• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Sin taxes": Legit?

Are "sin taxes" a legitimate way to generate revenue?


  • Total voters
    47

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
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. :)
 
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.
 
"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
 
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.
 
But, yes. I think the sin taxes are legitimate. The state has the power to implement taxes and they use this power to sometimes discourage or encourage people from partaking in an action or purchasing goods.

Also sin taxes are a good way to generate revenue.. Dont believe me, just look at Colorado and their marijuana tax....
​Revenue From Colorado Marijuana Tax Expected To Double In 2015
 
How is it not a way to generate revenue? I mean, thats one of the main purposes of taxation, generate revenue for the state.

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.
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.

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.
 
"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. :)

I can do without cigarettes and alcohol - what's far worse is egregious hidden taxes on gasoline and other essentials of life that are proposed as being a way to sustain the infrastructure but all too often simply are cast into the bottomless pit of general revenues to fund some stupid social engineering initiative. Wait for the additional carbon taxes/pricing that will goose the cost of virtually everything we consume so that politicians can claim they are saving the planet and flit around the world getting feted by third world tyrants and despots as they hand out our tax dollars like candy so the celebrity idiots love them and they can feel important.
 
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.

Which is why sin taxes should be structured as such when they are created. Like a sunset provision when the tax revenues drop below a certain level and hold the revenues in a trust to be decided on by referendum after the law sunsets.
 
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.

How can you discourage use and promote increased revenues at the same time?
 
How can you discourage use and promote increased revenues at the same time?

Increase the tax........... Or simply put a "special"/another tax on those products, such as the sin tax....
 
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.

Indeed. Every time someone from the left talks about pot being legal in Colorado or Washington the first thing they mention is how much revenue it is bringing in. OMFG, it is bringing in some much revenue! drool...
 
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.
 
Increase the tax........... Or simply put a "special"/another tax on those products, such as the sin tax....

The revenue stream will decrease as the use decreases. 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
If the use of the targeted item declines, the problems associated with declines....and the services needed declines.


us-smoking-chart.jpg
 
If the use of the targeted item declines, the problems associated with declines....and the services needed declines.
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?
 
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?
You mean when a legislature corrupts the idea? Is the idea responsible for the diversion of funding?

AZ GOP legislatures have diverted schools monies into the general fund for many years, does that mean that property taxation is wrong?

Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
 
"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. :)
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.

 
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.

Maybe in Canada, but here in the USA we have a constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is there government authority to "discourage" via taxation.
 
If we've seen a "denormalization of smoking," as the CDC describes it, do we need to drop hundreds of millions of dollars on a familiar message during cash-strapped times? If all those appeals to the brain, wallet and pride don't work, how will a bunch of ads?

As it turns out, anti-smoking ads actually do work. There's plenty of academic research proving it. And there's circumstantial, but no less compelling, evidence that in the absence of advertisements, smoking rates don't go down as quickly as they would without the nagging. And that entails its own costs.

Smoking's steady decline, which began in the 1960s after the Surgeon General's initial warning, has leveled off in recent years. Between 1998 and 2005, the adult smoking rate dropped 13%, but since 2005, any changes have been minimal. For the better part of six years, it has been at the 20% mark or just below. All-important youth-smoking rates declined 40% between 1997 and 2003, but between 2003 and 2009, that decline slowed to 21%.

Meanwhile, during those years funding decreased dramatically for the main national anti-tobacco advertising player, Legacy, the foundation funded by the 1998 settlement between tobacco companies and the attorneys general of 46 states. According to Kantar, Legacy's media budget between 2007 and 2010 totaled about $100 million. That's the amount Legacy would spend in a single year in its early days. And, at the state level, average household exposure to anti-smoking ads peaked in 2006 and 2007 and has been coming down since, according to a study of Nielsen data by the University of Illinois-Chicago.

As Funding for Anti-Tobacco Ads Fell, So Did Quitting Rate | News - AdAge
 
If the use of the targeted item declines, the problems associated with declines....and the services needed declines.

The services needed don't decline at all. It adds revenue that the government will use to create new programs that will exist long after the demand is below the rate to fund it.
 
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.
I know. See below.

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.
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%.
http://www.publicagenda.org/facingup/pdfs/Revenues_and_Taxes_discussion_guide.pdf
Sin Tax Revenues by State
The States Most Dependent on Sin Taxes

If the purpose of the sin tax is to end people from buying those products or partake in the actions the tax is on, then they would raise the tax very very high. But in the American context sin taxes are used to discourage or make people think twice about buying a product or partaking in an action. But the tax is not set at such a high rate on most products that the average American cannot afford to purchase a product and all at the same time it generates revenue for the state.

The revenue stream will decrease as the use decreases.
It may or it may not. I believe it more has to do with the amount of the tax not the tax itself.
Example: " Our evidence suggests that increases in cigarette taxes are associated with small decreases in cigarette consumption and that it will take sizable tax increases, on the order of 100%, to decrease adult smoking by as much as 5%." Do Higher Tobacco Taxes Reduce Adult Smoking? New Evidence of the Effect of Recent Cigarette Tax Increases on Adult Smoking

Also another example is the marijuana tax in Colorado. Pretty heavy tax on marijuana products but generated a boat load of revenue.

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.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom