Sin Taxes

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic
No, they are not, because sales and property taxes are by dollar amount and not per unit as sin taxes are. Sales and property taxes are also designed for the purpose of supporting various government functions, whereas sin taxes exist solely for the purpose of punishing particular actions.

Interesting argument tactic here. You're trying to trap me into being against other forms of taxation, most likely because you support all forms of taxation, and believe that all people should do so, despite the fact that all taxes are paid for the benefit of the rich and to protect their assets and financial system.

The per-unit distinction has essentially no logical relevance here as near as I can see. How does that affect the regressiveness of the tax? Moreover, your assertion that "sin taxes" "exist solely for the purpost of punishing particular actions" is senseless and inaccurate. These taxes contribute money to the general funds of states, just as other taxes do, and help pay for services.

I am not pro-taxation as a general proposition, though I think some taxes are a necessary evil in the modern era. Clearly the government is woefully inefficient and wastes much of the money it receives. I think a "sin tax" on tobacco is a uniquely good thing, actually, in that it provides revenue and creates a cost directly tied to a uniquely destructive behavior.

I think we can agree to disagree, in any case, and won't return your nasty personal attacks on me.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How about a tax on being gay? Since having HIV/AIDS is considered a disability and states spend millions of dollars on people with disabilities, we should tax gay people.

Do you get my point now? We shouldn't be taxing gay people, and we shouldn't be spending money on disabilities for people with HIV/AIDS either.

Being gay is not, IMO, a choice, nor is it the case that all homosexual behavior leads inexorably to HIV. If, however, there were hypothetically some way to tax unsafe sexual activity per sex act, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it - I for one would probably pay the tax willingly, just as I pay "sin taxes" when I purchase alcohol.

But having gay sex is a choice. Nor is it the case that all smoking and alcoholic behaviors lead inexorably to health problems.

Once again, because the government spends your money best, doesn't it?

Gay sex isn't the problem with AIDS/HIV, promiscuity is. That's why HIV/AIDS is also an issue beyond Homosexuals.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: sandorski


Gay sex isn't the problem with AIDS/HIV, promiscuity is. That's why HIV/AIDS is also an issue beyond Homosexuals.

You missed my point entirely.

 

[Todd33]

The pro-drunk driving guy is against taxing alcohol too?

If you choose to do something that has a huge monetary burden on society you pay for it in taxes. You don't want to pay? Don't drink or smoke. Case closed.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: sandorski
I smoke, I accept/Pay my Sin Taxes. There are moments I feel repressed, like when new Bylaws are passed concerning Smoking Areas, but I get on with life. Regarding "freedom" issues, from my perspective I don't really freely smoke, I smoke because if I don't I feel weird and get cranky. I am a slave to my cigarrettes, not the State.

Blanco, fess up, it's not the type of Tax that bugs you, it's just Taxes as a concept. Correct?

Part of the reason is that I'm against the government increasing revenues through taxes.

How do they do it then?

Why do they need to?

I dunno, ask them. Blanco seemed to imply that there are other means besides Taxation. :shrug;

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Todd33
The pro-drunk driving guy is against taxing alcohol too?

If you choose to do something that has a huge monetary burden on society you pay for it in taxes. You don't want to pay? Don't drink or smoke. Case closed.

Beware the wrath of Vic!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: sandorski


Gay sex isn't the problem with AIDS/HIV, promiscuity is. That's why HIV/AIDS is also an issue beyond Homosexuals.

You missed my point entirely.

Not really, just clarifying what you should place a "Sin Tax" on.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DonVito
I'm not sure why you're being so personally insulting, and I find it creepy that you seem to be cataloguing my posting history (which I'd argue you've mischaracterized to some extent) for reasons known only to you.

I think my car insurance analogy was apt (notably, you haven't responded to it except by categorically discarding it), and I don't see smokers as "the less fortunate," when it comes to their decision to smoke. I am all for helping people in need, but I don't see why the public should collectively bear the burden of subsidizing others' foolish lifestyle decisions.

My original post in this thread, to which you told me, "Cry me a river!"

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").

The rich can afford to pay sin taxes, the poor not so easily. When you support sin taxes, you in fact support an authoritarian system that says the rich can play as much as they want but the poor better get their asses back to work, playing's too good for them, they might get hurt and cost a more fortunate person like yourself some money.

By that token, all sales and property taxes are regressive. Do you favor the repeal of these taxes as well?

No, they are not, because sales and property taxes are by dollar amount and not per unit as sin taxes are. Sales and property taxes are also designed for the purpose of supporting various government functions, whereas sin taxes exist solely for the purpose of punishing particular actions.

