Interesting article
Taxing Harmful Habits
MARIUS VAN OORDT, CHRISTOPH B. ROSENBERG
https://www.imf.org/en/publications/fandd/issues/2026/03/taxing-harmful-habits-christoph-rosenberg

"Taxes on smoking, drinking, and sugar should better align with the harm they cause.

Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,” Benjamin Franklin famously wrote in 1789. But what if the latter could at least delay the former? That’s one reason for excise taxes on unhealthy products like alcohol, tobacco, and sugar.

Such taxes are an attractive way to both mobilize much-needed domestic tax revenue and encourage healthier behavior, especially in low-income countries as aid budgets are drying up. Nudging people to smoke and drink less also helps reduce public health expenditures."

The article provides some international comparison of tax rates and argues for regional cooperation - "To get the most out of harm-based health taxes, countries must work together to account for regional market dynamics. Large tax differences across borders can motivate consumers to seek out cheaper options next door, reducing both health impact and revenue."  It proposes a way forward  "Taxation is more than a fiscal instrument; it is a powerful lever for shaping healthier societies. Linking excise taxes to relative health risks can reduce preventable diseases while supporting sustainable revenues, particularly when applied comprehensively and consistently. Conversely, loopholes, misaligned incentives, and fragmented approaches lead to revenue losses and continued exposure to avoidable harm. Tax systems must therefore shift with evolving consumption patterns and product offerings.

That shift cannot happen in isolation. It requires internationally shared principles on how to curb cross-border arbitrage and illicit trade. Global institutions such as the IMF, and especially regional bodies like the EU and the African Union, are pivotal in advancing frameworks that align taxation with harm and promote innovation toward safer products. Such advances will strengthen both public health and fiscal resilience."

PFM Board thoughts?

Interesting article that is more than just tangential to the overall topic!

By MICHAEL SPENCE who is is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and Philip H. Knight Professor and dean, emeritus, at Stanford Graduate School of Business. In 2001, he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Introductory paragraphs:

"When The Wealth of Nations was published on March 9, 1776, there was no such thing as an economics profession. Two hundred fifty years on, there is no shortage of economists, and Adam Smith is widely regarded as the godfather of their profession.

If asked, Smith would have probably described himself as a Scot who made a living as a moral philosopher. And as for his famous book, it came to be seen as a true expression of the Enlightenment. This period of cultural and intellectual flourishing helped create an alternative vision for humanity based on reason, science, individual liberty, and human dignity.

Despite detours and missteps, it is a moral frame of reference that resonates to this day. It is why we continue to listen to what Smith had to say.

He illuminated the structural foundations of modern economies. Although he is best known for his idea of the “invisible hand,” Smith gave us an insight that is even more important: Moving from a static, subsistence economy to increasing income and prosperity requires what he called the “division of labor.”

Without this specialization, one cannot achieve dramatic increases in productivity coming from scale economies, learning curves, and improved conditions for innovation. Like all scientific discoveries, it seems obvious after the fact. "

https://www.imf.org/en/publications/fandd/issues/series/analytical-series/how-to-promote-the-wealth-of-nations-spence

The response reported by the BBC News

"One of Donald Trump's most senior economic advisers has said a group of economists should be "disciplined" for a Federal Reserve study which argued that US firms and consumers have borne the brunt of the president's tariffs.

National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett said the report, published by the New York Federal Reserve, was "an embarrassment" and "the worst paper I've ever seen in the history of the Federal Reserve system".

It found that last year, 90% of the cost of increased tariffs was paid for by US companies and shoppers.

Hassett's comments to CNBC are the latest attack by the Trump administration on the Federal Reserve which have, until now, been focused on interest rates.

The paper by the New York Fed , external was released as the US Supreme Court weighs a legal challenge to Trump's sweeping global tariffs.

US firms and consumers continue to bear the bulk of the economic burden of the high tariffs imposed in 2025."

Hassett, who is director of the National Economic Council, said that prices had fallen, inflation was lower and "real wages were up $1,400 on average last year, which means that consumers were made better off by the tariffs".

He told CNBC: "The people associated with this paper should presumably be disciplined, because what they've done is they've put out a conclusion which has created a lot of news that's highly partisan based on analysis that wouldn't be accepted in a first-semester econ class.""

If what he claims is trues re his data, what would they be like without the tariffs?

Perhaps he thinks tariffs are an export tax levied by  the exporting country and the receipts are transferred to the US which accounts for the increase in federal revenue from trade there?

