3 ms·

People will rationalize the choice (since it's still available) and end up spending more on the same item, which doesn't reduce usage - it just means the people

by Alupis 6y ago

People will rationalize the choice (since it's still available) and end up spending more on the same item, which doesn't reduce usage - it just means the people using this item now have less money than before. So, if the goal is to remove the item entirely, it has to be banned from production/import rather than highly taxed. I don't really think bans are great either - we're all adults and can make our own choices. Provide better education about the effects/impacts of the choice, then let the informed adults make their own decision.

endisneigh 6y ago
The point isn’t just to tax, but to use the funds to create things that are significantly cheaper and reverse the effect. Taxing obviously affects the demand and cost of consumption but that money should go somewhere useful, ideally not into the ether that is government spending.
- Alupis 6y ago
  Your plan falls apart when it comes to the "vices" and "Sin Taxes", in my opinion. You won't prevent people from indulging in their choice of "vice" or "sin", you'll just make those people more poor than before. People who smoke and are addicted won't suddenly substitute smoking with chewing bubble gum or eating salads simply because those are cheaper options...
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    It’s not about those specific people, it’s about the aggregate. They probably won’t chew gum, but you can probably help other poor people in the same community. Compared to what- banning it which creates some level of a black market and more waste by policing what was previously a legal activity. Not to mention fining or otherwise enforcing the new law also makes those poor people even poorer and removes choice.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      Or you could just not try to Social Engineer society... It rarely works anyway, and often leads to unintended consequences. Educate people about the choices and why it might be bad for them to choose one way over the other - then hands off, let the now-educated adults make their own decisions. We can look at smoking as a good example of this. Decades of hard-core educational efforts about the negative effects have inarguably led to a massive reduction in smoking. Has it eliminated it entirely? No... but it certainly has reduced it to benign levels when compared to historical smoking. When someone considers trying cigarettes for the first time, do they consider the costs of an addiction/habit - or do they consider the effects on their own health? The massive taxes on a pack of cigarettes has little-to-zero impact on the choice to smoke the first one...

by Alupis 6y ago

endisneigh 6y ago

The point isn’t just to tax, but to use the funds to create things that are significantly cheaper and reverse the effect. Taxing obviously affects the demand and cost of consumption but that money should go somewhere useful, ideally not into the ether that is government spending.

Alupis 6y ago
Your plan falls apart when it comes to the "vices" and "Sin Taxes", in my opinion. You won't prevent people from indulging in their choice of "vice" or "sin", you'll just make those people more poor than before. People who smoke and are addicted won't suddenly substitute smoking with chewing bubble gum or eating salads simply because those are cheaper options...
- endisneigh 6y ago
  It’s not about those specific people, it’s about the aggregate. They probably won’t chew gum, but you can probably help other poor people in the same community. Compared to what- banning it which creates some level of a black market and more waste by policing what was previously a legal activity. Not to mention fining or otherwise enforcing the new law also makes those poor people even poorer and removes choice.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    Or you could just not try to Social Engineer society... It rarely works anyway, and often leads to unintended consequences. Educate people about the choices and why it might be bad for them to choose one way over the other - then hands off, let the now-educated adults make their own decisions. We can look at smoking as a good example of this. Decades of hard-core educational efforts about the negative effects have inarguably led to a massive reduction in smoking. Has it eliminated it entirely? No... but it certainly has reduced it to benign levels when compared to historical smoking. When someone considers trying cigarettes for the first time, do they consider the costs of an addiction/habit - or do they consider the effects on their own health? The massive taxes on a pack of cigarettes has little-to-zero impact on the choice to smoke the first one...