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

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#81

Post by closeparen »

dsr_ wrote: post #77
closeparen wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prot…

Only people who are not served by better programs will spend time picking up cans for recycling value. I can simultaneously want to make sure that nobody goes hungry or homeless, and still recognize that we aren't doing that today, so in the meantime having that recycling income available is better than not having it.

This is exactly the neoliberal argument against labor protections in general. People would obtain jobs with dignified pay & benefits if they could. Having an option that seems exploitative is better than having no options. Thus, imposing minimum standards on the work that can be offered is harmful. Pursue other, better mechanisms to boost and lower-bound standards of living (economic growth, negative income tax). In the meantime, don't stand in the way of mutually beneficial transactions.

This is a right-wing, Milton Friedman worldview. The left (pretty much by definition as "the left") emphatically rejects these arguments with respect to flipping burgers, running a cash register, or delivering groceries. What's special about picking up glass bottles?

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#82

Post by closeparen »

stone-monkey wrote: post #80
closeparen wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prot…

Does that frame of reference make sense for a recycling program though? The deposit system is a zero sum system that isn't designed for the purpose of making money - the deposit is to discourage consumers from throwing recyclables away and instead get their money back. It seems like more of a side effect that low income workers use it as an income stream more than anything. It's like a metaphorical form of picking up…

>isn't designed for the purpose of making money

It saves taxpayers and sellers a boatload of money compared to paying for proper employees with health insurance, mileage reimbursement, etc. to clean up their streets / source their raw material / deal with their waste.

Parks and community centers aren't designed for the purpose of making money, either, but we generally expect the people cleaning their toilets to have solid benefits.

>It's like a metaphorical form of picking up loose change that others have dropped and deemed not worth their time to pick up.

How is that different from the gig economy?

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#83

Post by exabrial »

bskap wrote: post #67
craftyguy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What's so better about a drink with milk with tons of sugar than a drink without milk with tons of sugar? The drink without milk probably has fewer calories.

This is just an example of a corporation buying out a local government.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#84

Post by gspetr »

closeparen wrote: post #69
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…

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 prot…

Unethical and illegal?

Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland do not have minimum wages.

Yet none of them were overwhelmed by the abuse of homeless labor.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#85

Post by grkvlt »

JeanMarcS wrote: post #47

The article states that Tobacco have to be treated differently because it’s addictive, why sugar is different ? It’s addictive too.

No, sugar is not physically addictive, unlike nicotine. There is a clear difference. Now, sure, people with certain mental or psychological issues can become addicted to sugar, but the same could be said about pretty much anything, its not the sugar that is the problem.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#86

Post by yason »

mirimir wrote: post #75
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…

Yes, they certainly work as taxes. > Further, if alcohol taxes bring in 1% of the state budget it means everyone's income is that much lower because of taxing alcohol. Maybe you mean "that much higher" there? Also, just FYI, in 1923 "[s]ome 30 percent to 40 percent of the government’s income came from the tax on alcohol."[0] So Prohibition was funded by the federal income tax. But now we have both :( 0) https://taxfo…

Indeed, thanks for spotting the thinko. Everyone's income is that much higher (or everyone's taxes are that much lower which I think what I was thinking when writing the sentence).

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#87

Post by phobosdeimos »

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

For now. Medical science advances. Keeping people alive is ofcourse great but there are costs.

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#88

Post by JeanMarcS »

grkvlt wrote: post #85
JeanMarcS wrote: post #47

The article states that Tobacco have to be treated differently because it’s addictive, why sugar is different ? It’s addictive too.

No, sugar is not physically addictive, unlike nicotine. There is a clear difference. Now, sure, people with certain mental or psychological issues can become addicted to sugar, but the same could be said about pretty much anything, its not the sugar that is the problem.

I was thinking about a study I read 2 or 3 years ago about rodent, sugar and cocaine.

But it seems that it’s controversial.

My mistake.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/25/is-sugar-rea...

Re: Do “sin taxes” work?

#90

Post by stuaxo »

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…

Smokers damage others through secondary smoke.

People that work in pubs and clubs after a smoking ban must see a big benefit.

Everyone old enough to have gone out in the UK in the early 2000s can tell you that pubs and clubs were totally full of smoke and you would come home smelling like an ashtray.

Bit of a weak argument the article makes.

Post reply on HN