6 ms·
* waves magic wand * * poof! - Constitutional amendments are passed in every state requiring sales tax to apply to all items at an equal rate. Politicians sudd
by hirundo 7y ago
* waves magic wand *
* poof! - Constitutional amendments are passed in every state requiring sales tax to apply to all items at an equal rate. Politicians suddenly have less power to punish or privilege individual sectors and industries, and so there is less reason to lobby and corrupt them. Sin taxes go away, so constituents are nudged and nannied and pandered to less. Much labor to track and charge differential taxes is disappeared. *
* wakes up *
Damn.
- CydeWeys 7y agoWhy should sales tax be the same for all items? Why should we, e.g., pay the same tax on groceries as on cigarettes?
- duxup 7y agoI'm not answering for hirundo as I suspect our views are different. But generally speaking it has been recognized that broad based sales taxes across all products is more stable when it comes to various economic downturns and etc. Same goes for just say property taxes that cover X, but not Y property. Some sin taxes that get tagged to be used for "good things" often have bad results if usage drops and the "good things" that we previously wanted to fun suddenly have no (or a dramatic drop) in funding. I'm not saying anyone shouldn't / can't do such things but there are reasons to avoid tax policies where things are taxes dramatically differently. How much "dramatically" is obviously up for endless debate. That doesn't mean "tax should be the same for all items" but keeping close to that concept is not a bad idea.
- pmiller2 7y agoThat’s more of an argument for not using sin taxes to fund anything other than public health measures to combat the effects of consuming the thing that’s being taxed.
- duxup 7y agoIt is but it demonstrates why you want a more even tax base just to help ride out any changes in economics or usage. Also even direct sin taxes tied to things might be hard. If we all stop smoking, there still be cancer related to smoking... Gas tax to fund roads, and increased fuel efficiency is another example.
- bduerst 7y agoIt shouldn't - their are good uses too. Their dream is an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- neuronexmachina 7y agoIn general, it seems to make sense to have different taxes for items with substantially-different negative externalities, e.g. a carbon tax or cigarette tax.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- JTbane 7y ago"Sin taxes go away, so constituents are nudged and nannied and pandered to less." This is a terrible idea. The outcome would likely be a statistically significant increase in deaths do to drinking and smoking increases.
- colechristensen 7y agoSo? I don't really think it is the government's role to police private behavior choices. It would also cause the personally responsible poor to have more money because sales taxes are regressive. God forbid a blue collar worker wants to have a couple of beers after work.
- mywittyname 7y agoBut most of us do feel like the government should police behavior that negatively impacts us all. I want to dissuade people from smoking or excess drinking because it makes health insurance for me and my family more expensive while tying up hospital resources treating people for preventable diseases. Not only that, but cigarette companies target youths with an addictive substance that people eventually want to stop using but have a very difficult time doing so.
- EPTmVux 7y agoThen the solution should be decoupling other people's behavior from your health care costs.
- leetcrew 7y agovouched this because it is a legitimate, if inelegant, contribution to the discussion.
- i_am_proteus 7y ago> I want to dissuade people from smoking or excess drinking because it makes health insurance for me and my family more expensive while tying up hospital resources treating people for preventable diseases. If smoking reduced total health expenditure (because those who die early from smoking-related illnesses avoid the costliest years of their lives), would you advocate for the government to encourage smoking?
- derekp7 7y agoOther than the arguments about negative externalities, it seems more ethical (or fair, if you will) to have less or no tax on items that are necessary for life (food, shelter), vs items that are more of a luxury (big screen tv, party supplies). Not so much to curb certain behaviors and encourage others, but it would really suck to be taxed based on the oxygen your body consumes, for example. Or taxed on the vegetables you grow in your garden.
- munk-a 7y agoI agree, totally - that gallon of milk should be taxed at the same rate as a lambo because... eh, who cares about the poor /s