Sin Tax Poll

[1a2b3c]

I disagree with taxing something in order to do away with its use...like cigarettes. Do you agree with taxing something so high as to price it out of the market? This pertains to cigarette tax, liquor tax, marijuana tax, bullet tax, and any other tax that could be used to price something completely out of the market.

If you dont use any product that has a sin tax, imagine a tax being put on a product you do use like cable internet, or television. Wouldnt it suck if the government decided to tax cable modems or tv by 100 200 or even 1000%?

[KCDem]

1. oooh, marijuana tax!

I, for one, would be thrilled to have it legalized, even if that meant I had to pay taxes.

[curse10]

22. You already have to pay taxes on it

although illegal, it's still taxed. In Colorado there are tax stamps you can purchase.

[1a2b3c]

23. There is a federal tax stamp

[rogerashton]

2. How 'bout taxing pollution,

congestion, things we want to get rid of? How about taxes to discourage overuse of things that are overused, like (perhaps) fossil fuels? Why not have taxes do double duty: raising revenues (so taxes on labor, for example, can be lower than they would be otherwise) and discouraging something that needs to be discouraged? If you can accomplish two good purposes rather than just one, what reasons could you have for disagreeing?

[Frank Rose]

3. Gasoline tax too, the 'sin' tax should be applied only

to programs to counter negative effects of the product. For example, the cigarette tax should be used for health programs.

[rogerashton]

6. There is something to be said for that,

up to a point. But there are disadvantages. It might be more efficient if the cig tax were used to offset reductions in the tax on labor -- resulting in more jobs. Why not? What is so magic about devoting the cig tax to health care programs?

It is just that: magic, as opposed to science. The idea that like should be used to cure like is quite common to magical folklore. Your limitation makes as much sense as using rhinoceros horn for an aphrodisiac because it looks like -- well, you know.

The one good reason for "tying" a tax is that it may promote public confidence that the tax will actually be used for something worthwhile. If it were tied to programs for children, that would be equally good, and less magical thinking.

[rogerashton]

4. By the way, there is a tax on your cable modem.

Only it is charged by the company rather than the government. What is the difference between a monopoly price and a tax?

[1a2b3c]

5. One is illegal and the other one should be illegal???

Your cable modem tax is what? less than 5% of your bill? A pack of cigarettes use to cost less than $2 and now they cost over $4. Taxes doubled the price. Isnt that what happened to the tea and other things being imported during the boston tea party?

[rogerashton]

7. No, both are legal,

and the corporate tax on your cable modem is probably a lot more than 5%.

[flaminbats]

38. the Boston Tea Party???

If my memory is still functioning..the old line used to justify the tea party was "No taxation without representation."

It wasn't until Reagan and Bush came along that we began to hear "No taxation or representation!" :crazy:

[ThomWV]

8. Disagree ---- Because

Any sin tax is an unfair tax placed on the minority by a majority and if there is any honesty in the process that means that the people who are NOT using the thing or service to be taxed are the ones denying its use. In this sense it follows my belief that no man alive should have a say in the question of if or if not a woman should be able to have abortion on demand. It is simply none of our business.

In the case of something like taxing bullits, where society might be better served without the nusience (deadly or otherwise) there are simply bettery ways of achieving the desired end without damagine secondary consequences. For instance, you can price bullits out of availability for common criminals but at the same time end the sport of target shooting, a harmless activity. So the thing to do is encact strong laws against the activity of armed robbery, or whatever it is you wish to do away with, and then enforce them, but not tax a secondary part that has other consequences.

Thom

[1a2b3c]

11. Thats kind of my opinion

I cant believe most of DU agrees with a sin tax, so far.

[rogerashton]

13. I agree that taxing bullets is not a good idea,

for the reason you mentioned, plus I don't think it would work.

However, do you advocate prohibiting tobacco? Putting people in jail for smoking tobacco? Putting people in jail for congesting the highways? The gas tax discourages congestion in a much better way, I submit, since 1) jail for increasing congestion is very much out of proportion to the problems, and 2) jailing people is VERY costly, whereas taxing gasoline allows us to reduce other taxes that discourage jobs. Are you sure you want to put more people in jail?

[1a2b3c]

15. I always like Perots ideas on the gas tax

to reduce the deficit. I dont see gas tax as a sin tax though. Almost everyone drives so its not like the majority is taxing the minority because they disagree with them. Its taxing all gas operated machines to raise money for roads and transit that the gas operated machines need.

[rogerashton]

9. Seems to me the general question here is

whether the government works for us or works for itself.

If it works for us then we need to find ways to get it the resources it needs to do its job.

If it works for itself then we need a democratic revolution to make it work for us.

Perhaps a nonviolent, ballot box revolution -- that would be best. But: "starving the beast" doesn't work, because there are jobs that only government can do, and cutting taxes because we don't like them is like skipping our medicine because it tastes bad.

I would have thought those things would be understood on a democratic board.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Out of the market, no. But I think taxing things is reasonable.

I like the way Ralph puts it:

"I would push for a tax system that would tax, first, things we don't like — such as pollution, speculation, gambling, addiction products — before we tax work. Why are we taxing things we like to do, instead of the things that aren't good for us? So, a tax on stock transactions would slow down speculation, but it would raise enormous amounts of money, simply because of the billions of dollars that turn over every week; a penny tax on each stock or bond sold would raise a huge amount of money. A tax on pollution would change the equation, so the polluter would start saying, 'Hey, it costs more to pollute than it costs not to pollute.

[spindoctor]

12. Tax internet polls!

I am against any form of regressive tax.

Taxing items out of the market does not work and anybody who offers that "solution" is either incompetent, ignorant, or flat out lying.

For example, some European countries raised fuel taxes so high that gaz is now $4/gallon and up. This was done to bring back pollution and endless traffic jams by discouraging people to drive.
Well people don't drive any less than before, they just pay more for their petrol.
The same is true for cigarettes. Raising tobacco prices never made anybody quit. I remember thinking that I really should quit if the packs ever went over $1.25, now 25 years ago.

So do governments roll back these failed tax initiatives? Of course not. Once a sin tax is installed, it is forever one with its host.
If you want to discourage the use of a substance (say tobacco), then you need to make it illegal and get it out of the stores. Although it might be the biggest marketing stunt ever, it sends a clearer message than making items more expensive but still freely available.

[rogerashton]

14. They DO drive less,

and smaller cars, too. Check your facts!

[spindoctor]

24. Less than we, not less than before they get (higher) taxed.

In other words, when they raise fuel taxes yet again, there is no massive shift towards public transportation.

As for economy cars, yes they do drive smaller cars. They always have and they probably always will. Again, taxation does not appear to be a decisiv factor there.

[rogerashton]

45. Where is your evidence?

Those taxes have been high for a long time. Every study I have seen (and I monitor a dozen or so journals that publish such studies) says that taxes do lead to reductions in use.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

40. That's you

I've got a couple of friends that quit smoking because "it cost them too much money".

Making it illegal only means that people start breaking the law and then enforcement starts costing the government lots of money. I think making tobacco illegal would be about as effective as the prohibition. Better to tax it and then use some of that money to advertise against it.

[Heddi]

16. I disagree with sin taxes

only because not everything that is 'bad' for you is taxed.

Cigarettes are bad. They are taxed heavily.

Alcohol is bad. It is taxed heavily.

Refined sugar is also bad for you. So are high-fat foods with no nutritional value.

Yet those aren't taxed heavily.

Cigarette sales are taxed so that those who suffer smoking-related illnesses later in life won't drain the public health system of funds.

But obesity is an epidemic in our country. Sedentary lifestyles and low-nutritional value foods pervade our society.

Children drink more soda in a week than they drink milk, juice, and water.

But soda isn't taxed. Neither are ho-ho's, Sugar Frosted Flakes, or Big Macs.

The rate of childhood obesity is rising with each year, as are the numbers of weight-related illnesses such as heart-disease, diabetes, etc.

People who suffer from obesity will put just as much of a strain on public health dollars because of obesity as will smokers.

