Sin taxes

I've noticed that pretty much everyone on this forum supports them.

Why? I mean, they're sanctimonious, degrading, unfair, and downright abusive!

If only your sins did not cost so much to others.

Smoking is especially intrusive.

My smoking in my home or on the street is NO MORE INTRUSIVE than any other habit. Sure, it'll raise the cost of my health care. It does already raise the cost of my insurance premiums. Nothing to see there, move along.

The argument for tobacco sin taxes should have died in a fire when they banned people from smoking at work or in closed public establishments.

An additional sin tax is just petty and an aggression because they can.

edited 8th Jun '11 7:25:28 AM by SavageHeathen

Because I'm not willing to pay tax dollars for your [not you specifically] crap. If you choose to act in a self-damaging manner, then you should pay additional taxes for the social services you put a strain on (primarily healthcare). I pay for healthcare, you should pay your sin taxes.

edited 8th Jun '11 7:33:06 AM by breadloaf

Heathen, you will note that people who support sin taxes often don't support the ones that are levied on the sins they indulge in.

First of all, sin taxes are generally not made to fight addiction, help the addicts or protect the non-addicts. And if they are, the don't work (Russia was the first country to introduce sin tax on alcohol when number of alcoholics was rising in a dangerous way; it didn't help). Why are they made? Money, Dear Boy.

And if someone wants to get himself addicted, he also should pay for his own medication. 'Sin tax or everyone pays for you' is a false dichotomy

I support "sin" taxes on substances like tobacco, alcohol, and (presuming legalization) any other recreational drug. They have a proven effect on the health of the nation at large, including more than the people using them. I'd support a sin tax on soda, despite how much of it I drink. (Hell, maybe it'd help me cut back more.)

@Breadloaf: But I already pay for my own health care through raised premiums! An additional sin tax is adding insult to injury.

@Madrugada: The clear way to avoid having to pay sin taxes for your own vices is to agree to leave other people's vices alone, then.

edited 8th Jun '11 7:42:35 AM by SavageHeathen

x6

When I go to many places, there are places where the smokers go to smoke, and they leave behind their waste, and a noxious odor. Even in places where they say "smoke-free campus" the smokers keep up their smoking. Getting smokers outside of the establishments was one thing, but it didn't end the problem.

So while you personally may be the exception who doesn't bother others with your mess (though you saying you smoke on the street makes me doubt that), we can't really implement a system to monitor everybody and differentiate between people. So you'll just have to pay for it.

And while I believe in a universal healthcare system, there is not one around here yet, so your protest that you are paying for increased health premiums does not apply. It only covers your increased risk, not the injury I suffer. Which as I indicated, includes non-health issues.

Pity nobody else is going to pay for the cigar stub some idiot left on my rockwall.

edited 8th Jun '11 7:49:07 AM by blueharp

What the Hell? Do you want to actually ban smokers from smoking on the outside? That's downright abusive. There's a whole lotta air in open spaces, the smoke disperses almost immediately.

edited 8th Jun '11 7:49:20 AM by SavageHeathen

I'm pointing out that it's still intrusive. Hence you'll have to keep paying for your sin of intruding on others.

And no, while the smoke is still an issue, it's not the only issue. Note the point I made about waste.

edited 8th Jun '11 7:51:29 AM by blueharp

My sins are not taxed, so I don't care. :P

If your willing engaging in an act of self harm, I hardly see why it's my responsibility as the taxpayer to fix you up. No I'm not saying you deserve to die for it, but you deserve don't my help either.

I for one placed an clause in living will to veto my any of my harvestable organs for going to any one who has lifestyle related illnesses.

No, I don't expect any one to follow it. But it's the principle of thing

Edit:@inane: The up arrow refereed to an earlier post. Not yours.

edited 8th Jun '11 8:05:38 AM by joeyjojo

I never said it was your responsibility.

Paying for your own recovery from addiction doesn't equal sin tax. You can pay directly, it's more reliable, faster and more efficient

edited 8th Jun '11 8:02:12 AM by nzm1536

So alcohol gets a little more expensive, it doesn't really bother me all that much.

Sometimes making things more expensive can help. I know a few people who quit smoking because they just couldn't afford it.

It doesn't go a little more expensive. It gets much more expensive. A few years ago, cigarettes were 2 times cheaper in Poland - and they were already taxed back then. And I'm not biased towards cigs because I don't even smoke

Amusingly, the taxes aren't always used simply for addiction recovery, but may pay for other things, including a few sports stadiums.

Go figure.

At least where I am, it goes directly to the schools.

edited 8th Jun '11 8:09:47 AM by blueharp

That's why paying for your own recovery is better. You know what happens with your money, it doesn't go to the burreaucracy

Can't say I've noticed, and I live somewhere where alcohol costs are huge. I just tend to drink a little less.

The problem with cigs in a country with public healthcare is the fact that they cause a great deal of the problems with it. Personally? I am more than a little happy to see costs go up seeing how much it tends to cost the country in general for people to keep smoking.

And here we go again - your opinion on sin taxes will be influenced by your opinion on healthcare

Depends on the sin I guess. But I don't see why stuff that is bad for you should not be taxed a fair amount. It makes money and encourages you not to do it, and yes I know people are going to say that "oh then it makes sin only avaliable to the rich, how dare you" but to be honest? I think that there are more pressing concerns than an extra price tag on gin if you are actually arguing that about a society.

x4

Except, of course, the point of the sin taxes is NOT exclusively for addiction control efforts. It's to make up for the injury caused by smoking as a whole. And since I can understand why sending out smoking-waste clean-up crews to private property would be inefficient, I accept that they choose to fund other things of public benefit.

Sorry, but until the smokers stop making their messes, they should pay for something to make up for it. Other sin taxes probably have similar rationales.

edited 8th Jun '11 8:18:54 AM by blueharp

With universal healthcare, I do pay for your vices. If you get alcohol or related smoking problems, you're taxing the healthcare system more than I, based on lifestyle choices, yet you refuse to pay your fair share of the burden.

Savage Heathen has a better argument because America does not have universal healthcare but even then, he'd have to pay for all the second-hand smoking damage he does to people and property that does so inadvertently.

@Josef: Yes, I am arguing that. Society has no business restricting what people can or can't do.

Sin taxes are particularly insidious: They're fucking sumptuary laws! Deliberately making the prices of stuff skyrocket so only the rich can afford it. Take the working class's vices, habits and hobbies away from them.

We'd be immensely more free if we got rid of all sin taxes and vice/lifestyle-related prohibitions. I also think that fines should be completely abolished: If the State can not either get any benefit or have any incentive to ban stuff, they'd only ban what was strictly neccessary.

Even with universal healthcare, what about everyone pays taxes, gets healthcare, and we stop using it as yet another excuse to tell people what to do with their own damn lives?

edited 8th Jun '11 8:23:22 AM by SavageHeathen