5 ms·

I agree with the idea that sin taxation is stupid in the sense that there's a moral component involved. The tax in this case is essentially an indulgence. Tha

I agree with the idea that sin taxation is stupid in the sense that there's a moral component involved. The tax in this case is essentially an indulgence. That said, I see a benefit in taxing soda and cigarettes in particular because they impose a substantial externalized cost on society that isn't reflected in their price. With smoking its lost productivity for smoking, sickness, secondhand smoke, etc. With soda its increased diabetes, weight, secondary issues (joints, etc.). I do love me some regular Dr. Pepper, but it's so bad for me I rarely drink it any more. (Admission: I still drink diet soda. I had to acquire the taste.)

tracker1 10y ago
So those taxes on cigarettes are passed to employers for the lost productivity? And the taxes on sugar will be passed to insurance companies? The answer is of course no to both... so people are being taxed because others are being infringed, but the taxes don't serve those infringed. Also, diet soda has its' own issues... and more fat people are drinking diet soda than regular. -- edit: Also, we don't need to tax soda, just stop subsidizing farming...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeash 10y ago
  You don't need to pass the tax on to those effected for it to work. As long as people pay something like the costs they impose, they'll only do it when it's worth that cost. After that, it doesn't matter if the money goes to those effected, or the local schools, or road maintenance, or whatever. I agree that not subsidizing sugar production would be a much better step to take here.
  - fokov 10y ago
    Wait..are you suggesting tax something because reason A in order to raise money for thing B where A has absolutely no relation to B? This is why people hate liberals. Why do we need to arbitrarily tax things? Let me guess these are things you don't like or use so you have no problem with increasing taxes on them.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      No, I'm suggesting that if activity A imposes some external cost on B, you can discourage A by the "proper" amount by taxing it even if the money doesn't go to B. Would you mind cutting out that "this is why people hate liberals" nonsense? It's incredibly obnoxious.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Please pardon me nitpicking on one phrase from your comment - it's not directed at you but at the discourse that often ensues when selective taxation is discussed. There was a soda tax on the ballot where I live last election season and I got more junk mail opposing it than all the other political mailers put together - completely wasted as it passed anyway :) I absolutely reject the notion that tax on soda or other potentially-addictive substances are a punishment of the consumer for poor moral choices. Making sugar expensive is simply an effective strategy to lower consumption by shifting the equilibrium point for consumer purchases. We have a family friend that's disabled, she's an adult but only able to read around a 4th grade level. She's seen her grandmother die of diabetes, her mom has it too and the friend herself is fat. But notwithstanding the healthy food we give her when she visits or stays with us, and no matter how many times we remind her about how to choose between different kinds of food, if she goes into a store on her own and has money she's more likely than not to buy 2 quart bottles of soda and drink one of them immediately. It's really hard for some people, especially kids, to resist getting jacked up on sugar. The younger they do so the more likely they are to develop lifelong eating habits that are going to give them painful and expensive medical problems and send them into an early grave. There's no moral component involved at the consumption end for me because many people are just not smart enough to carry around the idea of healthy eating and to choose it over the marketing signals that surround them. The younger they get exposed to an addictive substance, the more difficulty they're likely to have resisting the temptation to consume it. I am utterly indifferent to the economic situation of shareholders in the crap food industry. They don't have a right to make money out of people; it's usually the suppliers who make the moral argument about consumers needing to make healthy choices and tax being a horrible punishment. That's just an attempt to shift the entire burden of responsibility onto consumers at the same time that the suppliers are spending a fortune on marketing to kids. Frankly most of the drug dealers I've met in my life had more of a moral center than the professional lobbying and marketing people I've known.
- Natsu 10y ago
  > It's really hard for some people, especially kids, to resist getting jacked up on sugar. Somehow that reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...
tomjen3 10y ago
Lost productivity isn't a valid reason to tax something, unless you would also tax working less than full time, taking a year of to travel or fishing trips.

tracker1 10y ago

So those taxes on cigarettes are passed to employers for the lost productivity? And the taxes on sugar will be passed to insurance companies? The answer is of course no to both... so people are being taxed because others are being infringed, but the taxes don't serve those infringed. Also, diet soda has its' own issues... and more fat people are drinking diet soda than regular. -- edit: Also, we don't need to tax soda, just stop subsidizing farming...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 10y ago
You don't need to pass the tax on to those effected for it to work. As long as people pay something like the costs they impose, they'll only do it when it's worth that cost. After that, it doesn't matter if the money goes to those effected, or the local schools, or road maintenance, or whatever. I agree that not subsidizing sugar production would be a much better step to take here.
- fokov 10y ago
  Wait..are you suggesting tax something because reason A in order to raise money for thing B where A has absolutely no relation to B? This is why people hate liberals. Why do we need to arbitrarily tax things? Let me guess these are things you don't like or use so you have no problem with increasing taxes on them.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    No, I'm suggesting that if activity A imposes some external cost on B, you can discourage A by the "proper" amount by taxing it even if the money doesn't go to B. Would you mind cutting out that "this is why people hate liberals" nonsense? It's incredibly obnoxious.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Please pardon me nitpicking on one phrase from your comment - it's not directed at you but at the discourse that often ensues when selective taxation is discussed. There was a soda tax on the ballot where I live last election season and I got more junk mail opposing it than all the other political mailers put together - completely wasted as it passed anyway :) I absolutely reject the notion that tax on soda or other potentially-addictive substances are a punishment of the consumer for poor moral choices. Making sugar expensive is simply an effective strategy to lower consumption by shifting the equilibrium point for consumer purchases. We have a family friend that's disabled, she's an adult but only able to read around a 4th grade level. She's seen her grandmother die of diabetes, her mom has it too and the friend herself is fat. But notwithstanding the healthy food we give her when she visits or stays with us, and no matter how many times we remind her about how to choose between different kinds of food, if she goes into a store on her own and has money she's more likely than not to buy 2 quart bottles of soda and drink one of them immediately. It's really hard for some people, especially kids, to resist getting jacked up on sugar. The younger they do so the more likely they are to develop lifelong eating habits that are going to give them painful and expensive medical problems and send them into an early grave. There's no moral component involved at the consumption end for me because many people are just not smart enough to carry around the idea of healthy eating and to choose it over the marketing signals that surround them. The younger they get exposed to an addictive substance, the more difficulty they're likely to have resisting the temptation to consume it. I am utterly indifferent to the economic situation of shareholders in the crap food industry. They don't have a right to make money out of people; it's usually the suppliers who make the moral argument about consumers needing to make healthy choices and tax being a horrible punishment. That's just an attempt to shift the entire burden of responsibility onto consumers at the same time that the suppliers are spending a fortune on marketing to kids. Frankly most of the drug dealers I've met in my life had more of a moral center than the professional lobbying and marketing people I've known.

Natsu 10y ago
> It's really hard for some people, especially kids, to resist getting jacked up on sugar. Somehow that reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...

tomjen3 10y ago

Lost productivity isn't a valid reason to tax something, unless you would also tax working less than full time, taking a year of to travel or fishing trips.