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

Addiction Markets

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#391

Post by Balgair »

Den_VR wrote: post #374
Balgair wrote: post #361

I'll make a bet here: By the 2040 US presidential election, anti-gambling legislation will be a bigger party platform issue than abortion is for one of the two major US political parties. We are ruining a generation of men with this, just as we did with alcohol in the era before prohibition. A wiser and more sensible approach is desperately needed today, but will not come for another 15 years until the damage is ines…

A generation of men?

I mean, in my little part of the world if you go up to any sub 24 year old male and say: " What's the line?" you'll get the betting numbers for the 'largest' local team playing that day.

It's a bit different today in particular though as we're in equinox season (when many major sports leagues play on the same day). So your local college football team is playing today, the world series game 7 is today, and there are NBA and NHL on today, and NFL is tomorrow.

Re: Addiction Markets

#392

Post by idiotsecant »

kiba wrote: post #302
mattmaroon wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No to both. You probably understand it but it’s not that amazing. States don’t tax corporations much (it’s often fairly easy to move your company to the next state over if taxes are lower) the federal government does. They tax things like sales, homes, gambling and other vices, etc.

Good idea to impose piguouvian taxes, not a good idea to impose sale taxes as that's regressive. Property tax's a mixed bag since it taxes both land and building when ideally you only want to tax land. States that impose income taxes are choosing not to imposes taxes elsewhere like land, which is the ideal tax. Income taxes have negative consequences since you're taxing economic activity.

Why shouldn't we tax the buildings? It seems like there's lots of real estate out there with relatively moderate land value but astronomical building value.

Re: Addiction Markets

#393

Post by Den_VR »

Balgair wrote: post #391
Den_VR wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A generation of men?

I mean, in my little part of the world if you go up to any sub 24 year old male and say: " What's the line?" you'll get the betting numbers for the 'largest' local team playing that day. It's a bit different today in particular though as we're in equinox season (when many major sports leagues play on the same day). So your local college football team is playing today, the world series game 7 is today, and there are N…

I don’t know this is new. May as well say sports have ruined a generation of men, for at least three generations. But my comment was admittedly more so addressed at the gender issue.

Re: Addiction Markets

#394

Post by 0xy »

Balgair wrote: post #361

I'll make a bet here: By the 2040 US presidential election, anti-gambling legislation will be a bigger party platform issue than abortion is for one of the two major US political parties. We are ruining a generation of men with this, just as we did with alcohol in the era before prohibition. A wiser and more sensible approach is desperately needed today, but will not come for another 15 years until the damage is ines…

I'll take the other side of that bet given Western countries with legal gambling do not have this issue. Some have it legalized forever.

Re: Addiction Markets

#395

Post by zkmon »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #363
zkmon wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain why there were hardly any addicts among peasant communities in rural third world countries back in the 70's or 80's.

What are you talking about, alcoholism is a classic rampant poverty addiction?

From what I saw, there was no "alcohol" as you know it. Most peasant families consumed something called toddy that came from palm trees and date palms. It's a family drink and it's nowhere close to what you call as addiction.

Re: Addiction Markets

#396

Post by drsalt »

zkmon wrote: post #298

What happened to America. Maybe 70's or 40's were it's peak. Every activity has become a betting. Investments, sports, relationships, home-buying. Addictions are a symptom of having an excessive amount of free time, floating money and lack of fear of reprisal from family and society and lack of basic wisdom. Excessive prosperity breaks social rythm. It removes dependencies and relations across individuals. It's like…

don't forget college major... plastics

Re: Addiction Markets

#397

Post by nradov »

idiotsecant wrote: post #392
kiba wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good idea to impose piguouvian taxes, not a good idea to impose sale taxes as that's regressive. Property tax's a mixed bag since it taxes both land and building when ideally you only want to tax land. States that impose income taxes are choosing not to imposes taxes elsewhere like land, which is the ideal tax. Income taxes have negative consequences since you're taxing economic activity.

Why shouldn't we tax the buildings? It seems like there's lots of real estate out there with relatively moderate land value but astronomical building value.

Really? Where are those properties?

Re: Addiction Markets

#398

Post by immibis »

idiotsecant wrote: post #392
kiba wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good idea to impose piguouvian taxes, not a good idea to impose sale taxes as that's regressive. Property tax's a mixed bag since it taxes both land and building when ideally you only want to tax land. States that impose income taxes are choosing not to imposes taxes elsewhere like land, which is the ideal tax. Income taxes have negative consequences since you're taxing economic activity.

Why shouldn't we tax the buildings? It seems like there's lots of real estate out there with relatively moderate land value but astronomical building value.

You can, but it's a tax on real wealth, which incentivizes a reduction in real wealth. More concretely it incentivizes fewer buildings because people want to pay less tax. If you want fewer buildings then fine.

The amount of land is fixed. Taxation on land does not decrease land, but rather incentivizes efficient land use and decreasing land values (which improves efficiency of land use).

Re: Addiction Markets

#399

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

Humorist2290 wrote: post #118

But if you want to outlaw this harmful activity [licensed gambling], you have to find a way to replace 6.4% of Maryland’s budget, which is slightly less than the entire amount the state brings in from corporate taxes. A fraction of the proceeds of losing bets from a fraction of Maryland's citizens contributes almost the same to state services -- EMS, education, road maintenance, etc -- than the total corporate taxes…

I think this is a pretty good approach actually. Give people the freedom to gamble, but discourage it through taxes. It's best to tax things you want to discourage. So it's preferable to tax gambling rather than productive economic activity.

Related concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax

Re: Addiction Markets

#400

Post by immibis »

vinceguidry wrote: post #384
rcpt wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing productive economic activity is bad

That's... kinda ridiculous? It sounds like you're just against taxation period. How should a government fund itself?

Zero taxation is just as bad. There's a certain amount of taxation that has to be met, and it's best if it comes from as harmful activity as possible, because whatever gets taxed is discouraged. If there isn't enough harmful activity to meet tax needs, then start taxing normal activity.
Post reply on HN