• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Sin taxes": Legit?

Are "sin taxes" a legitimate way to generate revenue?

  • Total voters
    47
ajn678 said:
You are the one who refuses to take responsibility for your own actions. The actions you take have consequences outside of your own body/family. If you decide to drink/smoke/do drugs, chances are that you are going to impact someone else negatively. I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your idea that you think you can replace police because they are only needed for situations that you described.
Click to expand...

I have an impact on the very air around me. Doesn't mean that I'm responsible for a butterfly effect.

And yes, that is all that I ever need from a cop. But even if I did need more, so what? They chose that line of work. They're responsible for it. Not me.
 
radcen said:
"Sin taxes": Legit?

Tobacco, alcohol, whatever. Are "sin taxes" a legitimate way to generate revenue?

I say 'no'. First off, I see no reason to pay an extra tax to do something that is otherwise legal and is already being taxed through the various consumption and income taxes. Second, the idea that the government feels that it is justified in this additional financial fleecing just because the targeted group is politically impotent is morally repugnant.

And no, the "...if you don't want to pay the tax then don't do it..." mantra doesn't justify it. :roll:

That is all. Have at it. :)
Click to expand...

The dem's never seen a tax they didn't want to raise , it's in their DNA ! :shock: Spend baby spend !
 
Socrates1 said:
The dem's never seen a tax they didn't want to raise , it's in their DNA ! :shock: Spend baby spend !
Click to expand...

In all my years, I have never seen Republicans reduce tobacco taxes. I have seen Republicans raise them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevant. When I am driving on the road I am not thinking about anyone's safety but my own and my kid's. As far as the cops go, only thing they'll be needed for is to clean up the blood from the idiot that tried to rob my home, my person, or tried to harm my family. Sure as heck doesn't mean that I'm responsible for them.

If I go get firewood and cut down a tree in the process I am impacting those birds that live in that tree. Doesn't mean that I am responsible for them.
Click to expand...
You prattling on about responsibility is empty when you say things like this.
 
radcen said:
"Sin taxes": Legit?

Tobacco, alcohol, whatever. Are "sin taxes" a legitimate way to generate revenue?

I say 'no'. First off, I see no reason to pay an extra tax to do something that is otherwise legal and is already being taxed through the various consumption and income taxes. Second, the idea that the government feels that it is justified in this additional financial fleecing just because the targeted group is politically impotent is morally repugnant.

And no, the "...if you don't want to pay the tax then don't do it..." mantra doesn't justify it. :roll:

That is all. Have at it. :)
Click to expand...

They're a legit way to raise revenue, however they are too easily raised. Whenever an easy source of revenue is needed, they go straight there because there will always be bipartisan support for it.
 
rocket88 said:
In all my years, I have never seen Republicans reduce tobacco taxes. I have seen Republicans raise them.
Click to expand...

Right ! :lamo Donations from Altria and RJ Reynolds to Democratic candidates for Legislature and for other offices in California have increased more than 400% in the last 5 years. The Legislature was dominated by the Democrats. Being indebted to tobacco industry, it comes without surprise that several bills aimed to reduce smoking and smoking-related illnesses were quietly rejected or have been stalled.
The top recipient of tobacco money was Assemblyman John Perez who just resigned as Speaker. He has received $95,600 from the tobacco companies. Ranking second was Governor Jerry Brown who received $55,500.
At third place was Sen. Roderick Wright, who was convicted of felony, received $40,400. Assemblyman Isadore Hall got $35,700. Hall chairs Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization that has main jurisdiction on tobacco regulation
 
radcen said:
Revenue generation is almost never stated as the reason, but if you watch and listen it seems pretty obvious that they get all giddy when they talk about how much revenue came in. The stuff about reducing unwanted behavior is just a red herring. Any decently articulate person can make it sound good.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they want people smoking. If they stop that's a cut in pay.
 