 Article by Syriacus Buguzi in The Lancet
Volume 406, Issue 10519p2525-2526November 29, 2025

"Following a large drop in international aid, and the harms that followed, Tanzania is taking steps to decrease its reliance on external funding for health. Syriacus Buguzi reports from Dar es Salaam.
Having relied for decades on foreign aid to tackle health issues such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, Tanzania is taking a major step to fund its own health care following US President Donald Trump's policies that led to widespread aid cuts. The east African nation now aims to generate additional revenue from taxpayers, totalling US$225 million—about half of its 2024–25 health-care budget—to make up for declining donor funding for HIV and other health initiatives.
Tanzania's move epitomises a broader global trend where developing nations are seeking greater self-reliance as international priorities shift. Inspired by the “trade, not aid” model, countries including Rwanda and Ethiopia have already made strides in domestic health financing, reducing dependency on external aid and minimising vulnerability to geopolitical changes.
Donors have historically funded more than 40% of Tanzania's health expenditures, according to REPOA, a policy research organisation in Tanzania. The USA was the largest funder, contributing $2·8 billion annually between 2012 and 2022, but other major donors include the UK, Canada, and Scandanavian countries as well as The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, The World Bank, and WHO. In 2024, for example, Tanzania received $166 million in HIV/AIDS assistance from the USA. It is the seventh largest recipient of aid in Africa.

However, after Trump took office earlier this year, all foreign aid spending was frozen as part of his America First agenda, with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) dismantled and the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) transformed. Official development assistance to Tanzania plummeted from $761 million in 2013 to a projected $118 million in 2025, a severe reduction that forces the country to pursue a path of self-reliance.
For Tanzania, these changes have served as a wake-up call, prompting an overdue commitment to financial autonomy in the health sector. “The decline in development assistance is already palpable, and its impact is felt so acutely that it necessitates a huge investment in our healthcare systems now more than ever”, says Ntuli Kapologwe, a Tanzanian health systems researcher and Director General of the East, Central, and Southern Africa Health Community.
In June, in response to significant cuts in aid from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Tanzania's then Minister of Finance, Mwigulu Nchemba, announced a raft of measures including new taxes and levies to raise additional revenue for health care. This includes increased excise duties on alcoholic beverages and electronic communication services, and new levies on fuel, minerals, imported vehicles, sports betting, land-based casinos, and train and air transportation tickets.

The Ministry of Finance said that 30% of the revenue from the taxes and levies go to the Universal Health Fund, established to help finance Tanzania's push towards universal health coverage. The other 70% of the revenue would be allocated to the AIDS Trust Fund—an initiative established by Parliament in 2001 to increase domestic funding for the country's HIV/AIDS response. According to UNAIDS, an estimated 1·7 million people in Tanzania were living with HIV in 2022. The fund “had remained largely dormant, despite showing promising results between 2016 and 2020 when there were efforts to implement initiatives”, says Elisha Osati, a researcher in infectious diseases and Chairman of the Tanzania Sickle Cell Disease Alliance who has been advocating for the revival of the AIDS fund in the wake of the aid crisis. The funds are expected to help sustain the supply of antiretroviral drugs, strengthen the wider national HIV health system, and support progress towards the UNAIDS 95-95-95 HIV goals."

Full text

Interesting article in IMF F&D Magazine

Behind the Veil of Tariff Fixation
MICHAEL PETTIS
September 2025

The world needs a broader conception of trade policy that considers how economies allocate income

"In the heated debates over trade policy in Washington and beyond, tariffs are often portrayed as the primary—or even the sole—instrument by which governments intervene in global commerce. They are easy to quantify, easier to politicize, and readily wielded in bilateral negotiations.

But this focus on tariffs is misleading. It obscures the more fundamental mechanisms by which countries shape their trade relationships with the world. Because a country’s internal imbalances between consumption and production must always be consistent with its external imbalances, anything that affects the former must affect the latter, and vice versa. Tariffs are just one of many tools a government can use to change a country’s internal imbalance.

Like most such tools, tariffs work by shifting income from consumers to producers. But because of their visibility, they are often among the most politically contentious of these tools. By contrast, many of the most powerful trade interventions in today’s world occur not as tariffs but as policy choices that don’t appear to be related to trade at all. Fiscal decisions, regulatory structures, labor policies, and institutional norms can all affect how income is distributed, and how economies are balanced between consumption and production, with far-reaching implications for global trade.

To understand why tariffs receive such disproportionate attention, it helps to consider their visibility. A tariff is a line item in a trade negotiation affecting the price of an imported good. It’s easy to identify, easy to weaponize, easy to reverse, and very obviously linked to trade. But the very simplicity that makes a tariff politically salient also makes it a poor proxy for trade policy as a whole."


https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2025/09/point-of-view-behind-the-veil-of-tariff-fixation-michael-pettis