Sin Taxes

[sandorski]

"Sin Taxes" are good for a couple reasons:

1) As already mentioned they help recover lost $$ due to the effects of those "Sins"

2) They discourage the use of those Products. As "Sin Taxes" have increased in Canada, so has Consumption. This may not only be the effect of the Taxes, but Educational Programs funded by those taxes are likely a big part of it too.

 

[theeedude]

Good, and not a double standard at all.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito


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.

1. My point is that liberals are always advocating tax cuts for the middle-class. Sin taxes are a tax increase.

2. Isn't medicaid a federal program, whereas sin taxes are state taxes? At least in Washington State that's the way it is. We raised sin taxes to up our transportation budget. I'm against medicaid anyway, it shouldn't be paying for medical costs. "We think you shouldn't be smoking, in fact, we're against smoking. But if you choose to smoke, don't worry, we'll pay for your medical costs!" What hypocrisy.

3. A business is only as good as the consumers who support it. People smoke. It's POSSIBLE to quit, but most people I've talked to say "I'm not ready to quit" or "I don't want to quit". I've seen cocacola addicts, coffee addicts, etc...hell people even die from playing world of warcraft for too long! They're all in the business of selling death as well.

4. Because you don't smoke, do you? Everyone loves to put the tax burden on other people. Why do you think it's been so easy to tax the hell out of the rich? Because most people aren't rich, so the middle and lower class are generally pleased to see them taxed more.

 

[sandorski]

The Rich don't get the "hell" taxed out of them. They have been the only group to see significant Economic gains for decades now. If they were "taxed to hell", obviously hell has a low tax rate.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Rich don't get the "hell" taxed out of them. They have been the only group to see significant Economic gains for decades now. If they were "taxed to hell", obviously hell has a low tax rate.

Their tax bracket is 10-20% more than the middle class.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DonVito


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.

1. My point is that liberals are always advocating tax cuts for the middle-class. Sin taxes are a tax increase.

Conservatives are advocating moving to sales taxes, which this is.
Also, these cigarette taxes are going to:
1. Generate revenues which will pay for programs for the poor and middle class.
2. Reduce smoking, especially among the poor and middle class which will see biggest increases in cigarette taxes, thus improving overall health.

2. Isn't medicaid a federal program, whereas sin taxes are state taxes? At least in Washington State that's the way it is. We raised sin taxes to up our transportation budget. I'm against medicaid anyway, it shouldn't be paying for medical costs. "We think you shouldn't be smoking, in fact, we're against smoking. But if you choose to smoke, don't worry, we'll pay for your medical costs!" What hypocrisy.

Not hypocrisy at all, but of course you know that already. They are saying just the opposite, that if you smoke, you (not "we") will pay the cost through higher cost of cigarettes.

3. A business is only as good as the consumers who support it. People smoke. It's POSSIBLE to quit, but most people I've talked to say "I'm not ready to quit" or "I don't want to quit". I've seen cocacola addicts, coffee addicts, etc...hell people even die from playing world of warcraft for too long! They're all in the business of selling death as well.

Are you comparing lethality from those activities with smoking? Or is it just the red herring. (Rhetorical question)

4. Because you don't smoke, do you? Everyone loves to put the tax burden on other people. Why do you think it's been so easy to tax the hell out of the rich? Because most people aren't rich, so the middle and lower class are generally pleased to see them taxed more.

This is tax against smokers, who are the ones adding more burden to the medical system, so they have to pay more. I appreciate your concern for the rich above all else, but that has nothing to do with smoking.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Rich don't get the "hell" taxed out of them. They have been the only group to see significant Economic gains for decades now. If they were "taxed to hell", obviously hell has a low tax rate.

Their tax bracket is 10-20% more than the middle class.

Since when? The rich don't pay payroll taxes on most of their income, unlike the middle class.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

1. My point is that liberals are always advocating tax cuts for the middle-class. Sin taxes are a tax increase.

2. Isn't medicaid a federal program, whereas sin taxes are state taxes? At least in Washington State that's the way it is. We raised sin taxes to up our transportation budget. I'm against medicaid anyway, it shouldn't be paying for medical costs. "We think you shouldn't be smoking, in fact, we're against smoking. But if you choose to smoke, don't worry, we'll pay for your medical costs!" What hypocrisy.

3. A business is only as good as the consumers who support it. People smoke. It's POSSIBLE to quit, but most people I've talked to say "I'm not ready to quit" or "I don't want to quit". I've seen cocacola addicts, coffee addicts, etc...hell people even die from playing world of warcraft for too long! They're all in the business of selling death as well.

4. Because you don't smoke, do you? Everyone loves to put the tax burden on other people. Why do you think it's been so easy to tax the hell out of the rich? Because most people aren't rich, so the middle and lower class are generally pleased to see them taxed more.

"Sin taxes" are only a tax increase if you use the products being taxed. I don't smoke (largely because I'm not a complete moron), but I do drink alcohol, and have no discomfort paying increased taxes on it to help balance out the enormous cost it creates in terms of subsidized health care, increased crime, and lost productivity.

Along those lines, it seems to me that you should welcome "sin taxes" if you're a flat-tax enthusiast, since these taxes are by definition flat - the law doesn't care WHO is buying the tobacco and alcohol.

It's true that "sin taxes" are a state tax, and Medicaid is federal, though every state has various other subsidized health-care programs that pay vast amounts for care to sick and dying smokers.

Your argument that the makers of coffee, soda, and video games are in the business of "selling death" is, IMO, rather transparently silly and inaccurate - as I said, tobacco is the only product that, if used as designed, kills its consumers. Coffee, alcohol, and video games are all harmless, and in fact beneficial in some respects, when used in moderation. Tobacco simply has no upside from a public-health standpoint.

I don't believe either of us will convince the other, any more than you will convince me that drunk driving is safe, responsible behavior.

 

[BlancoNino]

More "programs" for the middle and lower class huh? Yeah, give the money to us, we'll know how to spend it!

Again, why is it the government's job to reduce smoking? Who are they to say that smoking is something we shouldn't do? It's "OUR" choice. What if people would rather die than give up smoking?

And no they WONT pay for the costs, because as I mentioned, Medicaid is a FEDERAL program, whereas sin taxes go to the STATE. Sin-taxes = unfair manipulation of middle and lower-class to pay for state-funded pork projects.

You don't think high cholesterol is lethal? Last I checked...heart disease was pretty much the number 1 killer, buddy.

I don't get it! You advocate subsidized health-care, and then you advocate taxing things that put a heavy burden on those subsidies...where do the taxes end? The middle-class can do a lot better things with their money. Alcohol increases crime? Ha, only because we've decided to make more laws out of it, thus making more people criminals.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
More "programs" for the middle and lower class huh? Yeah, give the money to us, we'll know how to spend it!

Again, why is it the government's job to reduce smoking? Who are they to say that smoking is something we shouldn't do? It's "OUR" choice. What if people would rather die than give up smoking?

And no they WONT pay for the costs, because as I mentioned, Medicaid is a FEDERAL program, whereas sin taxes go to the STATE. Sin-taxes = unfair manipulation of middle and lower-class to pay for state-funded pork projects.

You don't think high cholesterol is lethal? Last I checked...heart disease was pretty much the number 1 killer, buddy.

Uh, last I checked, "buddy," tobacco use was among the greatest causes of heart disease.

Again, the government's incentive to curb smoking comes from the enormous amount government pays to deal with the antecedent illness and lost productivity.

As I said above, "sin taxes" are by definition flat taxes - they do not "manipulate" middle- or lower-class people any more than anyone else. They simply tax people who choose to use tobacco and alcohol. By way of illustration, as it happens my profession (the law) has the highest rate of alcoholism of any career field, but we're not generally poor people.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Uh, last I checked, "buddy," tobacco use was among the greatest causes of heart disease.

