5 ms·

Regressive sales and vice taxes. j/k Seriously though, this year is the first I've ever made over median income and I'm happy to pay taxes if they can actually

Regressive sales and vice taxes. j/k Seriously though, this year is the first I've ever made over median income and I'm happy to pay taxes if they can actually improve QOL rather than be used to subsidize and oil company or two

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Nobody needs to consume alcohol or tobacco to survive. Tax it to what the market will bear.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Nobody needs kale or skateboards either. There are other vegetables and personal transportation available. Why not tax them to "what the market will bear"? What does that even mean? If kale consumption drops by 5% is the market "bearing"? 50%? 98%? Why don't we just tax everything except your favorite things to buy?
  - crc32 7y ago
    > Nobody needs kale or skateboards either... Why not tax them to "what the market will bear"? Because alcohol and tobacco have "negative externalities" to society. These would be mainly health related but I guess the discussion on this post is also around behavioural issues. By adding a tax to a product, you can make the consumers and manufacturers together share the burden of paying off the externality, (e.g. care for lung cancer patients) and/or the tax will often discourage consumption in the first place. (The second being more applicable in the US where there is limited/no universal healthcare) The reason you probably wouldn't tax kale, is because it's good for you, and if anything; you could say it has a "positive externality" in that consuming it makes you healthier, and thus benefits society. So it might make sense to actual SUBSIDISE kale production... although this may have very different effects from taxing unhealthy food. As an example, Scotland has introduced a tax on alcohol called "minimum unit pricing" and there's a study here: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/5/e013497 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/5/e013497 The UK as a whole also has a "sugar tax" https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/research-action/features/uk-sugar-tax-will-it-work https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/research-action/features/uk...
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
It always worries me when people propose not to tax the poor, because government officials care incredibly much about maximizing tax revenue. It gives them an outright incentive to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, because then they get a bigger cut of the money. Wouldn't it be better to tax everybody the same and then help the poor by giving them money directly via a UBI, or direct programs like free mass transit? It would also make taxes a whole lot simpler (you buy a thing, you pay a flat percentage in VAT; no individual tax returns whatsoever) and thereby eliminate a lot of these shell games corporations and billionaires use to avoid paying their share.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Nobody needs to consume alcohol or tobacco to survive. Tax it to what the market will bear.

jessaustin 7y ago
Nobody needs kale or skateboards either. There are other vegetables and personal transportation available. Why not tax them to "what the market will bear"? What does that even mean? If kale consumption drops by 5% is the market "bearing"? 50%? 98%? Why don't we just tax everything except your favorite things to buy?
- crc32 7y ago
  > Nobody needs kale or skateboards either... Why not tax them to "what the market will bear"? Because alcohol and tobacco have "negative externalities" to society. These would be mainly health related but I guess the discussion on this post is also around behavioural issues. By adding a tax to a product, you can make the consumers and manufacturers together share the burden of paying off the externality, (e.g. care for lung cancer patients) and/or the tax will often discourage consumption in the first place. (The second being more applicable in the US where there is limited/no universal healthcare) The reason you probably wouldn't tax kale, is because it's good for you, and if anything; you could say it has a "positive externality" in that consuming it makes you healthier, and thus benefits society. So it might make sense to actual SUBSIDISE kale production... although this may have very different effects from taxing unhealthy food. As an example, Scotland has introduced a tax on alcohol called "minimum unit pricing" and there's a study here: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/5/e013497 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/5/e013497 The UK as a whole also has a "sugar tax" https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/research-action/features/uk-sugar-tax-will-it-work https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/research-action/features/uk...

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

It always worries me when people propose not to tax the poor, because government officials care incredibly much about maximizing tax revenue. It gives them an outright incentive to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, because then they get a bigger cut of the money. Wouldn't it be better to tax everybody the same and then help the poor by giving them money directly via a UBI, or direct programs like free mass transit? It would also make taxes a whole lot simpler (you buy a thing, you pay a flat percentage in VAT; no individual tax returns whatsoever) and thereby eliminate a lot of these shell games corporations and billionaires use to avoid paying their share.