Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do “sin taxes” work?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 114 posts

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#31

Post by joejerryronnie »

yason wrote: post #19

From the article: Sin taxes are blunt policy instruments. People who only have the occasional drink are not taking on any great health risks, yet they are taxed no differently than serious alcoholics. But surely the alcoholics are taxed way more than people who have an occasional drink because of the sheer volume? If you drink or smoke a lot, the taxes do accumulate into significant amounts annually. Policymakers sho…

If current social trends continue, working in Tech is going to be considered a sin. Get ready to pay extra taxes for your choice to work in such an abhorrent industry.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#32

Post by debacle »

Modern sin taxes tend to be about maximizing tax revenue and not reducing harmful acts. When sin taxes are enacted, they tend to be relatively reasonable. I've heard as high as 20% for marijuana legislation, however I can promise you that 20-30 years after legalization, that tax will have crept slowly, higher and higher.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#33

Post by ummonk »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #31
yason wrote: post #19

From the article: Sin taxes are blunt policy instruments. People who only have the occasional drink are not taking on any great health risks, yet they are taxed no differently than serious alcoholics. But surely the alcoholics are taxed way more than people who have an occasional drink because of the sheer volume? If you drink or smoke a lot, the taxes do accumulate into significant amounts annually. Policymakers sho…

If current social trends continue, working in Tech is going to be considered a sin. Get ready to pay extra taxes for your choice to work in such an abhorrent industry.

I'd be perfectly happy with a tax on data collection and targetted ads.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#34

Post by dsr_ »

yason wrote: post #19

From the article: Sin taxes are blunt policy instruments. People who only have the occasional drink are not taking on any great health risks, yet they are taxed no differently than serious alcoholics. But surely the alcoholics are taxed way more than people who have an occasional drink because of the sheer volume? If you drink or smoke a lot, the taxes do accumulate into significant amounts annually. Policymakers sho…

But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others

Unless you have a functional health care system, in which case increased costs are passed on to everyone's taxes. It would be appropriate to dedicate revenues from tobacco and alcohol taxes to medical care.

Sin taxes are taxes that fall only on the users of the products or services in question, and rarely have knock-on effects like fuel taxes (which then raise the cost of transporting everything else, but promote more efficient transportation).

Adding recycling deposits, for example, vastly increases the rate of recycling, reduces litter, provides a minor source of income for the homeless, and provides a very small tax revenue.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#35

Post by rosser »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #28
rosser wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not following how sin taxes entail a bifurcated society. Can you elaborate on that?

I certainly can, I did so in simple, easy to understand language with examples right here in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17746413

Really? I asked in good faith for you to better articulate your position, not to be condescendingly told to read it again.

Your post consists of a paragraph about externalities, some lovely-sounding "I believe that..." positions, and a couple example axes on which a society might bifurcate. I don't see a logical connection between them, and I think a leap like that warrants articulation.

So, one more time for the folks who don't share your implicit premises: how do sin taxes result in a structurally bifurcated society?

EDIT: phrasing

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#36

Post by votepaunchy »

YokoZar wrote: post #13
microcolonel wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particularly if they're not so high as to effect a "ban", the effect is a ban on people less affluent than some mark making "sinful" purchases in a particular jurisdiction. Sin taxes are particularly regressive, since they tend to be higher than typical sales taxes (which are already regressive in some sense).

If policy makers are concerned about potential regressive effects, they could take the revenue earned and apply it towards helping the poor. One "easy" method is lowering the bottom tax bracket - in the US they could cut the explicitly regressive payroll tax.

Social security (the large majority of the payroll tax) is highly progressive when paid out and then taxed.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#37

Post by whatyoucantsay »

dsr_ wrote: post #34
yason wrote: post #19

From the article: Sin taxes are blunt policy instruments. People who only have the occasional drink are not taking on any great health risks, yet they are taxed no differently than serious alcoholics. But surely the alcoholics are taxed way more than people who have an occasional drink because of the sheer volume? If you drink or smoke a lot, the taxes do accumulate into significant amounts annually. Policymakers sho…

But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others Unless you have a functional health care system, in which case increased costs are passed on to everyone's taxes. It would be appropriate to dedicate revenues from tobacco and alcohol taxes to medical care. Sin taxes are taxes that fall only on the users of the products or services in quest…

Smokers cost the health care system less because they die younger: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#38

Post by rosser »

whatyoucantsay wrote: post #37
dsr_ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others Unless you have a functional health care system, in which case increased costs are passed on to everyone's taxes. It would be appropriate to dedicate revenues from tobacco and alcohol taxes to medical care. Sin taxes are taxes that fall only on the users of the products or services in quest…

Smokers cost the health care system less because they die younger: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678

But, per that same study, "society" would net — inclusive, among other things, of pension funds not disbursed — lose ~€70k per individual, while saving less than €5k on medical expenses.

Is that really a good bargain?

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#39

Post by gerdesj »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #31
yason wrote: post #19

From the article: Sin taxes are blunt policy instruments. People who only have the occasional drink are not taking on any great health risks, yet they are taxed no differently than serious alcoholics. But surely the alcoholics are taxed way more than people who have an occasional drink because of the sheer volume? If you drink or smoke a lot, the taxes do accumulate into significant amounts annually. Policymakers sho…

If current social trends continue, working in Tech is going to be considered a sin. Get ready to pay extra taxes for your choice to work in such an abhorrent industry.

If current social trends continue, working in Tech is going to be considered a sin.

When I started out in IT (early '90s), it was not something you generally mentioned at a party.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#40

Post by Sir_Substance »

rosser wrote: post #35
Sir_Substance wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly can, I did so in simple, easy to understand language with examples right here in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17746413

Really? I asked in good faith for you to better articulate your position, not to be condescendingly told to read it again. Your post consists of a paragraph about externalities, some lovely-sounding "I believe that..." positions, and a couple example axes on which a society might bifurcate. I don't see a logical connection between them, and I think a leap like that warrants articulation. So, one more time for the fol…

>I don't see a logical connection between them, and I think a leap like that warrants articulation.

I do see a connection, and moreover that connection is obvious to me. I genuinely see your statement as a low quality argumentative technique to ask me to repeat a very clear statement in different phrasing in the hope that you will find some triviality that is easier to attack than my core premise.

If you'd really like an answer, please articulate the nature of the logical disconnect you see.

Post reply on HN