Again, the government's incentive to curb smoking comes from the enormous amount government pays to deal with the antecedent illness and lost productivity.

As I said above, "sin taxes" are by definition flat taxes - they do not "manipulate" middle- or lower-class people any more than anyone else. They simply tax people who choose to use tobacco and alcohol. By way of illustration, as it happens my profession (the law) has the highest rate of alcoholism of any career field, but we're not generally poor people.

Why would the government want to curb something that is funding their state projects? That doesn't make sense. I still don't see why nobody is advocating slashing medical benefits to smokers...seems like that's the root of the problem.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I don't get it! You advocate subsidized health-care, and then you advocate taxing things that put a heavy burden on those subsidies...where do the taxes end? The middle-class can do a lot better things with their money. Alcohol increases crime? Ha, only because we've decided to make more laws out of it, thus making more people criminals.

I don't think anyone in this thread has "advocated subsidized health care." To the extent I do, though, "sin taxes" reduce the cost of subsidized health care, rather than increasing it.

You obviously don't know much about crime. As it happens that is the field that has consumed most of my professional life, and my mother has been a trial judge since I was 12. Roughly 40% of all violent crimes, and 30% of all sexual assaults, involve offenders who have been drinking. Roughly 2/3 of domestic abuse offenders are under the influence of alcohol when they commit their crimes.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I don't get it! You advocate subsidized health-care, and then you advocate taxing things that put a heavy burden on those subsidies...where do the taxes end? The middle-class can do a lot better things with their money. Alcohol increases crime? Ha, only because we've decided to make more laws out of it, thus making more people criminals.

I don't think anyone in this thread has "advocated subsidized health care." To the extent I do, though, "sin taxes" reduce the cost of subsidized health care, rather than increasing it.

You obviously don't know much about crime. As it happens that is the field that has consumed most of my professional life, and my mother has been a trial judge since I was 12. Roughly 40% of all violent crimes, and 30% of all sexual assaults, involve offenders who have been drinking. Roughly 2/3 of domestic abuse offenders are under the influence of alcohol when they commit their crimes.

This is a little off-topic, but a police officer around here told me that anytime there is a call for domestic abuse, SOMEBODY has to go to jail (husband or wife). This could involve just a minor shove, or a slap. What happened to the days when the officer would come into the house and just help resolve the fight?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Rich don't get the "hell" taxed out of them. They have been the only group to see significant Economic gains for decades now. If they were "taxed to hell", obviously hell has a low tax rate.

Their tax bracket is 10-20% more than the middle class.

That's obviously not "to hell" then.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Rich don't get the "hell" taxed out of them. They have been the only group to see significant Economic gains for decades now. If they were "taxed to hell", obviously hell has a low tax rate.

Their tax bracket is 10-20% more than the middle class.

That's obviously not "to hell" then.

It's double.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
More "programs" for the middle and lower class huh? Yeah, give the money to us, we'll know how to spend it!

Again, why is it the government's job to reduce smoking? Who are they to say that smoking is something we shouldn't do? It's "OUR" choice. What if people would rather die than give up smoking?

The government didn't ban smoking. You can still smoke if you want to. It is your choice.
The government is just making sure that it can pay for the increased medical costs.

And no they WONT pay for the costs, because as I mentioned, Medicaid is a FEDERAL program, whereas sin taxes go to the STATE.

You really have no clue. Medicaid doesn't pay all of the states' expenses. States spend a lot of money on healthcare as well.

Sin-taxes = unfair manipulation of middle and lower-class to pay for state-funded pork projects.

Of course in your elitist head you assume that the middle and lower classes are dumb enough to allow such manipulations. If they don't like it, they can always vote for politicians who agree with them. So far they haven't.

You don't think high cholesterol is lethal? Last I checked...heart disease was pretty much the number 1 killer, buddy.

Complete red herring. Cholesterol is nothing like cigarettes. There is no good from smoking, unlike eating, which sustains life.

I don't get it! You advocate subsidized health-care, and then you advocate taxing things that put a heavy burden on those subsidies...where do the taxes end? The middle-class can do a lot better things with their money.

What don't you get? If smoking puts burden on healthcare system, it's only right that smokers shoulder that burden. Insurance companies certainly charge smokers more for that exact reason.

Alcohol increases crime? Ha, only because we've decided to make more laws out of it, thus making more people criminals.

If you have no idea of the cost of alcohol to society, maybe you should visit Russia.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

This is a little off-topic, but a police officer around here told me that anytime there is a call for domestic abuse, SOMEBODY has to go to jail (husband or wife). This could involve just a minor shove, or a slap. What happened to the days when the officer would come into the house and just help resolve the fight?

The thing is, those cases are SO dangerous for everyone involved (the majority of police officer fatalities involve domestic assault cases) that I think in most jurisdictions they normally DO take one of the fighting parties away for their own safety.

I remember when I was a teenager, my mother had an accused domestic assault defendant appear before her on a bail hearing. IIRC he didn't have much of a criminal record, and she let him free on a high-but-attainable bail. He promptly went home and blew his girlfriend's head off. Mom was obviously very upset - this was one of the more traumatic moments of her 22 years as a judge.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

This is a little off-topic, but a police officer around here told me that anytime there is a call for domestic abuse, SOMEBODY has to go to jail (husband or wife). This could involve just a minor shove, or a slap. What happened to the days when the officer would come into the house and just help resolve the fight?

The thing is, those cases are SO dangerous for everyone involved (the majority of police officer fatalities involve domestic assault cases) that I think in most jurisdictions they normally DO take one of the fighting parties away for their own safety.

I remember when I was a teenager, my mother had an accused domestic assault defendant appear before her on a bail hearing. IIRC he didn't have much of a criminal record, and she let him free on a high-but-attainable bail. He promptly went home and blew his girlfriend's head off. Mom was obviously very upset - this was one of the more traumatic moments of her 22 years as a judge.

I understand, completely. It must be a tough call to make, but I see a lot of people getting hauled in for bogus reasons. My dad's boss (great guy, respected man of our city) was taken to jail because his daughter (who was 22 at the time) was living at home and got in a verbal argument with him. She called the police and told them he hit her. He denied it, and there was no evidence, but they hauled him in anyway. Of course the charges were dropped, and he made up with his daughter, but still, what a waste.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Rich don't get the "hell" taxed out of them. They have been the only group to see significant Economic gains for decades now. If they were "taxed to hell", obviously hell has a low tax rate.

Their tax bracket is 10-20% more than the middle class.

That's obviously not "to hell" then.

It's double.

??

 

[BlancoNino]

So a middle-class individual with a private health-care plan that he is already paying extra for becaues he is a smoker, must also pay extra for cigarettes to help pay for medical costs that the government subsidizes (which is wrong) for smokers? Unfair.

Anybody actually look to see where our sin taxes are going? Very little are actually going to funds that subsidize medical costs anyway.

To say that alcohol leads to crimes, which cost more money, which in turn would be a legitimate reason for higher taxes on them, sounds good. But it isn't. The crime is the crime, not the alcohol. Most alcohol users are good people, and don't commit crimes. Yet they pay the bill. Perhaps we should tax alcohol to the point where it becomes worthwhile to bootleg it into the United States?

Sin taxes are supposed to be protecting the general welfare (by supposedly making people cut down on smoking and drinking) and raising revenue. How can those two simultaneously exist? Perhaps for awhile they can...but they will just find a better way to tax us, and the people will just find a cheaper (and probably illegal) way to get the substances they want. Interfering with supply and demand is a dangerous thing.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
So a middle-class individual with a private health-care plan that he is already paying extra for becaues he is a smoker, must also pay extra for cigarettes to help pay for medical costs that the government subsidizes (which is wrong) for smokers? Unfair.

Anybody actually look to see where our sin taxes are going? Very little are actually going to funds that subsidize medical costs anyway.

To say that alcohol leads to crimes, which cost more money, which in turn would be a legitimate reason for higher taxes on them, sounds good. But it isn't. The crime is the crime, not the alcohol. Most alcohol users are good people, and don't commit crimes. Yet they pay the bill. Perhaps we should tax alcohol to the point where it becomes worthwhile to bootleg it into the United States?

Sin taxes are supposed to be protecting the general welfare (by supposedly making people cut down on smoking and drinking) and raising revenue. How can those two simultaneously exist? Perhaps for awhile they can...but they will just find a better way to tax us, and the people will just find a cheaper (and probably illegal) way to get the substances they want. Interfering with supply and demand is a dangerous thing.

Typical rightwing scare tactics. If people bought into that tripe, they would vote out politicians who support sin taxes, but they don't. Too bad for you. It's not a problem unless you smoke.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Typical rightwing scare tactics. If people bought into that tripe, they would vote out politicians who support sin taxes, but they don't. Too bad for you. It's not a problem unless you smoke.

I don't smoke! But I at least have enough brain power to understand that smoking is a choice, and society should not unfairly place a burden upon them.

They came for the smokers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: senseamp

I don't smoke! But I at least have enough brain power to understand that smoking is a choice, and society should not unfairly place a burden upon them.

They came for the smokers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker...

Give me a break. As far as I'm concerned, the smokers are the ones putting an unfair burden on everyone else, in terms of taxes and health-insurance premiums. If they want to make a stupid and self-destructive lifestyle choice, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it.

Your implication that smokers are being wronged like Hitler's victims is just ridiculous, and frankly I find it a little offensive that you'd use that analogy.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: senseamp

I don't smoke! But I at least have enough brain power to understand that smoking is a choice, and society should not unfairly place a burden upon them.

They came for the smokers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker...

Give me a break. As far as I'm concerned, the smokers are the ones putting an unfair burden on everyone else, in terms of taxes and health-insurance premiums. If they want to make a stupid and self-destructive lifestyle choice, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it.

Your implication that smokers are being wronged like Hitler's victims is just ridiculous, and frankly I find it a little offensive that you'd use that analogy.

I find it a little offensive that you think smokers are putting burdens on everyone else. They are only destroying their own body. The fact that you think they owe something to to government is laughable. The government doesn't spend money wisely. Leave it in the smoker's pockets, and let them buy something else with it. Help stimulate the economy.

Smokers pay more for insurance premiums, non-smokers do not. The fact that advocating an increase in tax because of medicaid subsidies, just goes to show that the government already wastes money on stupid things. Why do they need more?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: senseamp

I don't smoke! But I at least have enough brain power to understand that smoking is a choice, and society should not unfairly place a burden upon them.

They came for the smokers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker...

Give me a break. As far as I'm concerned, the smokers are the ones putting an unfair burden on everyone else, in terms of taxes and health-insurance premiums. If they want to make a stupid and self-destructive lifestyle choice, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it.

Your implication that smokers are being wronged like Hitler's victims is just ridiculous, and frankly I find it a little offensive that you'd use that analogy.

That is an offensive comparison.

As far as "sin taxes" -- IMO, legalize EVERYTHING, tobacco, drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., then tax the hell out of all of it. People can and will do whatever they want to do for their "pleasure" and trying to stop them by imposing some moral code on them only creates a society with the largest jail population in the world.

Legalize, tax, then just to keep things from getting out of hand place controls on the the behavior of those who partake in whatever "sin" they choose -- just like alcohol laws now. You can drink but you better not drive when you do, for example.

But it will never happen because the "justice" system in this country makes billions upon billions of dollars from the system as it is. That fact, along with those who believe it's their duty to impose their morals on society, will keep the status quo in effect for a very long time, and that will keep our jails full of victimless "offenders".