10 ms·

From the article: Sin taxes are blunt policy instruments. People who only have the occasional drink are not taking on any great health risks, yet they are taxed

by yason 8y ago

From the article: Sin taxes are blunt policy instruments. People who only have the occasional drink are not taking on any great health risks, yet they are taxed no differently than serious alcoholics. But surely the alcoholics are taxed way more than people who have an occasional drink because of the sheer volume? If you drink or smoke a lot, the taxes do accumulate into significant amounts annually. Policymakers should still consider implementing sin taxes if they intend to intervene to change individuals’ behaviour. But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others. It might be blunt in the economic sense if the taxed behaviour doesn't exhibit clear external costs but in a social context the scheme works great. Using taxation to discourage behaviour is a better way to collect taxes than taxing everyone. Taxing goods or behaviour that is deemed harmful both brings in the money and also makes a statement. Further, if alcohol taxes bring in 1% of the state budget it means everyone's income is that much lower because of taxing alcohol. "Sin taxes" are also economically unpredictable because when the collected amounts begin to drop the tax is working as intended. But socially this is exactly why they were used in the first place.

robertAngst 8y ago
But this doesnt answer 'does it work'? Less drunk driving + less bad decisions? The cost of alcohol makes it so when I drink, I drink.
joejerryronnie 8y ago
If current social trends continue, working in Tech is going to be considered a sin. Get ready to pay extra taxes for your choice to work in such an abhorrent industry.
- ummonk 8y ago
  I'd be perfectly happy with a tax on data collection and targetted ads.
- gerdesj 8y ago
  If current social trends continue, working in Tech is going to be considered a sin. When I started out in IT (early '90s), it was not something you generally mentioned at a party.
dsr_ 8y ago
But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others Unless you have a functional health care system, in which case increased costs are passed on to everyone's taxes. It would be appropriate to dedicate revenues from tobacco and alcohol taxes to medical care. Sin taxes are taxes that fall only on the users of the products or services in question, and rarely have knock-on effects like fuel taxes (which then raise the cost of transporting everything else, but promote more efficient transportation). Adding recycling deposits, for example, vastly increases the rate of recycling, reduces litter, provides a minor source of income for the homeless, and provides a very small tax revenue.
- whatyoucantsay 8y ago
  Smokers cost the health care system less because they die younger: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678
  - rosser 8y ago
    But, per that same study, "society" would net — inclusive, among other things, of pension funds not disbursed — lose ~€70k per individual, while saving less than €5k on medical expenses. Is that really a good bargain?
  - manicdee 8y ago
    They cost more money per year to keep alive while they're dying, and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early). The indirect costs of their mortality are far greater than the direct savings.
    - flukus 8y ago
      > and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early) The typically don't start to die in significant numbers until they're getting up to retirement age, they're an economic burden by that point.
mirimir 8y ago
Yes, they certainly work as taxes. > Further, if alcohol taxes bring in 1% of the state budget it means everyone's income is that much lower because of taxing alcohol. Maybe you mean "that much higher" there? Also, just FYI, in 1923 "[s]ome 30 percent to 40 percent of the government’s income came from the tax on alcohol."[0] So Prohibition was funded by the federal income tax. But now we have both :( 0) https://taxfoundation.org/how-taxes-enabled-alcohol-prohibition-and-also-led-its-repeal/ https://taxfoundation.org/how-taxes-enabled-alcohol-prohibit...
- yason 8y ago
  Indeed, thanks for spotting the thinko. Everyone's income is that much higher (or everyone's taxes are that much lower which I think what I was thinking when writing the sentence).
stuaxo 8y ago
Smokers damage others through secondary smoke. People that work in pubs and clubs after a smoking ban must see a big benefit. Everyone old enough to have gone out in the UK in the early 2000s can tell you that pubs and clubs were totally full of smoke and you would come home smelling like an ashtray. Bit of a weak argument the article makes.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Smokers damage others through secondary smoke. Do they really, or is that an old wives tale from non-reproducible research, the way the anti-fat scare was? "The largest and longest study (Enstrom & Kabat) followed more than 35,000 subjects for almost 40 years and found no significant risk associated with second-hand smoke. Similarly, the World Health Organization spent seven years at a dozen research centers in seven countries and came to the same conclusion".
  - nherment 8y ago
    Both the CDC[1] and the WHO[2] disagree with what you just wrote. > Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke [1] > While the tobacco industry continues to claim that the evidence that passive smoking causes disease – particularly lung cancer – is controversial, every independent authoritative scientific body that has examined the evidence has concluded that passive smoking causes many diseases. [2] Also, the Enstrom & Kabat study is widely criticised [3] + [4]: > incorrect definition of passive smoking exposure as a “nonsmokerʼs marriage to a smoker” [3] > A severe error in the study was the failure to establish a control group of nonsmokers who were unexposed to secondhand smoke. [4] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... [2] http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/about/en/ http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/about/e... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236833718_Critique_of_Enstrom_Kabat%27s_Epi_Study_BMJ_2006_2003 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236833718_Critique_... [4] [PPT] www.econ.wayne.edu/agoodman/7550/week14/Second-hand_Smoke.ppt

by yason 8y ago

robertAngst 8y ago

But this doesnt answer 'does it work'? Less drunk driving + less bad decisions? The cost of alcohol makes it so when I drink, I drink.

joejerryronnie 8y ago

If current social trends continue, working in Tech is going to be considered a sin. Get ready to pay extra taxes for your choice to work in such an abhorrent industry.

ummonk 8y ago
I'd be perfectly happy with a tax on data collection and targetted ads.
gerdesj 8y ago
If current social trends continue, working in Tech is going to be considered a sin. When I started out in IT (early '90s), it was not something you generally mentioned at a party.

dsr_ 8y ago

But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others Unless you have a functional health care system, in which case increased costs are passed on to everyone's taxes. It would be appropriate to dedicate revenues from tobacco and alcohol taxes to medical care. Sin taxes are taxes that fall only on the users of the products or services in question, and rarely have knock-on effects like fuel taxes (which then raise the cost of transporting everything else, but promote more efficient transportation). Adding recycling deposits, for example, vastly increases the rate of recycling, reduces litter, provides a minor source of income for the homeless, and provides a very small tax revenue.

whatyoucantsay 8y ago
Smokers cost the health care system less because they die younger: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678
- rosser 8y ago
  But, per that same study, "society" would net — inclusive, among other things, of pension funds not disbursed — lose ~€70k per individual, while saving less than €5k on medical expenses. Is that really a good bargain?
- manicdee 8y ago
  They cost more money per year to keep alive while they're dying, and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early). The indirect costs of their mortality are far greater than the direct savings.
  - flukus 8y ago
    > and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early) The typically don't start to die in significant numbers until they're getting up to retirement age, they're an economic burden by that point.

mirimir 8y ago

Yes, they certainly work as taxes. > Further, if alcohol taxes bring in 1% of the state budget it means everyone's income is that much lower because of taxing alcohol. Maybe you mean "that much higher" there? Also, just FYI, in 1923 "[s]ome 30 percent to 40 percent of the government’s income came from the tax on alcohol."[0] So Prohibition was funded by the federal income tax. But now we have both :( 0) https://taxfoundation.org/how-taxes-enabled-alcohol-prohibition-and-also-led-its-repeal/ https://taxfoundation.org/how-taxes-enabled-alcohol-prohibit...

yason 8y ago
Indeed, thanks for spotting the thinko. Everyone's income is that much higher (or everyone's taxes are that much lower which I think what I was thinking when writing the sentence).

stuaxo 8y ago

Smokers damage others through secondary smoke. People that work in pubs and clubs after a smoking ban must see a big benefit. Everyone old enough to have gone out in the UK in the early 2000s can tell you that pubs and clubs were totally full of smoke and you would come home smelling like an ashtray. Bit of a weak argument the article makes.

coldtea 8y ago
>Smokers damage others through secondary smoke. Do they really, or is that an old wives tale from non-reproducible research, the way the anti-fat scare was? "The largest and longest study (Enstrom & Kabat) followed more than 35,000 subjects for almost 40 years and found no significant risk associated with second-hand smoke. Similarly, the World Health Organization spent seven years at a dozen research centers in seven countries and came to the same conclusion".
- nherment 8y ago
  Both the CDC[1] and the WHO[2] disagree with what you just wrote. > Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke [1] > While the tobacco industry continues to claim that the evidence that passive smoking causes disease – particularly lung cancer – is controversial, every independent authoritative scientific body that has examined the evidence has concluded that passive smoking causes many diseases. [2] Also, the Enstrom & Kabat study is widely criticised [3] + [4]: > incorrect definition of passive smoking exposure as a “nonsmokerʼs marriage to a smoker” [3] > A severe error in the study was the failure to establish a control group of nonsmokers who were unexposed to secondhand smoke. [4] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... [2] http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/about/en/ http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/about/e... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236833718_Critique_of_Enstrom_Kabat%27s_Epi_Study_BMJ_2006_2003 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236833718_Critique_... [4] [PPT] www.econ.wayne.edu/agoodman/7550/week14/Second-hand_Smoke.ppt