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

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#61

Post by antidesitter »

lend000 wrote: post #46
alkonaut wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where an individual is only affecting themselves This depends on political context. In much of the western world outside the US (and partially in the US) healthcare is a publicly funded service. If you pay for your neighbors healthcare, then your neighbors obesity is an externality. > or cigarettes, on the other hand, there are two potential externalities to tax. And again here: my neighbors lung cancer is on my ta…

It seems you either missed the point of my comment or disagree with me on the fundamental level (to which degree an individual owns himself in a society). Society has absolutely no right to you working a certain amount in my opinion. The healthcare argument I also see very often, which I see quite differently. It begs the question "Why should you pay your neighbor's healthcare?". Instead of adding all these layers of…

Don’t forget employer-tied (!) health insurance.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#62

Post by flukus »

manicdee wrote: post #41
whatyoucantsay wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They cost more money per year to keep alive while they're dying, and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early). The indirect costs of their mortality are far greater than the direct savings.

> and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early)

The typically don't start to die in significant numbers until they're getting up to retirement age, they're an economic burden by that point.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#63

Post by jancsika »

kulix425 wrote: post #3

sure they do, if you are ok with the government making decisions about you and your life FOR you.

That conditional is true if one believes in the legitimacy of any one of an extant type of formal government, no?

Edit: clarification

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#64

Post by [deleted] »

manicdee wrote: post #41
whatyoucantsay wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They cost more money per year to keep alive while they're dying, and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early). The indirect costs of their mortality are far greater than the direct savings.

[deleted]

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#65

Post by refurb »

manicdee wrote: post #41
whatyoucantsay wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They cost more money per year to keep alive while they're dying, and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early). The indirect costs of their mortality are far greater than the direct savings.

Why would they cost more per year when dying? Lung cancer can be pretty swift versus other diseases like Alzheimer’s.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#66

Post by refurb »

flukus wrote: post #62
manicdee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They cost more money per year to keep alive while they're dying, and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early). The indirect costs of their mortality are far greater than the direct savings.

> and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early) The typically don't start to die in significant numbers until they're getting up to retirement age, they're an economic burden by that point.

Indeed. They also die early which means less social security to pay out.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#67

Post by bskap »

craftyguy wrote: post #60
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.

It's milk-based drinks that are excluded, not Starbucks specifically. So it doesn't apply to things like chocolate milk, milkshakes, or milkshakes with a small amount of coffee in them.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#68

Post by refurb »

stcredzero wrote: post #8
kulix425 wrote: post #3

sure they do, if you are ok with the government making decisions about you and your life FOR you.

What if there was solid data decisively showing that there were substantial externalities effectively being paid for by the public? The answer to that, is that the power to determine this is too dangerous. There do have to be rules and conventions, or there would be chaos. Since such power is dangerous, the exercise of it should be kept to a minimum. Then the question arises as to what that minimum is.

The problem with externalities when it comes to personal behavior is where do you stop?

What about people doing extreme sports? People that are promiscuous? People that like to hike in middle of nowhere and need search and rescue?

If you want the govt to control every aspect of your life, it’s a great path to start on.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#69

Post by closeparen »

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…

Providing a minor source of income is usually considered unethical and illegal. Minimum wages were adopted explicitly to curtail piecework that paid only a few pennies per item. Recycling programs knowingly target the most vulnerable in society to work without protections like minimum wage, overtime, and health insurance. Yet it seems they have political support from many of of the same people who advocate labor protections. How does that work?

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#70

Post by antidesitter »

nrb wrote: post #12
kulix425 wrote: post #3

sure they do, if you are ok with the government making decisions about you and your life FOR you.

"The government" is people. Are you arguing that society, collectively, should not establish a system of rules that reflects their social norms?

The government is the people.

That is a dubious statement that needs support and should not be asserted blithely.

Post reply on HN