Pollution should be taxed as well.
Taxing pollution would be very easy to implement by taxing oil and coal extraction and would help realign ecology and economy but it's not going to happen in the current political climate.
Do “sin taxes” work?
101–110 of 114 posts
Re: Do “sin taxes” work?
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I will vote for a minimum wage. I will vote for a minimum wage with an automatic update based on any reasonable measure of inflation. I will vote for a basic income. I will vote for much higher and much more progressive income taxes. I will vote for a wealth tax. I will vote for stronger unions. I will vote for better anti-corruption measures across the board, for companies and unions and governments.
And I will not vote to remove recycling deposits because you think that it's somehow exploiting poor people to let them get a little money.
Re: Do “sin taxes” work?
#103But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others.
Erm... really?
"Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin' says Prof David Nutt" [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210] based on his research available here: http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt-lance...
Re: Do “sin taxes” work?
#104It's bizarre reading comments on this from people in countries where these taxes do little or nothing to rectify the issue that's being taxed in the first place.
The UK is far from perfect but at least revenue raised from smoking is invested into both preventative care (ie cessation programmes) and actual treatment.
Arguments that the tax should be even higher, or substances banned, obviously come from people who have no understanding of how black markets work. Vast networks of tobacco smuggling already exist. You have to pick a balance.
Re: Do “sin taxes” work?
#105I'm okay with "sin" taxes if the taxes goes directly to fixing the problem. Like the additional taxes for Tobacco goes to finance former smokers diseases; or that of sugar to fight obesity.
It's like "Here you pay medication/trouble while you consume".
Re: Do “sin taxes” work?
#106My 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.
[deleted]
Re: Do “sin taxes” work?
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> This is just an example of a corporation buying out a local government. I gotta question whether it's realistic to say that Starbucks bought out local government with it's infinite resources but McDonalds couldn't afford to? I'd love to see the actual/official reasoning behind the exclusion though
Starbucks was born/raised in Seattle.. so maybe that affiliation won them a free pass?
Re: Do “sin taxes” work?
#108Earlier 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.
They dont get pensions if they die early hence contribute more by not collecting
Re: Do “sin taxes” work?
#109Of 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.
Funding the government and pleasing your constituents are legitimate aims in a representative democracy.
Re: Do “sin taxes” work?
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they cost more per year when dying? Lung cancer can be pretty swift versus other diseases like Alzheimer’s.
Speaking from europe where healthcare is basically free. Medical care for these patients is extremely expensive. Each surgery costs around 50 to 60 thousand euro and it's not uncommon to get 2 or 3 of those before dying. Add to that the frequent visits to the doctor's office, the oxygen tanks if needed, the medications, etc. The other option would be to just "let them die" but that's not what we decided to do as a so…
Alzheimer’s can mean providing 24/7 care for a decade.
Not sure it’s cheaper than lung cancer.