3 ms·

Of course, as far as governments are concerned whether such taxes reduce "sinful" activities is irrelevant, so long as they increase tax revenue and allow polit

Of course, as far as governments are concerned whether such taxes reduce "sinful" activities is irrelevant, so long as they increase tax revenue and allow politicians a way to improve their public images.

stcredzero 8y ago
As with the justice system, "who can win" is used as a proxy for "justice."
rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
Before the federal income tax was instituted, the alcohol tax was the U.S. government’s single largest source of tax revenue. The imposition of a federal income tax was the single most necessary goal for prohibitionists to push for the constitutional amendment for alcohol prohibition. It’s also worth mentioning that during the time that the federal alcohol tax was active (created under the Lincoln Administration to help pay for the Civil War), Americans drank twice per capita the amount we drink today, so it didn’t even dissuade drinking all that much. Americans were ferociously drunk in the 19th and early 20th century. Some historians argue that prohibition ended the era of the largely men-only saloons, and when women and men drank together in speakeasies, men tended to drink less, thus reducing overall alcohol consumption in the post-prohibition era.
- ckarmann 8y ago
  Not saying you are totally wrong but the federal income tax has been already existing for decades at this time and the max and min rates actually went down during the prohibition era (per wikipedia). It only went up in 1932 a year before its repeal following the start of the Great depression. If it was a goal of the prohibitionists to hike up that tax it was largely unsuccessful.
jopsen 8y ago
Well, for those of us who attempts participate in democracy, by writing/calling politicians, supporting NGOs, voting and so forth, YES, it actually matters whether it works. I'm sure it's not a solution for all problems. As the article says it's a blunt tool. But given that they do work, I'll keep encouraging my politicians to not let our alcohol and tobacco taxes slip below that of neighboring countries. Given that we're already paying the overhead, we might as well get some effect by cranking up the taxes :) hehe (well, maybe there's other downsides, but it's thought worth considering)
genericid 8y ago
Of course, all politicians are the same. Of course, taxes go directly to them so they have a motive to increase tax revenues more than would be otherwise sensible.
closeparen 8y ago
Raising revenue in ways that constituents find less objectionable is a good thing.
bdhess 8y ago
Funding the government and pleasing your constituents are legitimate aims in a representative democracy.

stcredzero 8y ago

As with the justice system, "who can win" is used as a proxy for "justice."

rm_-rf_slash 8y ago

Before the federal income tax was instituted, the alcohol tax was the U.S. government’s single largest source of tax revenue. The imposition of a federal income tax was the single most necessary goal for prohibitionists to push for the constitutional amendment for alcohol prohibition. It’s also worth mentioning that during the time that the federal alcohol tax was active (created under the Lincoln Administration to help pay for the Civil War), Americans drank twice per capita the amount we drink today, so it didn’t even dissuade drinking all that much. Americans were ferociously drunk in the 19th and early 20th century. Some historians argue that prohibition ended the era of the largely men-only saloons, and when women and men drank together in speakeasies, men tended to drink less, thus reducing overall alcohol consumption in the post-prohibition era.

ckarmann 8y ago
Not saying you are totally wrong but the federal income tax has been already existing for decades at this time and the max and min rates actually went down during the prohibition era (per wikipedia). It only went up in 1932 a year before its repeal following the start of the Great depression. If it was a goal of the prohibitionists to hike up that tax it was largely unsuccessful.

jopsen 8y ago

Well, for those of us who attempts participate in democracy, by writing/calling politicians, supporting NGOs, voting and so forth, YES, it actually matters whether it works. I'm sure it's not a solution for all problems. As the article says it's a blunt tool. But given that they do work, I'll keep encouraging my politicians to not let our alcohol and tobacco taxes slip below that of neighboring countries. Given that we're already paying the overhead, we might as well get some effect by cranking up the taxes :) hehe (well, maybe there's other downsides, but it's thought worth considering)

genericid 8y ago

Of course, all politicians are the same. Of course, taxes go directly to them so they have a motive to increase tax revenues more than would be otherwise sensible.

closeparen 8y ago

Raising revenue in ways that constituents find less objectionable is a good thing.

bdhess 8y ago

Funding the government and pleasing your constituents are legitimate aims in a representative democracy.