- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
"Sin taxes": Legit?
Tobacco, alcohol, whatever. Are "sin taxes" a legitimate way to generate revenue?
I say 'no'. First off, I see no reason to pay an extra tax to do something that is otherwise legal and is already being taxed through the various consumption and income taxes. Second, the idea that the government feels that it is justified in this additional financial fleecing just because the targeted group is politically impotent is morally repugnant.
And no, the "...if you don't want to pay the tax then don't do it..." mantra doesn't justify it. :roll:
That is all. Have at it.
Are they a way to generate revenue? No
Are they a way to gently nudge society in a more moral irection without overbearing authoritarianism? Yes
How is it not a way to generate revenue? I mean, thats one of the main purposes of taxation, generate revenue for the state.
Revenue generation is almost never stated as the reason, but if you watch and listen it seems pretty obvious that they get all giddy when they talk about how much revenue came in. The stuff about reducing unwanted behavior is just a red herring. Any decently articulate person can make it sound good.Just because it is generating revenue, that isnt or shouldnt be the purpose of a "sin tax" because if its about revenue the only thing people think about is how to increase revenue. Which would be more people buying the "sin" product being taxed, when the real goal should be less use which would mean less revenue.
Just because it is generating revenue, that isnt or shouldnt be the purpose of a "sin tax" because if its about revenue the only thing people think about is how to increase revenue. Which would be more people buying the "sin" product being taxed, when the real goal should be less use which would mean less revenue.
"Sin taxes": Legit?
Tobacco, alcohol, whatever. Are "sin taxes" a legitimate way to generate revenue?
I say 'no'. First off, I see no reason to pay an extra tax to do something that is otherwise legal and is already being taxed through the various consumption and income taxes. Second, the idea that the government feels that it is justified in this additional financial fleecing just because the targeted group is politically impotent is morally repugnant.
And no, the "...if you don't want to pay the tax then don't do it..." mantra doesn't justify it. :roll:
That is all. Have at it.
Revenue generation is almost never stated as the reason, but if you watch and listen it seems pretty obvious that they get all giddy when they talk about how much revenue came in. The stuff about reducing unwanted behavior is just a red herring. Any decently articulate person can make it sound good.
Taxation can have more than one purpose, a key example is the sin tax itself. Purpose is to attempt to discourage an activity such as buying cigarettes or drinking and at the same time generate revenue from the tax when people purchase those products.
California Proposition 10, "First 5" Early Childhood Cigarette Tax (1998)
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_10,_"First_5"_Early_Childhood_Cigarette_Tax_(1998)
How can you discourage use and promote increased revenues at the same time?
Revenue generation is almost never stated as the reason, but if you watch and listen it seems pretty obvious that they get all giddy when they talk about how much revenue came in. The stuff about reducing unwanted behavior is just a red herring. Any decently articulate person can make it sound good.
Increase the tax........... Or simply put a "special"/another tax on those products, such as the sin tax....
Increase the tax........... Or simply put a "special"/another tax on those products, such as the sin tax....
You can only increase tax to a certain amount (not to mention the tax should originally be set at what the tipping point should be) before usage drops off due to people stopping the sin, people not being able to afford the sin or people going to the black market. Either way the expected revenue will eventually drop off and if your budget depends on it there is an incentive to kept to tax making ever increasing revenue.
If the use of the targeted item declines, the problems associated with declines....and the services needed declines.The revenue stream will decrease as the use decreases. The entire idea is at best short term. The entire idea is absurd because what will happen is the government will create dependence with that new revenue that is now decreasing. This means there will be a shortfall and more need for taxes.
What happens if revenue declines, but demand for the revenue remains the same because the service being funded is completely unrelated, as might be the case as stated in post #13?If the use of the targeted item declines, the problems associated with declines....and the services needed declines.
You mean when a legislature corrupts the idea? Is the idea responsible for the diversion of funding?What happens if revenue declines, but demand for the revenue remains the same because the service being funded is completely unrelated, as might be the case as stated in post #13?
Lets look at taxes on cigarettes that fund anti-smoking. Smoking as been dramatically cut due to education on the effects, it has been a cheap way to reduce the effects that smoking has on health."Sin taxes": Legit?
Tobacco, alcohol, whatever. Are "sin taxes" a legitimate way to generate revenue?
I say 'no'. First off, I see no reason to pay an extra tax to do something that is otherwise legal and is already being taxed through the various consumption and income taxes. Second, the idea that the government feels that it is justified in this additional financial fleecing just because the targeted group is politically impotent is morally repugnant.
And no, the "...if you don't want to pay the tax then don't do it..." mantra doesn't justify it. :roll:
That is all. Have at it.
Just like a government can create a tax incentive to encourage something they can also create an extra tax to discourage something. They are perfectly legitimate.
If the use of the targeted item declines, the problems associated with declines....and the services needed declines.
I know. See below.You can only increase tax to a certain amount (not to mention the tax should originally be set at what the tipping point should be) before usage drops off due to people stopping the sin, people not being able to afford the sin or people going to the black market.
Im speaking in modern American political context. We have sin taxes on a good amount of things, examples tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, gambling, etc. On average accounts for 2.7% of US federal govs revenue. And on the state level it accounts for on average around 3.8% of state revenue. In some states thats even more take for example Rhode Island 16% and Nevada 15%.Either way the expected revenue will eventually drop off and if your budget depends on it there is an incentive to kept to tax making ever increasing revenue.
It may or it may not. I believe it more has to do with the amount of the tax not the tax itself.The revenue stream will decrease as the use decreases.
Or you can peg the tax amount at a rate which will discourage use but at the same time will not make the product so unaffordable.The idea is at best short term. The idea is also absurd because what will happen is the government will create dependence with that new revenue that is now decreasing. This means there will be a shortfall and more need for taxes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?