Socrates1 said:
Right ! :lamo Donations from Altria and RJ Reynolds to Democratic candidates for Legislature and for other offices in California have increased more than 400% in the last 5 years. The Legislature was dominated by the Democrats. Being indebted to tobacco industry, it comes without surprise that several bills aimed to reduce smoking and smoking-related illnesses were quietly rejected or have been stalled.
The top recipient of tobacco money was Assemblyman John Perez who just resigned as Speaker. He has received $95,600 from the tobacco companies. Ranking second was Governor Jerry Brown who received $55,500.
At third place was Sen. Roderick Wright, who was convicted of felony, received $40,400. Assemblyman Isadore Hall got $35,700. Hall chairs Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization that has main jurisdiction on tobacco regulation
Click to expand...

You haven't contradicted anything I said. Show me one time Republicans lowered tobacco taxes. I saw Tim Pawlenty raise them while Gov of Minnesota. Of course, he called it a "health impact fee" but it was the tax going up.
 
radcen said:
"Sin taxes": Legit?

Tobacco, alcohol, whatever. Are "sin taxes" a legitimate way to generate revenue?

I say 'no'. First off, I see no reason to pay an extra tax to do something that is otherwise legal and is already being taxed through the various consumption and income taxes. Second, the idea that the government feels that it is justified in this additional financial fleecing just because the targeted group is politically impotent is morally repugnant.

And no, the "...if you don't want to pay the tax then don't do it..." mantra doesn't justify it. :roll:
Click to expand...

I voted elaboration needed.

What makes one type of tax "legitimate" compared to another type of tax? Taxing any transaction discourages that transaction, so it's not hard to argue the illegitimacy of any tax, yet here we are, we need governments and so we tax ourselves.

The other question to ask concerning sin taxes especially is what is the more important underlying goal of the tax, to minimize the amount of the sin, or to maximize revenue? If you don't care how much revenue it really raises but want to essentially prohibit the official sale of whatever it is, I think that's somewhat illegitimate, because I don't think taxes should be used as a back-door way of banning things.

If you want to maximize the revenue raked in from a tax, you can only set it so high as to not incentivize people skirting it by trading under the table/black market style.

Let's pretend a town has an alcohol problem, i.e. too often drunkards are beating their family members or fighting each other at the bar or otherwise creating a greater need for law enforcement, say another LEO on patrol most evenings. Adding a LEO to the payroll increases the cost to the public in this town. If the town wants to add LEO capacity as a pretty much direct result of alcohol-related criminal behavior and do so in a budget-neutral way, one reasonable option might be to raise some revenue for this need directly from the sale of the thing that contributes to this need. So in this basic example, a town is not trying to fund its entire government on some sin tax. It's supplementing its tax revenues to fund something from an activity that directly relates to it. So in this case I would say this sin tax is as legitimate as any other tax.
 
radcen said:
"Sin taxes": Legit?

Tobacco, alcohol, whatever. Are "sin taxes" a legitimate way to generate revenue?

I say 'no'. First off, I see no reason to pay an extra tax to do something that is otherwise legal and is already being taxed through the various consumption and income taxes. Second, the idea that the government feels that it is justified in this additional financial fleecing just because the targeted group is politically impotent is morally repugnant.

And no, the "...if you don't want to pay the tax then don't do it..." mantra doesn't justify it. :roll:

That is all. Have at it. :)
Click to expand...

I have seen attempts to use taxation for back-door gun control. That worries me.
 
"Sin taxes": Legit?

Kal'Stang said:
Why? I'm taking responsibility for my own and my kids safety. Not expecting anyone else to do so. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Are people injured and killed by drunk drivers not taking responsibility for their own children? An organized municipality can tax and spend money to fund police to patrol public roads for dangerous drivers. Some people are of the opinion that the general social benefit of having patrolled streets means it's best funded by general taxes like property taxes or sales taxes. Others think it should be funded with gas taxes because those actually driving on those roads (using gas) benefit proportionately from them being safe. Others might say an alcohol tax could also be used so that those who drink a lot more alcohol are paying more to address a problem created in part by the consumption of alcohol.

None of these notions is at all radical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom