3 ms·

I think we shouldn't base our arguments for legalization on tax revenues. I hope the tax revenue will go down as more states (I hope) will legalize. I oppose t

I think we shouldn't base our arguments for legalization on tax revenues. I hope the tax revenue will go down as more states (I hope) will legalize. I oppose the use of sin taxes to fund our government. I hope most people would agree with me on that.

brbsix 10y ago
Agreed. Personally I find the moral argument, that people have self-ownership over their bodies and that it is immoral to initiate force against others (particularly for victimless "crimes"), far more compelling. You wouldn't argue against slavery on the basis of the potential for vast technological advancement decades or centuries after its abolition, would you? Nor would you cede the argument simply because it appears economically inviable.
mrcsparker 10y ago
These things should exist outside of revenue. If it was more to have a free society does should we rethink freedom? It feels silly to attach a monetary value to individual liberty. Tax revenue is used as a benefit for legalization. It feels like a flawed argument, but it still aligns with where I would like to be. The slippery slope argument applies here too: should our freedom be tied to tax revenue? Sure, it works for some drugs. Does it work for our other inalienable rights?
dragonwriter 10y ago
I actually think that taxes functioning as user fees on things with significant social costs is the ideal policy approach to internalize the externalities at play.
- newjersey 10y ago
  OK so let's start with a "jackass tax". People who act like jackasses and end up in the emergency room for things like "hold my beer and watch how quickly I'm going to climb this tree". Then progress on to people who have children. Children cost a lot of money to the society. We can't even agree on cap and trade which is so watered down that it essentially gives polluters a free pass. Can we really have a serious discussion about 'user fees on things with significant social costs"? Maybe we ought to disincentivize marijuana use. I agree. I don't know what to do with that money. However, I strongly believe that we should not take that money and use it for anything beneficial to the society or to the tax collector. Doing so will mean we will no longer disincentivize what we said we'd disincentivize. It just becomes a tax on a minority.

brbsix 10y ago

Agreed. Personally I find the moral argument, that people have self-ownership over their bodies and that it is immoral to initiate force against others (particularly for victimless "crimes"), far more compelling. You wouldn't argue against slavery on the basis of the potential for vast technological advancement decades or centuries after its abolition, would you? Nor would you cede the argument simply because it appears economically inviable.

mrcsparker 10y ago

These things should exist outside of revenue. If it was more to have a free society does should we rethink freedom? It feels silly to attach a monetary value to individual liberty. Tax revenue is used as a benefit for legalization. It feels like a flawed argument, but it still aligns with where I would like to be. The slippery slope argument applies here too: should our freedom be tied to tax revenue? Sure, it works for some drugs. Does it work for our other inalienable rights?

dragonwriter 10y ago

I actually think that taxes functioning as user fees on things with significant social costs is the ideal policy approach to internalize the externalities at play.

newjersey 10y ago
OK so let's start with a "jackass tax". People who act like jackasses and end up in the emergency room for things like "hold my beer and watch how quickly I'm going to climb this tree". Then progress on to people who have children. Children cost a lot of money to the society. We can't even agree on cap and trade which is so watered down that it essentially gives polluters a free pass. Can we really have a serious discussion about 'user fees on things with significant social costs"? Maybe we ought to disincentivize marijuana use. I agree. I don't know what to do with that money. However, I strongly believe that we should not take that money and use it for anything beneficial to the society or to the tax collector. Doing so will mean we will no longer disincentivize what we said we'd disincentivize. It just becomes a tax on a minority.