• 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
Gimmesometruth said:
You mean when a legislature corrupts the idea? Is the idea responsible for the diversion of funding?

AZ GOP legislatures have diverted schools monies into the general fund for many years, does that mean that property taxation is wrong?

Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

You seem to have this dream like belief in government. Government will use it's revenue for whatever it feels like. You shouldn't create tax revenue ideas with the idea that it will only be used towards certain ends. What will happen is that will use the revenue for others things and prove you wrong, again.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Lets look at taxes on cigarettes that fund anti-smoking. Smoking as been dramatically cut due to education on the effects, it has been a cheap way to reduce the effects that smoking has on health.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, smoking has been dramatically cut due to the rising price (taxes and regulation) and the fact that you can no longer smoke most everywhere. Not to mention, employers have rung in, no more smoke breaks.

The anti-smoking campaigns funded by the taxes are a bust. Not to mention, it isn't just the anti-smoking campaigns funded by the tax revenue from smokers - states did silly stuff like funding vital programs and even schools with the money. Now they're finding themselves in the place where they need for people to smoke to support those other programs.

The problem with sin taxes is that eventually you need for people to keep on sinning because you need the revenue.
 
countryboy said:
Maybe in Canada, but here in the USA we have a constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is there government authority to "discourage" via taxation.
Click to expand...

The Congress is given the ability to tax. Their motivation is irrelevant.


Generally I think we need to shift our system from taxing investment and income to taxing consumption. I'm fine with a non-flat tax that taxes some forms of consumption more than others, though I would recognize serious limits where people would seek to de facto deny access via punitive taxation (for example, if we were to tax the process of printing a book at 100,000%; that would be a restriction on free speech).
 
countryboy said:
Maybe in Canada, but here in the USA we have a constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is there government authority to "discourage" via taxation.
Click to expand...

When has the government followed that? I mean even Washington violated the Constitution.
 
cpwill said:
The Congress is given the ability to tax. Their motivation is irrelevant.


Generally I think we need to shift our system from taxing investment and income to taxing consumption. I'm fine with a non-flat tax that taxes some forms of consumption more than others, though I would recognize serious limits where people would seek to de facto deny access via punitive taxation (for example, if we were to tax the process of printing a book at 100,000%; that would be a restriction on free speech).
Click to expand...

Ah...no. The taxing and spending clause doesn't say motivation is irreverent.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You mean when a legislature corrupts the idea? Is the idea responsible for the diversion of funding?

AZ GOP legislatures have diverted schools monies into the general fund for many years, does that mean that property taxation is wrong?

Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...
Maybe you're having trouble understanding because you didn't read the link in post #13. Otherwise you wouldn't have come back with such a nonsensical and off-tangent response.

I'll try to keep this with small words as much as possible...

Prop 10 was a special sin tax for smokers. The beneficiary of this money was a children's school program. The two are completely unrelated. It was a ballot initiative, hence the legislature was not involved.

So, what happens if the "discouragement" (sorry for the big word, couldn't help it) is too effective and revenue for the school program falls short of what the school program says it needs? Who makes up the slack?

(If this is still too complicated for G<whatshisname>, any one else is free to address it as well.)
 
Henrin said:
Ah...no. The taxing and spending clause doesn't say motivation is irreverent.
Click to expand...

Well it can be reverent or irreverent as it pleases. What it doesn't do is limit the motivation of the tax. You can't argue "well you people only put in the mortgage interest deduction as a way to help out the construction industry!!!" as a means of delegitimizing the tax itself. The Congress's internal motives are irrelevant to whether or not they have the legal authority to levy the tax.
 
countryboy said:
Maybe in Canada, but here in the USA we have a constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is there government authority to "discourage" via taxation.
Click to expand...
Narrow arguments are a means to do nothing.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
But, yes. I think the sin taxes are legitimate. The state has the power to implement taxes and they use this power to sometimes discourage or encourage people from partaking in an action or purchasing goods.

Also sin taxes are a good way to generate revenue.. Dont believe me, just look at Colorado and their marijuana tax....
​Revenue From Colorado Marijuana Tax Expected To Double In 2015
Click to expand...

Pot = sin? I hope not. Same with booze and tobacco. It is an indulgence, so is eating too much good food. If we tax the hell out of it, don't we deny some of our less fortunate citizens to have some fun?
Of course that is the simple version. I don't know, gotta think about this a bit more.
 
cpwill said:
Well it can be reverent or irreverent as it pleases. What it doesn't do is limit the motivation of the tax. You can't argue "well you people only put in the mortgage interest deduction as a way to help out the construction industry!!!" as a means of delegitimizing the tax itself. The Congress's internal motives are irrelevant to whether or not they have the legal authority to levy the tax.
Click to expand...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So where exactly does any of that come into play? Does it fall under General Welfare? What exactly doesn't fall under those two words?
 