Interesting argument tactic here. You're trying to trap me into being against other forms of taxation, most likely because you support all forms of taxation, and believe that all people should do so, despite the fact that all taxes are paid for the benefit of the rich and to protect their assets and financial system.

You really think a sales tax isn't regressive? The poor spend more of their income on goods. I could throw some WA state tax statistics at you if you want...

Sin taxes don't necessarily exist to punish people for those actions. It's an easy source of revenue for state governments because purchasing habits don't change that much if the price is raised by a tax. You wouldn't really say the government is punishing you for having a car because you have to pay to keep your tabs updated every year, would you?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DonVito
The per-unit distinction has essentially no logical relevance here as near as I can see. How does that affect the regressiveness of the tax? Moreover, your assertion that "sin taxes" "exist solely for the purpost of punishing particular actions" is senseless and inaccurate. These taxes contribute money to the general funds of states, just as other taxes do, and help pay for services.

I am not pro-taxation as a general proposition, though I think some taxes are a necessary evil in the modern era. Clearly the government is woefully inefficient and wastes much of the money it receives. I think a "sin tax" on tobacco is a uniquely good thing, actually, in that it provides revenue and creates a cost directly tied to a uniquely destructive behavior.

I think we can agree to disagree, in any case, and won't return your nasty personal attacks on me.

"Cry me a river."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
You really think a sales tax isn't regressive? The poor spend more of their income on goods. I could throw some WA state tax statistics at you if you want...

Sin taxes don't necessarily exist to punish people for those actions. It's an easy source of revenue for state governments because purchasing habits don't change that much if the price is raised by a tax. You wouldn't really say the government is punishing you for having a car because you have to pay to keep your tabs updated every year, would you?

All taxation is in some form "regressive." The government does not exist for the benefit of the poor.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Vehicle tabs pay for vehicular services. That's a nearly perfect form of "user fee" revenue generation. Sin taxes exist because, in a democracy, it's an easy way to screw your neighbor.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Todd33
The pro-drunk driving guy is against taxing alcohol too?

If you choose to do something that has a huge monetary burden on society you pay for it in taxes. You don't want to pay? Don't drink or smoke. Case closed.

Beware the wrath of Vic!

I am not pro-drunk driving. I don't know what you're crying about there. Love that authoritarian logic though, the 2 of you sound like Republicans.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Todd33
The pro-drunk driving guy is against taxing alcohol too?

If you choose to do something that has a huge monetary burden on society you pay for it in taxes. You don't want to pay? Don't drink or smoke. Case closed.

Beware the wrath of Vic!

I am not pro-drunk driving. I don't know what you're crying about there. Love that authoritarian logic though, the 2 of you sound like Republicans.

I never said or implied you were. Todd was alluding to BlancoNino.

We may sound like Republicans, but you sound like a sullen, pedantic jerk. It's a little odd to have an "Elite Member" hammering me with unprovoked insults.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Todd33
The pro-drunk driving guy is against taxing alcohol too?

If you choose to do something that has a huge monetary burden on society you pay for it in taxes. You don't want to pay? Don't drink or smoke. Case closed.

Beware the wrath of Vic!

I am not pro-drunk driving. I don't know what you're crying about there. Love that authoritarian logic though, the 2 of you sound like Republicans.

Apparently, if you think drinking laws go just a little too far and are unfitting, you are "pro-drunk driving". If you think affirmative action is a bad idea, you are a "racist".

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
You really think a sales tax isn't regressive? The poor spend more of their income on goods. I could throw some WA state tax statistics at you if you want...

Sin taxes don't necessarily exist to punish people for those actions. It's an easy source of revenue for state governments because purchasing habits don't change that much if the price is raised by a tax. You wouldn't really say the government is punishing you for having a car because you have to pay to keep your tabs updated every year, would you?

All taxation is in some form "regressive." The government does not exist for the benefit of the poor.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Vehicle tabs pay for vehicular services. That's a nearly perfect form of "user fee" revenue generation. Sin taxes exist because, in a democracy, it's an easy way to screw your neighbor.

All taxation is regressive? I don't think I would call our federal income tax regressive...I mean the lower income quintiles do pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the higher ones do. I will agree that almost any excise, sales, or head taxes will be regressive, however.

I'll admit my analogy wasn't that good (I was still a wee bit hung over). So let me throw a few more analogies at you. I'll use some other excise taxes...What about the excise tax on gas? Or the excise tax on hotels? They aren't punishing you for driving and they aren't punishing you for traveling so what are they doing? They're getting a source of revenue from an inelastic good/service because the usage for those goods/services won't change very much if you raise the price. For the excise tax on hotels, it's also a matter of exporting the tax to people outside of the state. You can't really say the gas tax would be one that goes to pay for vehicular services because really it just goes into a general fund and then is distributed out based on where it's needed most.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
You really think a sales tax isn't regressive? The poor spend more of their income on goods. I could throw some WA state tax statistics at you if you want...

Sin taxes don't necessarily exist to punish people for those actions. It's an easy source of revenue for state governments because purchasing habits don't change that much if the price is raised by a tax. You wouldn't really say the government is punishing you for having a car because you have to pay to keep your tabs updated every year, would you?

All taxation is in some form "regressive." The government does not exist for the benefit of the poor.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Vehicle tabs pay for vehicular services. That's a nearly perfect form of "user fee" revenue generation. Sin taxes exist because, in a democracy, it's an easy way to screw your neighbor.

All taxation is regressive? I don't think I would call our federal income tax regressive...I mean the lower income quintiles do pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the higher ones do. I will agree that almost any excise, sales, or head taxes will be regressive, however.

I'll admit my analogy wasn't that good (I was still a wee bit hung over). So let me throw a few more analogies at you. I'll use some other excise taxes...What about the excise tax on gas? Or the excise tax on hotels? They aren't punishing you for driving and they aren't punishing you for traveling so what are they doing? They're getting a source of revenue from an inelastic good/service because the usage for those goods/services won't change very much if you raise the price. For the excise tax on hotels, it's also a matter of exporting the tax to people outside of the state. You can't really say the gas tax would be one that goes to pay for vehicular services because really it just goes into a general fund and then is distributed out based on where it's needed most.

Let me repeat this: the government does not exist for the benefit of the poor.

We want it to. We would like it to. But it does not and will not under any governmental system. Therefore, all taxes strengthen the rich man's government which imposes the rich man's rule through the use of violent force. Sin taxes, along with the lotteries, followed next perhaps by Social Security, are among the worst of all regressive taxes, specifically targeting those in our society who are least able to pay.
However, even the most "progressive" income tax is still regressive, because not one dime that a poor man pays in taxes goes to a government designed to benefit him, but to a government specifically designed to enforce the rules and system of those who enslave and impoverish him.
The only fair system of taxation is where taxpayers pay dollar for dollar for those services that they actually use.

Regardless, this is off-topic. Don Vito & Co. are out looking for ways to put cameras in bedrooms so they charge sin taxes on those who have unprotected sex... :roll:

edit: and of course, that's all for our own good, whether we know it or not. Naturally, the poor should happily sacrifice all their freedoms and live like the contented little productive slaves they're expected to be for the magnanimous gift of "free" health care that the rich would give them. :roll::roll:

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
You really think a sales tax isn't regressive? The poor spend more of their income on goods. I could throw some WA state tax statistics at you if you want...

Sin taxes don't necessarily exist to punish people for those actions. It's an easy source of revenue for state governments because purchasing habits don't change that much if the price is raised by a tax. You wouldn't really say the government is punishing you for having a car because you have to pay to keep your tabs updated every year, would you?

All taxation is in some form "regressive." The government does not exist for the benefit of the poor.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Vehicle tabs pay for vehicular services. That's a nearly perfect form of "user fee" revenue generation. Sin taxes exist because, in a democracy, it's an easy way to screw your neighbor.

All taxation is regressive? I don't think I would call our federal income tax regressive...I mean the lower income quintiles do pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the higher ones do. I will agree that almost any excise, sales, or head taxes will be regressive, however.

I'll admit my analogy wasn't that good (I was still a wee bit hung over). So let me throw a few more analogies at you. I'll use some other excise taxes...What about the excise tax on gas? Or the excise tax on hotels? They aren't punishing you for driving and they aren't punishing you for traveling so what are they doing? They're getting a source of revenue from an inelastic good/service because the usage for those goods/services won't change very much if you raise the price. For the excise tax on hotels, it's also a matter of exporting the tax to people outside of the state. You can't really say the gas tax would be one that goes to pay for vehicular services because really it just goes into a general fund and then is distributed out based on where it's needed most.

Let me repeat this: the government does not exist for the benefit of the poor.

We want it to. We would like it to. But it does not and will not under any governmental system. Therefore, all taxes strengthen the rich man's government which imposes the rich man's rule through the use of violent force. Sin taxes, along with the lotteries, followed next perhaps by Social Security, are among the worst of all regressive taxes, specifically targeting those in our society who are least able to pay.
However, even the most "progressive" income tax is still regressive, because not one dime that a poor man pays in taxes goes to a government designed to benefit him, but to a government specifically designed to enforce the rules and system of those who enslave and impoverish him.
The only fair system of taxation is where taxpayers pay dollar for dollar for those services that they actually use.

Regardless, this is off-topic. Don Vito & Co. are out looking for ways to put cameras in bedrooms so they charge sin taxes on those who have unprotected sex... :roll:

edit: and of course, that's all for our own good, whether we know it or not. Naturally, the poor should happily sacrifice all their freedoms and live like the contented little productive slaves they're expected to be for the magnanimous gift of "free" health care that the rich would give them. :roll::roll:

I don't see where I ever said a government is supposed to be for the benefit of the poor. I also never said I was fine with sin taxes; I was just saying that the reasoning for them isn't punishment but simply an easy source of revenue for the government.

I'm not really sure you understand the terms progressive and regressive in terms of taxation...They only deal with which part of society (richer or poorer) pays a higher percentage of their income for a tax. That's it; nothing more than that. It has nothing to do with the benefits that come with paying that tax.

The only problem with your idea of a "fair" system of taxation is...well it wouldn't work for the most part. Should the poor be paying full "tuition" for public elementary schooling? Should they be paying more to the fire and police departments because they are more likely to be using them? To be "fair," they would have to pay more for all of those. That would really hurt social mobility.

 

[fitzov]

The only problem with your idea of a "fair" system of taxation is...well it wouldn't work for the most part. Should the poor be paying full "tuition" for public elementary schooling? Should they be paying more to the fire and police departments because they are more likely to be using them? To be "fair," they would have to pay more for all of those. That would really hurt social mobility.

I would have to agree with that. There are "services" that are necessary for a good society that the lower class don't have the means to contribute to. You cited education, fire, and police departments, but I would add to this some minimal health care and a standing army, as well as oversight of basic infrastructure.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

The only problem with your idea of a "fair" system of taxation is...well it wouldn't work for the most part. Should the poor be paying full "tuition" for public elementary schooling? Should they be paying more to the fire and police departments because they are more likely to be using them? To be "fair," they would have to pay more for all of those. That would really hurt social mobility.

I would have to agree with that. There are "services" that are necessary for a good society that the lower class don't have the means to contribute to. You cited education, fire, and police departments, but I would add to this some minimal health care and a standing army, as well as oversight of basic infrastructure.

HombrePequeno has been consistently off-topic and indulging in straw man throughout this thread. The issue has never been about "progressive" or "regressive" forms of taxation (which refers to wealth redistribution), but about "fair" and "punitive" forms of taxation. Fair (in a democracy) implies representation, punitive implies punishment. If you levy a tax against only a minority of the population, then that tax can never be fair regardless of how democratic the vote for the tax was. After all, what mob rule thug wouldn't like to raise the taxes on their neighbors without raising them on themselves? If the purpose of the tax is to punish certain actions, as "sin" taxes are specifically designed to do on the rationalization that those actions present some harm to society as a whole, then you are in effect legislating morality.

Question for you though: how could it be possible that poor require the uses of the fire and police depts. more than the rich, when the poor have less property to be protected?
Next question: who really benefits from public education? The worker? Or the owner of the means of production who requires a skilled workforce in order to profit?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fitzov

The only problem with your idea of a "fair" system of taxation is...well it wouldn't work for the most part. Should the poor be paying full "tuition" for public elementary schooling? Should they be paying more to the fire and police departments because they are more likely to be using them? To be "fair," they would have to pay more for all of those. That would really hurt social mobility.

I would have to agree with that. There are "services" that are necessary for a good society that the lower class don't have the means to contribute to. You cited education, fire, and police departments, but I would add to this some minimal health care and a standing army, as well as oversight of basic infrastructure.

HombrePequeno has been consistently off-topic and indulging in straw man throughout this thread. The issue has never been about "progressive" or "regressive" forms of taxation (which refers to wealth redistribution), but about "fair" and "punitive" forms of taxation. Fair (in a democracy) implies representation, punitive implies punishment. If you levy a tax against only a minority of the population, then that tax can never be fair regardless of how democratic the vote for the tax was. After all, what mob rule thug wouldn't like to raise the taxes on their neighbors without raising them on themselves? If the purpose of the tax is to punish certain actions, as "sin" taxes are specifically designed to do on the rationalization that those actions present some harm to society as a whole, then you are in effect legislating morality.

Question for you though: how could it be possible that poor require the uses of the fire and police depts. more than the rich, when the poor have less property to be protected?
Next question: who really benefits from public education? The worker? Or the owner of the means of production who requires a skilled workforce in order to profit?

I'm not even the one that brought up the progressive versus regressive argument. I was just correcting you when you stated sales taxes aren't regressive. Then you incorrectly stated that all taxes are regressive (in some way) and added more to the meaning of regressivity than is actually the case. I wasn't really trying to say anything about regressivity/progressivity with regards to the excise tax on cigarettes and alcohol. Either way, it doesn't really matter and you are right it is off topic.

My position is that sin taxes are no more punishment taxes than any other excise tax. The government taxes them because they can get a pretty good amount of revenue without changing people's buying habits. If the government really wanted to put a stop to the usage of cigarettes and alcohol, they would just ban them and fine you everytime they catch you using them. I would consider that punishment.

On the use of fire and police depts...which areas tend to have higher crime? Which areas generally have lower quality buildings that probably aren't up to code? Would you prefer a system where you have to pay every time you use their service? One where if your house is burning down, the fire department won't put it out unless you have the means to pay them? For the question on schooling, both benefit of course. The worker benefits because of a higher wage and the business benefits because of an increase in quality labor. Are you trying to say businesses should be handing out some dough for schooling? That's an honest question, I'd like to hear your ideas a little more completely.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fitzov

The only problem with your idea of a "fair" system of taxation is...well it wouldn't work for the most part. Should the poor be paying full "tuition" for public elementary schooling? Should they be paying more to the fire and police departments because they are more likely to be using them? To be "fair," they would have to pay more for all of those. That would really hurt social mobility.

I would have to agree with that. There are "services" that are necessary for a good society that the lower class don't have the means to contribute to. You cited education, fire, and police departments, but I would add to this some minimal health care and a standing army, as well as oversight of basic infrastructure.

HombrePequeno has been consistently off-topic and indulging in straw man throughout this thread. The issue has never been about "progressive" or "regressive" forms of taxation (which refers to wealth redistribution), but about "fair" and "punitive" forms of taxation. Fair (in a democracy) implies representation, punitive implies punishment. If you levy a tax against only a minority of the population, then that tax can never be fair regardless of how democratic the vote for the tax was. After all, what mob rule thug wouldn't like to raise the taxes on their neighbors without raising them on themselves? If the purpose of the tax is to punish certain actions, as "sin" taxes are specifically designed to do on the rationalization that those actions present some harm to society as a whole, then you are in effect legislating morality.

Question for you though: how could it be possible that poor require the uses of the fire and police depts. more than the rich, when the poor have less property to be protected?
Next question: who really benefits from public education? The worker? Or the owner of the means of production who requires a skilled workforce in order to profit?

Without getting into the debate about the purpose of government, anyone can utilize the fire or police dept. It's well known that the wealthy have greater than equal protection under the law (rich man's vs. poor man's justice)in practice, but those laws still equally protect in principle. As far as public education goes, having it increases "upward mobility"--if I obtain a degree in business or something similar I have good chances of making a decent living in the system, even if it is true that my boss is merely some ignoramus who inherited his wealth. Also, I may be idealistic and think that having an education has intrinsic merits as well. Sure, the powerful seek to maintain their wealth through the system, but advocating for what progressive elements the system has to be elimated only furthers their interest, not benefits it.

 

[piasabird]

When you tax somthing you want to say is bad, you are endorsing it officially. When you buy cigarettes the biggest payee is the receiver of the tax. It is amazing that we can take a $0.15 product and then tax it to hell and back. Of course it is legal to grow all your own tobacco in your back yard. Just a few tobacco plants can make all the tobacco you can smoke.

 

[Moonbeam]

Money for sin has to come from somewhere.

 

[Kibbo86]

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.

I don't know how it is where you are, but up here in Canada, it is usually the conservative governments that raise the "sin" taxes. They did it under Mulroney, and they did it again recently under Harper.

It's the only tax conservatives can raise without alienating their core constituencies.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Kibbo86

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.

I don't know how it is where you are, but up here in Canada, it is usually the conservative governments that raise the "sin" taxes. They did it under Mulroney, and they did it again recently under Harper.

It's the only tax conservatives can raise without alienating their core constituencies.

Perhaps I foolishly labeled sin taxes as a liberal idea. In Washington State, it is that way.

 

[zendari]

As long as the government has this ridiculous idea of paying for healthcare, unhealthy activities naturally need to be taxed or banned in fairness to hard working citizens.