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

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#51

Post by rosser »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #48
dsnuh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't obvious to me either. It sounded like you made an argument that at least 30% of people shouldn't be allowed to drive, and then leaping to that leading to some sort of societal bifurcation? Your argument or point isn't obvious or clear at all.

>It sounded like you made an argument that at least 30% of people shouldn't be allowed to drive, and then leaping to that leading to some sort of societal bifurcation? Aha, a tangible argument. You don't see the possibility of social bifurcation from 30% of the population not being allowed to drive? Most tradie jobs require a car. It's very hard to be an electrician, plumber, chippie etc. that services homes as if yo…

> Most tradie jobs require a car. It's very hard to be an electrician, plumber, chippie etc. that services homes as if you don't have a car.

Then how do people do those jobs in countries that do meaningfully select for good drivers, instead of dispensing licenses to all comers? Last I checked, continental Europe hasn't entirely descended into disrepair, because not everyone can drive.

If your position is that overnight switching to a tough drivers licensure regime would be disruptive, I can only say, "Of course it would". Literally no-one is advocating that, either in this thread, or in The Fine Article, however, so I'm vague on its relevance.

> My point was that the argument "we shouldn't let people do this because it has costs to society" doesn't really go anywhere as an argument.

Which would be an interesting discussion if that was the argument being made. Sin taxes aren't "We shouldn't let people do this", and it's a fundamental mischaracterization of them to say they are. They discourage it, sure. They can also be used to mitigate the cost of the "sin" in question.

But it is fundamentally incompatible with most of the goals of a sin tax, to be used to outright prevent the thing being taxed.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#52

Post by microcolonel »

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.

The end result is still a policy which oppresses the people who can not afford the tax more severely than it oppresses those who can. If the desired effect is a reduction in smoking, for example, the appropriate approach is to track and limit sales on a per-person basis. This, of course, is less attractive to the state, and more cumbersome to administer and specify, but it doesn't suffer from the obvious moral wrong: artificially pricing people out of perceived vice on the basis of class.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#55

Post by genericid »

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #6

Of course, as far as governments are concerned whether such taxes reduce "sinful" activities is irrelevant, so long as they increase tax revenue and allow politicians a way to improve their public images.

Of course, all politicians are the same. Of course, taxes go directly to them so they have a motive to increase tax revenues more than would be otherwise sensible.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#57

Post by 3pt14159 »

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

This is true, and I once quoted sources like it as a smoker that thought sin taxes were too high, but the larger truth is that smoking should be discouraged because we should make it socially unacceptable to stop our children from getting hooked like we did. I quit. It's good that I did for its own sake. We're not just numbers on a policy planner's spreadsheet.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#58

Post by dsnuh »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #48
dsnuh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't obvious to me either. It sounded like you made an argument that at least 30% of people shouldn't be allowed to drive, and then leaping to that leading to some sort of societal bifurcation? Your argument or point isn't obvious or clear at all.

>It sounded like you made an argument that at least 30% of people shouldn't be allowed to drive, and then leaping to that leading to some sort of societal bifurcation? Aha, a tangible argument. You don't see the possibility of social bifurcation from 30% of the population not being allowed to drive? Most tradie jobs require a car. It's very hard to be an electrician, plumber, chippie etc. that services homes as if yo…

No, I don't see "social bifurcation" (which I think needs to be defined) happening over drivers licensing requirements. Over race? Sure. Over systemic income/opportunity inequalities? You bet. But over driving? I just don't see it.

First, how is this 30% cut going to be enforced? At the licensing test? Is it that if you get a single ticket or report for unsafe driving, your license is revoked? You are going to look at existing drivers license holders and determine their fitness to be operating a vehicle, how exactly? Is it a lifetime ban from driving? How many times can I take the test of it just didn't come naturally to me?

Second, there's already a portion of the population that for whatever reason (DWI is a common one) aren't allowed to drive, and I don't see them rising up in the streets.

I don't think anyone is arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to do things that have costs to society, they are discussing whether or not taxation of the behaviors is effective.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#60

Post by craftyguy »

exabrial wrote: post #56

My problem with sin taxes is they're usually sponsored by a corporate entity. Eg: in Seattle the sugar tax doesn't apply to Starbucks hilariously.

> Seattle the sugar tax doesn't apply to Starbucks hilariously.

Wow, to exclude an organization which sells 1000+ cal. drinks (vast majority/all from sugars) to millions of people a day, is hilarious indeed. And sad.

Post reply on HN