Lovebug said:
Pot = sin? I hope not. Same with booze and tobacco. It is an indulgence, so is eating too much good food. If we tax the hell out of it, don't we deny some of our less fortunate citizens to have some fun?
Of course that is the simple version. I don't know, gotta think about this a bit more.
Click to expand...
It should be called the "politically impotent tax", because that's what it really is... fleecing people who don't have the collective political clout to fight back.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Narrow arguments are a means to do nothing.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why most laws face testing wherein the government need may be defined as narrowly focused or rejected when it comes to constitutional definitions.
 
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...

No, it's not legitimate, but that's never stopped the government.
 
radcen said:
It should be called the "politically impotent tax", because that's what it really is... fleecing people who don't have the collective political clout to fight back.
Click to expand...

It's basically saying they don't approve of your behavior and then coercing you through taxation to change your ways. I bet if anyone else did anything close to that no one would be sitting here thinking it was acceptable.
 
Henrin said:
It's basically saying they don't approve of your behavior and then coercing you through taxation to change your ways. I bet if anyone else did anything close to that no one would be sitting here thinking it was acceptable.
Click to expand...
Here what I believe (and maybe I'm being too cynical)...

What they say their priorities are...
#1 Curb unhealthy behavior
#2 Generate revenue

What I believe their priorities REALLY are...
#1 Generate revenue
#2 Perpetuate the bureaucracy
#3
#4
#5
#6 Curb unhealthy behavior
 
radcen said:
Maybe you're having trouble understanding because you didn't read the link in post #13.
Click to expand...
Actually, I could get yer link to open, but I subsequently read about it in wiki.
Otherwise you wouldn't have come back with such a nonsensical and off-tangent response.

I'll try to keep this with small words as much as possible...

Prop 10 was a special sin tax for smokers. The beneficiary of this money was a children's school program. The two are completely unrelated. It was a ballot initiative, hence the legislature was not involved.
Click to expand...
Actually, yer wrong, it funded early childhood education....AND anti-smoking programs.

So, what happens if the "discouragement" (sorry for the big word, couldn't help it) is too effective and revenue for the school program falls short of what the school program says it needs? Who makes up the slack?
Click to expand...
Who? The citizens of the state...hurr durr. Will yer argument now be that pre-school funding should be eliminated?

(If this is still too complicated for G<whatshisname>, any one else is free to address it as well.)
Click to expand...
Wow, as if the lyric to a Lennon song is too tough to spell out, yer avoidance used more characters.

Derp
 
Henrin said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So where exactly does any of that come into play? Does it fall under General Welfare? What exactly doesn't fall under those two words?
Click to expand...

I highlighted it for you :) The Congress has the power to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. IOW, they can tax cigarettes. In fact, for much of our early history it was import taxes on particular items that funded the federal government.
 
Only if the taxed behavior can be shown to have an overall detrimental effect on their users or those around them. Otherwise, no, sin taxes are silly.
 
Henrin said:
The services needed don't decline at all. It adds revenue that the government will use to create new programs that will exist long after the demand is below the rate to fund it.
Click to expand...
So if ads are not needed to end smoking...because smoking has ended....I'm sorry.....what did you say?
 
Phys251 said:
Only if the taxed behavior can be shown to have an overall detrimental effect on their users or those around them. Otherwise, no, sin taxes are silly.
Click to expand...
If the behavior is a danger to others, shouldn't it be made outright illegal?
 
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...

Legit? Nope, because they are evenly distributed as to who pays and yet everyone benefits, or is that the State benefits.
 
cpwill said:
I highlighted it for you :) The Congress has the power to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. IOW, they can tax cigarettes. In fact, for much of our early history it was import taxes on particular items that funded the federal government.
Click to expand...
Taxing cigarettes was used to fund the Civil War....so there you go, a tax was used for something unrelated to the item's use.....OMG!!!!
 
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'm giving you the clap :applaud I agree with this 100%.
 
Carjosse said:
Just like a government can create a tax incentive to encourage something they can also create an extra tax to discourage something. They are perfectly legitimate.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that they have not shown they discourage anything, opps.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So if ads are not needed to end smoking...because smoking has ended....I'm sorry.....what did you say?
Click to expand...

Again, you seem to think everything the government tells you is the truth. The government might use the funds for ads, but they are also going to use it for unrelated items.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom