Starting with the recommendation for immediate application (year 1), we increased the excise tax rate such that total tax (excluding VAT) is equal to 75% of TIRSP. As excise rate increases, import duty rate is gradually phased out. The average excise per pack increased by 88% and that resulted in 44% increase in average price (Table 3).
Cigarette sales and industry revenue are expected to fall by 11% and 10%, respectively. The change in tax revenue is expected to be even more pronounced. Specifically, excise and VAT revenue are expected to increase by 67% and 28%, respectively. Import duty revenue, however, as expected, will be reduced by 11%. The total tax revenue will increase by 44%. The number of cigarette smokers is expected to decline by 5% and the overall smoking prevalence will fall by 1%.
Due to the ad valorem nature of the excise tax, changes in key market indicators are expected to be more pronounced for premium brands and smaller for economy brands. The price dispersion index is 38%, since the most expensive brand is estimated at SAR 47.37 and the cheapest brand at SAR 18.05. The price dispersion index is relatively low, creating opportunities for trading down.
On average, excise revenue increases by 67%, but the corresponding increase per price segment is 70% for premium, 62% for mid-priced and 54% for economy brands. Post tax reform, total tax is around 80% of TIRSP on average, with this share being higher for low-priced cigarettes (around 87%) due to the minimum import duty to which they are subjected.
The next step (year 2 in Table 3) involves replacing import duties with excise duty keeping total tax share (excluding VAT) constant, that is, set excise tax at 75% of TIRSP and introduce a MET at 70% of weighted average price (WAP). The introduction of MET (SAR 28) has an impact on both mid-priced and economy brands. Excise tax as percentage of TIRSP is 76% for mid-priced and 87% for economy brands. Thus, MET has a significant effect especially for economy brands.
This reform would lead to a further 8% increase in average price, 4% reduction in sales, 4% increase in total cigarette tax revenue and, more specifically, 27% increase in excise revenue and 3% increase in VAT revenue. Furthermore, it will lead to 2% reduction in number of smokers with 0.4% reduction in smoking prevalence.
Finally (year 3 in Table 3), a switch to a revenue-neutral specific tax rate is recommended. The ad valorem rate is replaced by a specific excise such that excise tax revenue remains constant. According to our simulations, this corresponds to a specific excise at SAR 31. Even when we adopt a tax reform that keeps excise revenue constant, the change in tax structure is estimated to lead to a further 1% increase in average pack price, 1% reduction in sales, and 0.3% reduction in number of smokers with 0.1% reduction in prevalence. Setting a higher specific rate will lead to further reductions in sales and increases in tax revenue.
Table 3
Simulated tax effects on consumption, revenue and number of smokers in Saudi Arabia
| Model predictions |
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
Average cigarette pack price (SAR) | 38 | 40 | 41 |
Average total tax per pack | 30 | 33 | 33 |
Average excise per pack | 23 | 31 | 31 |
Change in price per pack | 44% | 8% | 1% |
Change in average excise per pack | 88% | 33% | 1% |
Import duty as % of final price | 13% | - | - |
Excise tax as % of final price | 62% | 76% | 76% |
Total tax as % of final price | 80% | 81% | 81% |
Assume: e(premium)= -0.2; e(mid-price) = -0.3; e(economy)= -0.4 |
Change in number of smokers | - 5% | -2% | -0.3% |
Change in prevalence | - 1% | -0.4% | -0.1% |
Change in sales | -11% | -4% | -1% |
Change in excise revenue | 67% | 27% | 0% |
Change in VAT revenue | 28% | 3% | 5% |
Change in import duty revenue | -11% | - | - |
Change in total tax revenue | 44% | 4% | 0.2% |
Change in industry revenue | -10% | -2% | -0.3% |
Notes: Simulations are performed using the tax simulation model developed by the WHO (WHO TaxSim), with 2018 as the baseline year. Estimations are based on Euromonitor data for Saudi Arabia for December 2017 and government sources. VAT: value added tax; SAR: Saudi Arabia currency in Rials (1 SAR~US $0.27); e: own price elasticity of demand for premium, mid-price and economy brands. |
Overall, the three-year reform would lead to a higher than 50% increase in cigarette prices, 16% reduction in cigarette sales and almost 50% increase in total cigarette tax revenue. The final total tax share would be 81% and the excise share 76% of (all-taxes inclusive) final price.
Assuming an overall price elasticity of demand equal to -0.3, we also estimated the number of deaths averted. Based on the standard estimate that the elasticity of smoking prevalence accounts for half of the total demand elasticity, that one in two of all regular smokers will die eventually, and that all quitters will survive [21], we estimated that 88,340 deaths related to cigarette smoking would be averted after the first year of the tax reform. This is a 6.6% reduction in cigarette-related deaths. Assuming a higher demand elasticity, of course, would lead to more deaths averted. For example, at a total demand elasticity equal to -0.4, cigarette-related deaths would fall by 8.8% (117,787 deaths would be averted) after the first year of the tax reform.
Sensitivity analysis
Our elasticity assumptions are rather conservative. Increasing cigarette demand elasticity per price segment, the estimated reduction in smoking prevalence is higher. Assuming, for example, a demand elasticity of -0.3, -0.4 and -0.5 for premium, medium priced and economy brands respectively (scenario 1), smoking prevalence would fall by 1.4% (- 2.3% over the period of 3 years). Assuming, a demand elasticity of -0.4, -0.5 and -0.6 for premium, medium priced and economy brands respectively (scenario 2), smoking prevalence would fall by 1.8% (- 2.5% over the period of 3 years).
Obviously, depending on the elasticity assumptions, there is a trade-off between a higher decrease in sales and hence the number of smokers and prevalence rate, and a lower increase in tax revenue. In scenario 1 and over the 3-year period, sales would fall by 21%, and excise tax revenue and total tax revenue would increase by 84% and 40%, respectively. In scenario 2 and over the 3-year period, sales would fall by 28%, and excise tax revenue and total tax revenue would increase by 75% and 32%, respectively.
Finally, assuming no trading down, we overestimate the reduction in sales and hence underestimate the increase in tax revenue. When, we allow for some trading down, that is, consumers turning to cheaper brands as prices go up, our results do not change significantly. In the absence of solid data, it is safer not to make any arbitrary assumptions on trading down or up.