5 ms·

>>I realize this often isn't the case, but the pursuit of taxing specific behaviors is supposed to only be used to fund things caused by that behavior: That is

by syshum 10y ago

>>I realize this often isn't the case, but the pursuit of taxing specific behaviors is supposed to only be used to fund things caused by that behavior: That is only for the press release.. It is never actually that way. Almost all taxation applied to a general fund, meaning all taxes are simply put in a large pool, then various programs are funded from that pool. There are almost never any actual legal rules that requires say a Gasoline tax to only be used for roads, or a cigarette tax to only be used for Health Programs For this reason, and many others, I never support using Taxation for social control Government should not be using tax policy to incentive or decentivize any activity. Taxation should be used to fund X program period. Taxation should be generalized, AKA a income tax, a sales tax, etc. There should not be special taxes applied to individual products or product types

Synaesthesia 10y ago
I have no problem with taxes on harmful products like tobacco and alcohol since they are a harm to society and a burden on society.
- inimino 10y ago
  How about sugar?
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    Sugar does cause some harm (obesity and associated health costs). Its tax should be commensurate with this harm. However, it is used in both healthy and unhealthy foods, so perhaps the tax should be on unhealthy foods rather than on the sugar itself.
    - hueving 10y ago
      I don't believe wine is considered unhealthy in small amounts either.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I have no problem with taxes on them for a different reason: They are a luxury good. Nobody needs them.
  - mwfunk 10y ago
    You could say that about almost anything though. I don't need to post on HN, but that fact alone wouldn't justify a tax on HN posting.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      That's a heavy apples-to-oranges comparison. Finite goods != publicly accessible web-pages.
- syshum 10y ago
  That is a slippery slope, if you want to talk about products or activities that "harm society" Further then you have to define what "harm" it is doing. I also suspect part of that "harm" you talk about is Costs associated with healthcare that is paid for by the taxpayer, meaning you likely support government run socialized health services. I do not.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    Are you seriously requesting an explanation of what harm cigarettes are doing to society? I suggest you have a trip to to a respiratory ward sometime.
    - syshum 10y ago
      I do not question the harm cigarettes do to individuals, but individuals make choices every day that cause harm to themselves. That is not a reason for government involvement I do not believe it is my place to tell individuals what chemicals they can or can not consume I am 100% against the War on Drugs as well, and believe that all drugs, including crack, cocaine, and all prescription drugs should be legal to buy if the person desires it. I am an individualist, not a collectivist
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> all taxes are simply put in a large pool > I never support using taxation for social control Yes, money is fungible, and so gas tax, alcohol tax, and cigarette taxes collected may not be applied to covering the costs of that activity. Even putting it in a specific fund doesn't completely fix the problem, it only establishes a minimum support for that fund's target. Make gas tax specifically fund road surface repairs, and then the DOT can use part of the general fund that is freed up for other purposes. However, it seems very reasonable to use taxation as a sort of softer hammer to create an incentive or disincentive for various activities. In a way, the government's only power is in its monopoly on legal violence. It can do nothing but kill or imprison you by force. Sure, it can issue fines, or garnish your wages (effectively the same thing), or remove your drivers license, - but the fine has teeth only because they'll imprison you if you fail to pay. And if you try to fight your way out of captivity you'll either be pathetically overpowered or shot. Furthermore, criminal punishments require prosecution in a court, which is expensive and slow. It would be unreasonable to try to reduce alcoholism by arresting people, charging them with drinking, and sentencing them with a $0.25 fine. It would also be unreasonable to pass a law requiring everyone to buy a house, get married and have 2.54 children, or be arrested and jailed. Instead, taxation offers a much gentler stick, and sometimes even a carrot. Increase taxation on behavior that society finds to be objectionable or harmful - smoking, drinking, gambling, etc. Offer tax rebates for behaviors that society finds to be valuable: donating to charity, helping the environment, raising a family, owning a home. Taxation is definitely an effective tool for social control. Do you have an alternative? Or do you suggest that government should not be involved in social control?
- CarpetBench 10y ago
  > Taxation is definitely an effective tool for social control. Do you have an alternative? Or do you suggest that government should not be involved in social control? I hope you can appreciate why some people would say the answer to that second question is "as little as possible." When the government is offering carrots and sticks, there will inevitably be some group of people systemically discriminated against (either by not receiving the carrots proportionally or disproportionately receiving the stick). Tyranny of the majority and what not. The gears of government grind very slowly, and changing government policies often results in multiple generations of people experiencing discrimination before things are changed. For a recent example, one argument (among others, of course) for same-sex marriage equality is that it's discriminatory for same-sex partners not to receive the carrots of legal and tax benefits that come with being married. Is there an alternative? Maybe. Maybe not. I could spitball one, but it would likely be an inadequate solution. Still, I think it's prudent to be careful. Social control is a double-edged sword.
piva00 10y ago
That varies per country, I don't know how it's in the US but there are countries (for example: Brazil) where some taxes can only be spent on specific areas and those are determined by the law that created them.

by syshum 10y ago

Synaesthesia 10y ago

I have no problem with taxes on harmful products like tobacco and alcohol since they are a harm to society and a burden on society.

inimino 10y ago
How about sugar?
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  Sugar does cause some harm (obesity and associated health costs). Its tax should be commensurate with this harm. However, it is used in both healthy and unhealthy foods, so perhaps the tax should be on unhealthy foods rather than on the sugar itself.
  - hueving 10y ago
    I don't believe wine is considered unhealthy in small amounts either.
CaptSpify 10y ago
I have no problem with taxes on them for a different reason: They are a luxury good. Nobody needs them.
- mwfunk 10y ago
  You could say that about almost anything though. I don't need to post on HN, but that fact alone wouldn't justify a tax on HN posting.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    That's a heavy apples-to-oranges comparison. Finite goods != publicly accessible web-pages.
syshum 10y ago
That is a slippery slope, if you want to talk about products or activities that "harm society" Further then you have to define what "harm" it is doing. I also suspect part of that "harm" you talk about is Costs associated with healthcare that is paid for by the taxpayer, meaning you likely support government run socialized health services. I do not.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  Are you seriously requesting an explanation of what harm cigarettes are doing to society? I suggest you have a trip to to a respiratory ward sometime.
  - syshum 10y ago
    I do not question the harm cigarettes do to individuals, but individuals make choices every day that cause harm to themselves. That is not a reason for government involvement I do not believe it is my place to tell individuals what chemicals they can or can not consume I am 100% against the War on Drugs as well, and believe that all drugs, including crack, cocaine, and all prescription drugs should be legal to buy if the person desires it. I am an individualist, not a collectivist

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

> all taxes are simply put in a large pool > I never support using taxation for social control Yes, money is fungible, and so gas tax, alcohol tax, and cigarette taxes collected may not be applied to covering the costs of that activity. Even putting it in a specific fund doesn't completely fix the problem, it only establishes a minimum support for that fund's target. Make gas tax specifically fund road surface repairs, and then the DOT can use part of the general fund that is freed up for other purposes. However, it seems very reasonable to use taxation as a sort of softer hammer to create an incentive or disincentive for various activities. In a way, the government's only power is in its monopoly on legal violence. It can do nothing but kill or imprison you by force. Sure, it can issue fines, or garnish your wages (effectively the same thing), or remove your drivers license, - but the fine has teeth only because they'll imprison you if you fail to pay. And if you try to fight your way out of captivity you'll either be pathetically overpowered or shot. Furthermore, criminal punishments require prosecution in a court, which is expensive and slow. It would be unreasonable to try to reduce alcoholism by arresting people, charging them with drinking, and sentencing them with a $0.25 fine. It would also be unreasonable to pass a law requiring everyone to buy a house, get married and have 2.54 children, or be arrested and jailed. Instead, taxation offers a much gentler stick, and sometimes even a carrot. Increase taxation on behavior that society finds to be objectionable or harmful - smoking, drinking, gambling, etc. Offer tax rebates for behaviors that society finds to be valuable: donating to charity, helping the environment, raising a family, owning a home. Taxation is definitely an effective tool for social control. Do you have an alternative? Or do you suggest that government should not be involved in social control?

CarpetBench 10y ago
> Taxation is definitely an effective tool for social control. Do you have an alternative? Or do you suggest that government should not be involved in social control? I hope you can appreciate why some people would say the answer to that second question is "as little as possible." When the government is offering carrots and sticks, there will inevitably be some group of people systemically discriminated against (either by not receiving the carrots proportionally or disproportionately receiving the stick). Tyranny of the majority and what not. The gears of government grind very slowly, and changing government policies often results in multiple generations of people experiencing discrimination before things are changed. For a recent example, one argument (among others, of course) for same-sex marriage equality is that it's discriminatory for same-sex partners not to receive the carrots of legal and tax benefits that come with being married. Is there an alternative? Maybe. Maybe not. I could spitball one, but it would likely be an inadequate solution. Still, I think it's prudent to be careful. Social control is a double-edged sword.

piva00 10y ago

That varies per country, I don't know how it's in the US but there are countries (for example: Brazil) where some taxes can only be spent on specific areas and those are determined by the law that created them.