direct taxes such as the proposed tax on red meat are highly regressive. This means that families on low incomes will struggle to cope with the increase in the price of red meat as it is these families that have lower disposable incomes due to their inability to save. Therefore these families are paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes compared to the rich. One example where this is clearly seen is the excise duty of cigarettes. It is well known that most cigarette smokers are on lower incomes anyway so this tax is highly regressive. Remler 2004 found that due to recent significant rises in cigarette taxes, the issue of regression is now a more substantial issue. To illustrate, in New York City their federal cigarette taxes are now $3.39 per pack. This makes the tax bill over $1200 per annum for a pack-a-day smoker which is highly significant to those on poor incomes (Remler 2004).

To conclude, it is clear that if left to the market there will be market failure where the consumption of red meat is concerned, so the government will need to intervene somehow to correct this. However, it is up to the government to ensure that their government intervention does not need to government failure: where government intervention, in this case, taxation subsequently leads to a misallocation of resources by distorting the price mechanism. To avoid this, it is evident that significant regulation will need to be implemented alongside the taxation despite the expenses, to avoid government failure and ensure maximum efficacy of this possible tax in the long-run.