients people are thinking of are sweeteners. The fear is that a sugar tax will lead to sugar being replaced by sweeteners, which will make the products no longer taste good, while at the same time not even making them healthier. There is more than just one scientific study that proves that sweeteners such as saccharin or sucralose are no healthier or even less healthy than sugar."

"Food will continue to taste good. It's called a sugar tax, but it will most likely apply to all sugar and all sugar substitutes."

"What do you mean with: most likely?"

Taken from Royal Road, this narrative should be reported if found on Amazon.

"There are two substances that already exist, but are still pending due to medical uncertainties and negotiations with the farmers guild and the state of Tor. I can't announce a decision on this yet, so you'll have to take this last question out. If you feel it is necessary, please rewrite my previous statement."

"I understand." The man made a note. "Mhm... I think I speak for many readers when I say that there is an inner aversion to tax increases, but I also think that one should not forget at this point that the sales tax on these products will be dropped, which will also make many of them cheaper, I assume?"

"You should not have an inner aversion to tax increases, even if they have no obvious offset. You should inform yourself about the reasons for a tax increase and then decide what position you take on it. But otherwise that is correct. These three taxes are the replacement for sales tax on food and beverages."

"Is that completely offset?"

"If everything stays as it is, then for the most part. If it works the way I imagine it will, then it won't. After all, if everything were healthy, nothing would be heavily taxed anymore. The lower revenue from these taxes is negligible if they achieve their more important goals. Overall, it's not a significant amount anyway."

"The next logical consequence would be a fat tax. Will there be a fat tax?"

"No. That is not planned. It could be done, but I think that would be way over the top in relation to obesity in the country. You could still introduce the tax as a preventative measure, but in my opinion it would be too complicated and would require too many exceptions and special rules. So there will be no fat tax."

"You mentioned other taxes that will be increased. What is the aim of these other tax increases?

"The increase in the smoke drug tax, leather tax, fur tax and jewelry tax only serve to offset reductions in corporate taxes, to which we will come later. Taxes on consumption are always mainly about controlling consumer behavior. The aim of the smoke drug tax is to limit the consumption of these drugs. The aim of the jewelry tax was originally to leave jewels for coins, but even though the tax is no longer so extensive and the production of jewelry coins is now severely limited, it remains as a kind of luxury tax. The aim of the tax on animal skins is to reduce the lucrativeness of the trade with these goods and thus also the keeping of these animals through the higher prices of these goods. The fur tax is higher because these animals often have no domestic market for meat."

Marah was surprisingly transparent today. This was probably the first time she explained that the jewelry tax was just a luxury tax. Originally, the tax had been much higher and highly complex. There were different tax rates on different precious metals and precious stones and duties to match, but today it was just a fixed rate on everything sold as jewelry. The transparency was surprising, as Marah had decided the tax and duties herself back then. Both had long caused a lot of extra work, especially for the border guard, or GSW for short. It had paid off to smuggle certain precious stones abroad until the criticism became so great that Marah felt compelled to make changes. Tax and customs duties were changed and the jewelry coins were mostly discontinued. That did not mean that things did not work out the way Marah had wanted.

"As you have probably heard, Baele, and you personally, were recently sharply criticized by the World Healer Association for the lax approach to smoke drugs. Compared to neighboring countries, taxes on smoke drugs are low. A pack of 20 cigarettes currently costs only around 4.00 S-Mark. A pack of the same quantity of mixed cigarettes also costs only 5.00 S-Mark. There are hardly any restrictions on advertising, hardly any restrictions on package design, no bans on flavor additives. The industry tries to appeal to children with colorful packs, fruit flavors and mascots. One in seven is an active smoker. According to a study by the World Healer Association, just one sixth of the costs incurred by society, primarily due to the consequences of tobacco consumption, are covered by the smoke drug tax. There are frequent calls for a substantial increase in the smoke drug tax to fully cover these costs. With the increase proposed by the World Healer Association, the price of a pack would then be around 20.00 S-Mark. But now it sounds as if you have no plans to increase the tax at all or to take any other action against smoke drugs."

"That's not the case. I wouldn't have announced this today, but a complete ban on advertising for smoking drugs and alcohol is in the works. In general, there will also be new restrictions on advertising aimed at children. And don't get me wrong. I just said that the increases are a compensation for reductions in corporate taxes, but that's not necessarily the case from the consumer's point of view. Businesses won't absorb the increase themselves if they don't have to. Goods with rather low price elasticity, where companies have a high degree of market power, such as with smoke drugs, will certainly become more expensive. I would like all citizens not to consume any drugs, but I am not going to enforce it. However, my attitude has nothing to do with the criticism from the World Healer Association. The fact that they speak out against smoke drugs is only because they don't grow any themselves and they like to make themselves important. Have a look at their studies to see when they last said something against drugs that they produce in-house. They never have. They never will. When it comes to money, the hippocratic oath quickly turns into a hypocritical one. Almost all the figures from this latest study are far-fetched. I can explain how they calculated it. First you take the direct costs from the healthcare system, for example treatment until death, then you subtract an estimate of indirect costs, such as house fires or the loss caused by the premature death of a worker, then you add the revenue from the tax and then you have a large negative figure. From an economic point of view, people always like to calculate what income they would have had in an alternative future, but not so much what costs they would have incurred there. One is simply an economic view through a crystal ball into a parallel world. The other has nothing to do with reality. At least that's how it was explained to me once. More expensive than someone who dies of lung cancer is someone who dies five years later from something else. Someone who receives a pension for another five years. Someone who keeps burdening the healthcare system with new things for five years until they finally die anyway. It is not a valid argument to have the smoke drug tax higher than ours because of the cost of the consequences of smoking. Smokers are already in the black. If it were really only about these costs, then the sugar tax, for example, would be even more important. Smokers work hard all their lives and then die within months. Fat people don't. If you are fat, I should therefore advise you from a state-economic point of view to go on a cigarette diet. Smoking suppresses hunger, you'll find it easier to lose weight and when you're slim, you'll simply stop again. From a fully governmental point of view, however, I would advise you to lose weight in other ways instead."

.../ End Part