Why aren't high-calorie, high-fat, non-nutrional foods taxed at the same rate that cigarettes are? That alcohol is?

And this isn't any more of an anti-fat rant than it is a pro-cigarette rant.

If "foods" (not that they can be called "food"--more like 'food products") like Doritos, and Cheese Wiz and Super-Sized French Fries are taxed at a higher rate than sales tax requires, the number of people who eat those foods will decline. Companies will see that many people may not be willing to spend pay $3.00 in tax on potato chips. The companies will be forced to either market their product more effectively to make people 'believe' they should pay $3.00 extra for their chips, or they (the company) will be forced to market more healthy alternatives for consumers.

Of course, like cigarette tax, a junk-food tax would most likely disproportionately affect the poor. Poor people don't have the option of paying $5.00 for a box of Kashi Lean cereal, but they can buy a 4-lb box of Frosted Sugar Flakes for $1.99.

Poor people also don't have the option to buy 93% lean ground beef that is $5.99/lb. They're either forced to eat no meat at all, or buy the $.99/lb 7% lean beef.

They can't buy boneless, skinless chicken breasts which are upwards of $5.00/lb. They are forced to buy the cheaper, less healthy alternative in all their shopping--not just meat, but all products.

Healthy food is already too expensive for the poor and working poor. It's much cheaper, and economical for a grocery budget to buy 4 packs of Hamburger Helper to feed the family for the week than it is to buy enough vegetables to make salad for the week.

But is that the consumer's fault?

No. It's the fault of the companies who market food. Cheap food is bad food, and companies aren't making less expensive, healthy alternatives on their own.

Therefore, taxing high-fat, high-cholesterol, deep fried, refined sugar, high-fructose-corn-syrup products is the only way that companies will make the decision to make cheaper healty alternatives.

Obesity is an epidemic in this country. We have been 'fed' on the notion that fast food is good food. A can of soda is easier to cary around than a glass of water. A big mac makes the kids happy, and mom doesn't have to cook! That's a good thing, right?

Wrong.

Hit companies in their pocketbooks. That is the only way they will be FORCED to change the products they're marketing.

Until ALL things that are bad for you are taxed with sin taxes, then NO products should be taxed as sin taxes.

[kayob1]

17. I agree with that

about tax all or none.

Plus, my son told me he lost 20 lbs (!) JUST from not drinking soda anymore.

[1a2b3c]

18. With all these pro sin tax supporters here

Maybe you shouldnt mention sin taxing unhealthy food.

Of course if i was like the majority of sin tax supporters i would be all for it. I dont eat that crap so why do i care what someone pays for a bag of chips or a number 5 from McDonalds???

[Heddi]

25. well it's kind of like

when there's a conversation about smoking, the anti-smoking people come out and talk about how smoking shouldn't be allowed anywhere, and cigarettes should cost $50 a pack.

But mention to them that their twinkies and frito-lay should be cost $50 a bag since they're equally as unhealthy, they (the anti-smokers) get all up in arms. "You CAN'T tax my HO-HO's! That means you're ANTI FAT! To even THINK of taxing Sugar Coated Sugar Flakes! The NERVE of you!!!"

See, it's okay to tax MY sin, but not okay to tax THEIR sin.....

I say, tax all sin or tax none.

Smoking cigarettes every day are just as unhealthy in the long run as is eating doritos and drinking soda every day. Why is one 'worse' than the other?

[rogerashton]

46. "All or nothing" is a very strange idea.

In the real world, we move forward bit by bit, and nothing is ever "all or none." To say "all or none" is to say "none" in practice. I agree that refined sugar should probably be discouraged by taxes. I would observe that our awareness of the dangers of refined sugar is relatively recent, and your "all or none" rule would prohibit us from ever learning by experience. As for taxing fatty foods -- that's a vague category, and such a tax would probably be regressive. (Most sin taxes, by the way, are progressive -- despite some fact-free claims to the contrary in this discussion.) I would agree that the responsibility of the government in this field should either be comprehensive, not limited by traditional attitudes against, for example, booze and gambling, or none; but I suggest that there could be special case exceptions for taxes that would be regressive and where the category cannot be defined with sufficient precision, and that we have to understand that new knowledge can always change our understanding of government responsibilities in this area.

[DebJ]

19. I smoke and have no health insurance. Targeting taxes to cover

expenses that might be incurred at local hospitals by addicts like me seems very fair, kind of a 'pay as you go' tax. How I wish I could wake up and be nicotine free!

[denverbill]

20. It depends.

I quit smoking about 9 months ago, but when I was still a smoker, I was really opposed to the 'sin tax' on cigarettes. It was because of the hypocrisy on the govts part. They 'claim' to want people to quit smoking, and the claim high taxes discourage it (which they do, to a degree). Then, they regulate when and where we can smoke.

One thing they DON'T do, however, is ban the sale of cigarettes. If govt truly wished to discourage smoking, they could end it tomorrow by just banning the sale of cigarettes. However, there is no money for the govt in banning them, so rather than doing the morally correct thing (banning them) they choose the morally corrupt thing (taxing them and making money off of them).

Why not expand on that concept? I want to make a new kind of Play-doh, only one that contains plutonium. It will kill about 500,000 children a year. Should I be allowed to sell my playdough and just have it taxed heavily? If not, why not? Kids enjoy my playdough, and if I print a warning to parents on the side of the box, that should be enough, right?

[outinforce]

21. Sin Tax? SIN Tax?

How in the world can anyone possibly support a government imposing a "SIN" tax?

We have a secular government here. A "sin" tax would involve the government in religion -- or religion in government -- far too much, I fear.

[flaminbats]

26. Sin tax does not = prohibition...

Let's face it...smoking and drinking both cause irreversible damage to the body over time. Therefore, any person who supports a national health-care program logically would support the premise that those who inflict such medical problems on themselves should help lower those costs left to the public by paying a sin tax. I do not think that the sin tax can be raised with the objective of discouraging smoking or drinking, but I do believe that such taxes should be high enough to at least cover most of the health-care costs associated with these hazards.

As to a bullet tax, this would be an excellent way to fund the computer networks needed for instant background checks and to provide money needed to enforce our gun laws. Again..it should not be used to make guns overpriced, but every gun owner should contribute some to the costs of enforcing these laws!

As for the Internet and cable...I would only support such a tax if it made DLS free and owned publicly for all to have access to. But I would not support it just as another means of building roads, or funding companies like Alltel

[1a2b3c]

28. But what if the tax is so high it does price people out of the market?

I would say cigarettes would be one tax that is almost high enough to be considered taxing people out of the market. The bullet taxes being proposed have many flaws. The bullet taxes that are being voted on now would tax most sport/target shooters out of bussiness. (and that is the goal of those who introduced the tax in the first place)

That said, would you agree with a 100% tax on fatty foods? Say we taxed a bag of potatoe chips from 3 to 6 dollars and an extra value meal at McDonalds from 5 to 10 dollars, would you agree with this also?

[flaminbats]

32. Food is not a health hazard, take it from someone who grew up hungry!

One of the best things I still remember about my school when I was a child...it was one of the few places I could get filling meal for a dollar! Believe me...I needed the fat, and some say that I still do with the physical labor I make my living.

I guess one just has to grow up hungry, have a loved one who can't afford their insulin, or just be physically abused by a drunken parent before they understand where I am coming from!

Cigarettes and alcohol have two destructive effects. They take away from a limited family budget, and later can add to the backbreaking costs of a family's medical bills. It is bad enough that they provide the user with no benefits, but even worse they are expensive enough to take way from other family investments. Reducing the cost of cigarettes and alcohol would be a mistake, but at least we can use some of this cost in the form of a tax...to finance health-care expenses associated with these products.

Again...any person who would waste money on a cigarette is a fool IMHO. But as someone who drinks on special occasions, I am happy to pay the sin tax. The reality is, the only people who would pay an excessive amount of the sin tax are those who smoke and drink the most! In other words, only kids or high school dropouts are likely to be priced out of the market...and I would argue that this would even be the case without a sin tax! :smoke:

[1a2b3c]

35. Trust me food is a health hazard

Ive seen people that weigh 3 or 4 times what i weigh and i am an average sized adult male. These people weren't taller than me...some are even shorter. They aren't more muscular than me. They are fat. And its not unusual to see these people. Its not a once in a lifetime thing to see a three or four hundred pound person that stands five foot five.

I guess one just has to grow up hungry, have a loved one who can't afford their insulin, or just be physically abused by a drunken parent before they understand where I am coming from! Not to be a dickhead but you wont get much sympathy from a guy who grew up poor with an alcoholic dad who hasn't missed a day of whiskey drinking in my 25 years. Especially when you throw out a sweeping generalization like this;
only kids or high school dropouts are likely to be priced out of the market...


Fatty foods are a health problem and if smokers should have a sin tax on cigarettes than fatty food eaters should also have the same sin tax. Fair is fair and hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

[flaminbats]

37. when taxing food you would hurt those who need it and those who don't...

the beauty of a cigarette or alcohol tax, is you hurt nobody...because nobody needs tobacco or Tennessee Whiskey for nutrition. However I have seen some eat six meals a day who weigh 118 and are over six feet tall. I have seen others who weight 240, are under six feet tall, and only live on one diet bar a day! This fatty food argument is this same BS pushed by Neil Boortz and Rush Limbaugh who have clearly demonstrated they know nothing about good health!

Believe me, my diabetic cousin has taught me the importance of carb counting, and some fat is actually part of his required daily diet. Food is healthy, but some behavior can be unhealthy.

But I think you have missed my central point...which isn't to gain sympathy or tax unhealthy activities. The question is how can a nation which is 7 trillion dollars in debt fund national health-care? A payroll tax would bring in some money. And the sin taxes would bring in the rest from things which are in no way considered healthy, but which add to overall healthcare costs!

[1a2b3c]

39. yeah but no one needs unhealthy food.

You dont need oreo cookies. And your point is a good one, and yes i was missing it the whole time, but obesity adds to the overall healthcare costs just as much if not more than smoking and drinking. If we can tax smokers for smoking cant we tax unhealthy eaters for being unhealthy eaters? Hell i think i have to pay some kind of tax to work out at my gym. Shouldnt a fast food eater have to pay overpriced taxes for unhealthy food if i have to pay overpriced taxes for a pack of smokes?

Speaking of food and the gym. Im gonna go eat a crap load of red meat and go to the gym. We can continue this tomorrow if you want.

[flaminbats]

43. Want to bet?

Actually it was some Chips Ahoy which helped me save my diabetic cousin's life that day in the parking lot! The typical healthy diet includes 80 grams of FAT a day. So no, cigarettes hurt everyone..and taxing them will hurt nobody. Food helps most, while hurting only a few. However, a food tax would hurt EVERYONE..which is why it would not be practical or helpful.

If you wish to make the case for no national health-care, then make it! But if you support national health-care, then those who smoke need to pay a tax to provide care for those who suffer as a result...and every smoker should pay because of one smoker's cancer.

Keep in mind that obesity isn't necessarily a choice, but that genetics plays a role here as well. And my idea is to monitor the costs of smoking related health problems one year, and lock in a tax to cover them the next. But overall...the cigarette tax, the alcohol tax, and the payroll tax would be used for treating everyone. As a result, the much dreaded payroll tax would be less! And which is worse, taxing people for smoking or taxing them for working?

[Lefty48197]

27. I agree with "sin taxes"

The motivation behind them doesn't have to be just to "price them out of the market". In the case of cigarette and alcohol taxes, the money raised should be used to treat the victims of the addiction and to educate young and old alike to stay away from the offending products.
I would also support taxes on foods with high fat and caloric counts.
I also liked Chris Rock's ideal for reducing gun murders: He advocates a $5000 dollar tax on every bullet sold in this country. That way (he said) if somebody gets shot, then you can be absolutely sure that they deserved it. Cheap bullets, like cheap cigarettes and whiskey = more unnecessary deaths.

[1a2b3c]

29. Man, what can i say?

:-)

[1a2b3c]

30. seem to get a much different opinion when FOOD is being sin taxed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=117&topic_id=2197

[flaminbats]

33. no kidding!

try running around a parking lot just to collect money from strangers for some food..why?

Because you are surprised to find the cousin you were planning to meet convulsing in the parking lot due to low blood sugar.

[1a2b3c]

36. Again not to be an asshole but

I had a girlfriend whos mom had terminal cancer. She couldnt work and Social Security gave her $500 a month to live on. Her rent was $525 a month. My girlfriend had to quit college to take care of her mom, and her brother was a worthless peice of shit airforce firefighter(which means he sits around eating fast food and getting fatter and fatter) Now she had been smoking her whole life. Back then cigarettes cost a quarter a pack. I was buying her cigarettes, and everything else, cause for fucks sake, lets let the lady die happy and not craving a cigarette. I was paying $50 a carton and $6.25 a pack for her cigarettes. I would like to bet im not the only person in the world who buys overly taxed cigarettes so's that a person who smoked there whole life can die happy.

Now is there a point to all this? No, other than to point out that i have no idea what point you are trying to get at.

[flaminbats]

42. You bought her cigarettes even when she had cancer?

My grandmother had a similar problem, but she never asked anyone...certainly not the children she loved to pay for them! And her children thankfully got her to quit before her health got serious.

If it had not been for the high cost of cigarettes and our parents working nonstop to trash the ones she had carefully hidden, she would not be with us today! But I will say this...if we had national health-care, even if you did buy your mother cigarettes, at least people like you would be paying most of the bill for her cancer..and not those of us who actively try to help others quit!

[1a2b3c]

31. kick

Rock the vote

[Hammie]

34. Opposed 100%

Any tax that is meant to regulate private behavior is offensive to any notion of personal liberty. While I personally find them intrinsically offensive, they are also perverse. The perversity arises in the tax establishing a government interest in perpetuating the behavior that the tax purports to curtail. Tobacco is heavily taxed in the US, at the same time there are state and federal subsidies to tobacco farmers to insure a continues supply of the substance. Further perversity arises when the taxes become truly prohibitive, as they generate a profit motive for criminal behavior. Thus a tax that supposedly cures a private harm like tobacco related health problems creates a public nuisance in the form of organized crime.

I do support user fees levied by the government provided they are only for providing services to the consumer of that product. For instance, gas taxes going to fund road construction, maintenance, and other services to motorists. Another example would be tobacco taxes that fund smoking cessation programs for those that want them.

[flaminbats]

44. Alright then...

let's call it a user fee....

If you smoke and want to have your lung cancer covered someday, pay a small fee on your cigarettes. Sin tax was a name invented by the neocons! Many of them call the gasoline tax a sin tax, because they think that it is an attempt to reduce fossil fuel consumption...not as another logical way to raise revenue!

[Hammie]

49. Sure!

That would be the exact opposite of what happens now. Tobacco taxes go into the general fund, they are not set aside for services to tobacco users, gas taxes (at least in CA) go into the general fund and are not set aside for services to motorists.

Contrast this to actual fees (not taxes) such as hunting and fishing license fees where the money goes to provide services to the hunting and fishing communities, or off road vehicle registration fees where the money goes to providing and maintaining off road vehicle parks.

You don't make a tax a fee just by renaming it, they really are different.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

41. The Governments money

I don't have a big problem with cigarette taxes (I smoke), would like most of that to go to health care. I DO have a problem spending millions on anti-smoking ads with one hand and subsidizing tobacco farmers with the other. (sigh) It's a crazy world. :)

[Loonman]

47. Punitive taxes don't work, and the cigarette tax is robbery

The cigarette tax is supposed to be used for smoking cessation.

When was the last time you saw a government smoking cessation center?


It just goes into the politicians pockets and never comes out.

[rogerashton]

48. Where-ever you stand,

this has been a good discussion with some good points (and a few stinkers) on all sides!