Sin Taxes

[BlancoNino]

In my opinion, they are a double-standard. The government would like nothing more than for people to quit smoking and drinking, yet they go ahead and rely on cigarette and alcohol addicts to fund state governments. This is wrong.

Discuss.

 

[mugs]

Next forum down man.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: mugs
Next forum down man.

 

[mugs]

My hand smells like ball sweat.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: mugs
Next forum down man.

I chose not to post in P&N because this really isn't "news", nor is it the type of subject I think would get much attention from the P&N crowd. They tend to mostly talk about republicans and democrats and the war.

 

[FoBoT]

I have poured hot grits down my pants. Thank you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Actually it doesn't seem logically inconsistent to me. Alcohol and tobacco have enormous systemic costs, so it makes sense to me to make them expensive to end users, and to pocket the proceeds.

I don't use tobacco, but as best I can think of, it is the only product that is fatally harmful to the consumer if used correctly. I think there are persuasive arguments for making it illegal, and to the extent it's still allowed, I'm not troubled by taxing the hell out of it.

I do use alcohol, but I can't say with a straight face that it's a good thing for the human race, and there's no question it is involved in a very high percentage of crimes, and leads to a lot of premature deaths. Once again, I wouldn't be troubled by making it costlier, since it is so costly to our society at large.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Actually it doesn't seem logically inconsistent to me. Alcohol and tobacco have enormous systemic costs, so it makes sense to me to make them expensive to end users, and to pocket the proceeds.

I don't use tobacco, but it strikes me as one of the only products that is fatally harmful to the consumer if used correctly. I think there are persuasive arguments for making it illegal, and to the extent it's still allowed, I'm not troubled by taxing the hell out of it.

I do use alcohol, but I can't say with a straight face that it's a good thing for the human race, and there's no question it is involved in a very high percentage of crimes, and leads to a lot of premature deaths. Once again, I wouldn't be troubled by making it costlier, since it is so costly to our society at large.

I disagree. There are highly productive members of our society who use Tobacco and Alcohol. They can be used responsibly. Making them more expensive results in less money for people. These taxes (usually advocated by liberals) are aimed clearly at the middle and lower-class, while calling them "sin" taxes.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I disagree. There are highly productive members of our society who use Tobacco and Alcohol. They can be used responsibly. Making them more expensive results in less money for people. These taxes (usually advocated by liberals) are aimed clearly at the middle and lower-class, while calling them "sin" taxes.

Cry me a river. You have also recently advocated for the "right" to drive drunk. I see this as part of the same whole. Tobacco is poison, plain and simple, and if the tobacco lobby weren't well-financed and influential, it wouldn't be legal, period. I like (hell, love) alcohol, but it's sheer fantasy to pretend it isn't a ruinous substance from a societal standpoint. Your argument that productive members of society use tobacco and alcohol is fundamentally irrelevent - you could say the same thing about meth, cocaine, and heroin. Frankly I favor the legalization of all of these substances, but I also favor taxing them in a way that reflects their societal cost.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I disagree. There are highly productive members of our society who use Tobacco and Alcohol. They can be used responsibly. Making them more expensive results in less money for people. These taxes (usually advocated by liberals) are aimed clearly at the middle and lower-class, while calling them "sin" taxes.

Cry me a river. You have also recently advocated for the "right" to drive drunk. I see this as part of the same whole. Tobacco is poison, plain and simple, and if the tobacco lobby weren't well-financed and influential, it wouldn't be legal, period. I like (hell, love) alcohol, but it's sheer fantasy to pretend it isn't a ruinous substance from a societal standpoint. Your argument that productive members of society use tobacco and alcohol is fundamentally irrelevent - you could say the same thing about meth, cocaine, and heroin. Frankly I favor the legalization of all of these substances, but I also favor taxing them in a way that reflects their societal cost.

Part of the foundation of this country is tobacco.

I favor the legalization of all drugs as well. However, "sin taxes", which are taxes placed on harmful substances, are basically the government's way of saying "these are bad for you, and we're here to tell you that". It is not the government's role to punish us for buying things that harm us. It is our decision.

You say that tobacco and alcohol have systematic costs. That does not apply to all users. Furthermore, I don't see a tax on murder or theft. Don't they have systematic costs as well?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Part of the foundation of this country is tobacco.

I favor the legalization of all drugs as well. However, "sin taxes", which are taxes placed on harmful substances, are basically the government's way of saying "these are bad for you, and we're here to tell you that". It is not the government's role to punish us for buying things that harm us. It is our decision.

You say that tobacco and alcohol have systematic costs. That does not apply to all users. Furthermore, I don't see a tax on murder or theft. Don't they have systematic costs as well?

Those are absurdly thin arguments, and I imagine you know it. That alone should tell you something.

The fact that there are "responsible" tobacco users doesn't change the fact that tobacco is a poisonous substance that is, if used correctly, fatal. You're inferring that "sin taxes" are mean to send a message to the substances' users, when in fact I see them as an appropriate means for taxing their voluntary users for the societal cost of these substances. The fact that some people don't drive drunk or commit robbery or murder while drunk doesn't change the fact that these are common side-effects of alcohol use.

I am perplexed by your, IMO, silly argument that murder and theft are not "taxed." These are obviously harmful activities, but they are not taxable profitable activities, and to the extent people are proven to have robbed and murdered, they are imprisoned, effectively a tax. Frankly it's telling that you've resorted to such a silly position after so little argument - if you have any substantive arguments, make them now or forever hold your peace.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The fact that there are "responsible" tobacco users doesn't change the fact that tobacco is a poisonous substance that is, if used correctly, fatal. You're inferring that "sin taxes" are mean to send a message to the substances' users, when in fact I see them as an appropriate means for taxing their voluntary users for the societal cost of these substances.

Then the government should place excessive taxes on fast food, sweets and other poor nutritional food choices...given that obesity is placing the greatest strain on our health care system.

Fast and junk food, when consumed regularly, is equally poisonous.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Actually it doesn't seem logically inconsistent to me. Alcohol and tobacco have enormous systemic costs, so it makes sense to me to make them expensive to end users, and to pocket the proceeds.

I don't use tobacco, but as best I can think of, it is the only product that is fatally harmful to the consumer if used correctly. I think there are persuasive arguments for making it illegal, and to the extent it's still allowed, I'm not troubled by taxing the hell out of it.

I do use alcohol, but I can't say with a straight face that it's a good thing for the human race, and there's no question it is involved in a very high percentage of crimes, and leads to a lot of premature deaths. Once again, I wouldn't be troubled by making it costlier, since it is so costly to our society at large.

I agree that its somewhat ok to tax an activity that we think has harmful effects on society, but I don't really think the idea of a 'sin' tax is ok at all. As long as there really is a significant cost to society, like alcohol use then I don't see a problem. But what if some nuts decide they want to start taxing the hell out of condoms or birth control because they think its sinful to use them? A line must be drawn between taxing something because some people feel it is wrong versus because it actually has negative effects on society.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Part of the foundation of this country is tobacco.

I favor the legalization of all drugs as well. However, "sin taxes", which are taxes placed on harmful substances, are basically the government's way of saying "these are bad for you, and we're here to tell you that". It is not the government's role to punish us for buying things that harm us. It is our decision.

You say that tobacco and alcohol have systematic costs. That does not apply to all users. Furthermore, I don't see a tax on murder or theft. Don't they have systematic costs as well?

Those are absurdly thin arguments, and I imagine you know it. That alone should tell you something.

The fact that there are "responsible" tobacco users doesn't change the fact that tobacco is a poisonous substance that is, if used correctly, fatal.

You're inferring that "sin taxes" are mean to send a message to the substances' users, when in fact I see them as an appropriate means for taxing their voluntary users for the societal cost of these substances. The fact that some people don't drive drunk or commit robbery or murder while drunk doesn't change the fact that these are common side-effects of alcohol use.

I am perplexed by your, IMO, silly argument that murder and theft are not "taxed." These are obviously harmful activities, but they are not taxable profitable activities, and to the extent people are proven to have robbed and murdered, they are imprisoned, effectively a tax. Frankly it's telling that you've resorted to such a silly position after so little argument - if you have any substantive arguments, make them now or forever hold your peace.

Shakes head.

The logic of the rich is baffling. Trying to makes sense of them is not possible Don.

They feel as though they above everything as if they are no longer human, no longer sh!t the same way as you and I.

This is why Politicians are so out of touch with the common man because it is only the rich that can be Politicians in America now.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Part of the foundation of this country is tobacco.

I favor the legalization of all drugs as well. However, "sin taxes", which are taxes placed on harmful substances, are basically the government's way of saying "these are bad for you, and we're here to tell you that". It is not the government's role to punish us for buying things that harm us. It is our decision.

You say that tobacco and alcohol have systematic costs. That does not apply to all users. Furthermore, I don't see a tax on murder or theft. Don't they have systematic costs as well?

Those are absurdly thin arguments, and I imagine you know it. That alone should tell you something.

The fact that there are "responsible" tobacco users doesn't change the fact that tobacco is a poisonous substance that is, if used correctly, fatal.

You're inferring that "sin taxes" are mean to send a message to the substances' users, when in fact I see them as an appropriate means for taxing their voluntary users for the societal cost of these substances. The fact that some people don't drive drunk or commit robbery or murder while drunk doesn't change the fact that these are common side-effects of alcohol use.

I am perplexed by your, IMO, silly argument that murder and theft are not "taxed." These are obviously harmful activities, but they are not taxable profitable activities, and to the extent people are proven to have robbed and murdered, they are imprisoned, effectively a tax. Frankly it's telling that you've resorted to such a silly position after so little argument - if you have any substantive arguments, make them now or forever hold your peace.

Shakes head.

The logic of the rich is baffling. Trying to makes sense of them is not possible Don.

They feel as though they above everything as if they are no longer human, no longer sh!t the same way as you and I.

This is why Politicians are so out of touch with the common man because it is only the rich that can be Politicians in America now.

Your proof that you don't have to be rich to be out of touch with the common man.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Part of the foundation of this country is tobacco.

I favor the legalization of all drugs as well. However, "sin taxes", which are taxes placed on harmful substances, are basically the government's way of saying "these are bad for you, and we're here to tell you that". It is not the government's role to punish us for buying things that harm us. It is our decision.

You say that tobacco and alcohol have systematic costs. That does not apply to all users. Furthermore, I don't see a tax on murder or theft. Don't they have systematic costs as well?

Those are absurdly thin arguments, and I imagine you know it. That alone should tell you something.

The fact that there are "responsible" tobacco users doesn't change the fact that tobacco is a poisonous substance that is, if used correctly, fatal.

You're inferring that "sin taxes" are mean to send a message to the substances' users, when in fact I see them as an appropriate means for taxing their voluntary users for the societal cost of these substances. The fact that some people don't drive drunk or commit robbery or murder while drunk doesn't change the fact that these are common side-effects of alcohol use.

I am perplexed by your, IMO, silly argument that murder and theft are not "taxed." These are obviously harmful activities, but they are not taxable profitable activities, and to the extent people are proven to have robbed and murdered, they are imprisoned, effectively a tax. Frankly it's telling that you've resorted to such a silly position after so little argument - if you have any substantive arguments, make them now or forever hold your peace.

Shakes head.

The logic of the rich is baffling. Trying to makes sense of them is not possible Don.

They feel as though they above everything as if they are no longer human, no longer sh!t the same way as you and I.

This is why Politicians are so out of touch with the common man because it is only the rich that can be Politicians in America now.

Your proof that you don't have to be rich to be out of touch with the common man.

True but I still sh!t the same.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Part of the foundation of this country is tobacco.

I favor the legalization of all drugs as well. However, "sin taxes", which are taxes placed on harmful substances, are basically the government's way of saying "these are bad for you, and we're here to tell you that". It is not the government's role to punish us for buying things that harm us. It is our decision.

You say that tobacco and alcohol have systematic costs. That does not apply to all users. Furthermore, I don't see a tax on murder or theft. Don't they have systematic costs as well?

Those are absurdly thin arguments, and I imagine you know it. That alone should tell you something.

The fact that there are "responsible" tobacco users doesn't change the fact that tobacco is a poisonous substance that is, if used correctly, fatal.

You're inferring that "sin taxes" are mean to send a message to the substances' users, when in fact I see them as an appropriate means for taxing their voluntary users for the societal cost of these substances. The fact that some people don't drive drunk or commit robbery or murder while drunk doesn't change the fact that these are common side-effects of alcohol use.

I am perplexed by your, IMO, silly argument that murder and theft are not "taxed." These are obviously harmful activities, but they are not taxable profitable activities, and to the extent people are proven to have robbed and murdered, they are imprisoned, effectively a tax. Frankly it's telling that you've resorted to such a silly position after so little argument - if you have any substantive arguments, make them now or forever hold your peace.

Shakes head.

The logic of the rich is baffling. Trying to makes sense of them is not possible Don.

They feel as though they above everything as if they are no longer human, no longer sh!t the same way as you and I.

This is why Politicians are so out of touch with the common man because it is only the rich that can be Politicians in America now.

Your proof that you don't have to be rich to be out of touch with the common man.

True but I still sh!t the same.

We know, we see the result all over this forum everytime you post.

 

[sandorski]

Good

 

[BlancoNino]

Don, I've posted some great arguments. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean they are "thin" by any means. I didn't attack your arguments, I simply just disagree with them.

I raise you this question. If somebody wants to shave 10 years off their life by smoking, why does the government need more money out of them? What are they taking from the government by giving themselves an early death? If anything, they are giving more back to the government because that's 10 less years they will be drawing out of social security. I don't see why people think the government should be our mom.

Liberals constantly complain about conservative tax breaks for the "rich", yet turn around and put HUGE tax increases on things that are aimed toward the middle and lower class (i.e. sin taxes).

*Shakes head...what a piss poor double-standard.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: DonVito
Actually it doesn't seem logically inconsistent to me. Alcohol and tobacco have enormous systemic costs, so it makes sense to me to make them expensive to end users, and to pocket the proceeds.

I don't use tobacco, but as best I can think of, it is the only product that is fatally harmful to the consumer if used correctly. I think there are persuasive arguments for making it illegal, and to the extent it's still allowed, I'm not troubled by taxing the hell out of it.

I do use alcohol, but I can't say with a straight face that it's a good thing for the human race, and there's no question it is involved in a very high percentage of crimes, and leads to a lot of premature deaths. Once again, I wouldn't be troubled by making it costlier, since it is so costly to our society at large.

I agree that its somewhat ok to tax an activity that we think has harmful effects on society, but I don't really think the idea of a 'sin' tax is ok at all. As long as there really is a significant cost to society, like alcohol use then I don't see a problem. But what if some nuts decide they want to start taxing the hell out of condoms or birth control because they think its sinful to use them? A line must be drawn between taxing something because some people feel it is wrong versus because it actually has negative effects on society.

Indeed sin tax is a bad name for it, but I guess "taxing activities with known negative economic and social consequences both for the individual who engages in them and for others" wasn't quite as catchy. Alchohol is causative in a lot of vehicular accidents on public roads, therefore it should be taxed at least enough to pay for the public costs thus incurred. Tobacco causes health problems and fires which also costs public money, furthermore most people start smoking when they are young adolescents, then get addicted. Thus it should be taxed both to pay for public expenses incurred and to reduce teen smoking. Using nonrenewable fuels decreases dwindling supplies which are relied upon by all of society. Therefore all nonrenewable fuel usage should have some tax on it to encourage use of renewables. Since completely renewable fuels aren't here yet, this could mean taxing automotive fuels which are less than 4% renewable.

Condoms should be taxed because there are a limited number of them, they come from condom mines under the mountains, and when they're gone, they're gone. While slippery slope arguments are inherently invalid, there are plenty of examples already of things which are illegal because someone decided they were "bad" despite contradictory evidence. Often the decision is really made by a competing industry with an inside line. Marijuana is banned because the cotton/textile industry didn't want competition, despite strong support of medical uses in the research, and only very tenuous evidence of any health impact.

Other things are banned for political posturing, rather than obvious profit motive. Prostitution is illegal when regulating it instead would be more effective at controlling the spread of std. Birth control pills are safer than asprin or tylenol and should be over the counter, but are not. People keep trying to ban abortion even though a much more effective way to reduce abortion rates would be to improve ease of access of alternative contraception. Abstinence only programs are well known to cause increased rates of teen pregnancy and abortion, so why do the same people who lobby to ban abortion try to promote programs that increase abortion rates?

There is a serious problem of government regulation being based on political whimsy rather than actual evidence (case in point kansas school boards), but this would be better addressed by putting the burden of proof on the government to establish that a previously legal substance is harmful rather than by limiting the ability to tax harmful activities. The government needs to get money somehow, and if it does so by taxing activities with established and well documented negative externalities then that's better than taking it from my paychecks.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Don, I've posted some great arguments. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean they are "thin" by any means. I didn't attack your arguments, I simply just disagree with them.

I raise you this question. If somebody wants to shave 10 years off their life by smoking, why does the government need more money out of them? What are they taking from the government by giving themselves an early death? If anything, they are giving more back to the government because that's 10 less years they will be drawing out of social security. I don't see why people think the government should be our mom.

Liberals constantly complain about conservative tax breaks for the "rich", yet turn around and put HUGE tax increases on things that are aimed toward the middle and lower class (i.e. sin taxes).

*Shakes head...what a piss poor double-standard.

How is that a double standard? In both cases your hypothetical "liberals" are arguing for more taxes. I think you need some rest.

As to your first (ridiculous) argument, smokers don't just drop - they die slow, painful deaths from cancer and emphesema, requiring tremendous amounts of costly medical care along the way. The annual Medicaid cost (which you help pay for, assuming you're a taxpayer) for tobacco-related medical care is more than $75,000,000,000, and about 14 percent of all Medicaid costs are attributable to smoking. The annual cost for lost productivity thanks to tobacco use is more than $80,000,000,000. CDC estimates that the total cost to the public of each pack of cigarettes smoked is $7.18, as a result of the enormous toll smoking takes on our tax load and economy.

From my perspective, taxing the hell out of cigarettes fulfills a number of important things: it has been shown to significantly reduce smoking, particularly among teenagers, it brings in revenue that helps balance out the tremendous costs I mentioned above, and it cuts into the profits of the tobacco industry, who are in the business of selling death.

As it happens I agree with PART of what you're saying - I am a live-and-let-live person, and don't genereally agree with "blue laws" that restrict personal freedoms unnecessarily. I do think, though, that where the tobacco industry is hawking such a lethal product, and the public is effectively paying the price for it, we deserve to get some of that money back. I would have no problem with cigarettes costing, say, $10 a pack.

 

[fitzov]

By definition:

sin--bad
profit from sin--bad
tax=profit
tax from sin--bad

 

[ericlp]

hey... let's add some more sin taxes like....

Marijuana and Prostitution... I'd be all for it! Hell, if were gonna go might as well do it right! I can't see going to hell for smoking or drinking....

 

[Vic]

Sin taxes are inherently regressive (i.e., more punitive against the poor than the rich) and also a form of moral authoritarianism (i.e. "we think something is bad for you, we think we know what's best for you, so we're gonna force you to do what we think is best with yourself").

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic
Sin taxes are inherently regressive (i.e., more punitive against the poor than the rich) and also a form of moral authoritarianism (i.e. "we think something is bad for you, we think we know what's best for you, so we're gonna force you to do what we think is best with yourself").

Cry me a river. Tobacco and alcohol effectively cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Their use is entirely optional, whether it's by the rich or the poor, and I see nothing wrong with taking back some of the enormous costs they create for taxpayers. This has nothing to do with the "sinfulness" of these products and everything to do with their cost to society.