5 ms·

I feel sin taxes are immoral but easy to implement against a minority of poor people who don't have the means or numbers fight back.

computerphage 5y ago
Why do you think they're immoral?
- fithisux 5y ago
  because cigarettes and alcohol are drugs.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Zababa 5y ago
    What is your definition of drugs and why are drugs immoral?
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  not OP but I guess because they hit the poorer segment of the population and it's an income that comes from exploiting an addiction. There is no sin tax for very wealthy people with very bad habits, like traveling with their private jets. On the other hand as a smoker I am 100% in favour of the ban on smokes in public places. Maybe more bans and less sin taxes could be a better option, I'm not sure myself, but I can see why someone could consider them borderline immoral.
- another-dave 5y ago
  Not the OP, but my argument would be that things should either be legal or illegal. Fine if stuff has a naturally high price, everyone can't have a Tesla or a Ferrari, but if something is deemed to be morally OK (and therefore legal), it's not the government's place to then penalising people for spending their money on it. If taxes from cigarettes and alcohol were ring-fenced purely for treating smokers, prevention campaigns & alcohol anonymous programmes etc then I might be in favour. But for example — supposedly treating smokers costs the NHS £2.5bn per year (https://twitter.com/UKHSA/status/887261639720001536 https://twitter.com/UKHSA/status/887261639720001536), but the duty on cigarettes brings in £9.9bn (https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-unit...). For alcohol — the overall budget of the NHS is ~£130bn currently. This article (2016) estimated that alcohol related cases cost the NHS 3.6% of its budget (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/22/alcohol-and-the-nhs-five-key-questions https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/22/alcoho...) which, assuming the same now would be £4.7bn today, but alcohol duty brings in £12bn (https://www.statista.com/statistics/284336/united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts-alcohol-duties-by-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/284336/united-kingdom-hm...). Even accounting for other costs (e.g. accidents), the government is making a huge return on allowing these products to be sold, so it seems hypocritical to then punish people for using them, especially if people want to enjoy them in moderation.
- Clubber 5y ago
  Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and to overburden a group of people because we don't like what they do (smoke, drink, etc) or who they are (poor) not only puts an undue burden on people already suffering for our moral objectives (quit smoking, quit drinking), but allows others (non-smokers, non-drinkers) to pay less taxes than their fellow citizens. Wealthy people certainly can afford to smoke and drink all they want, it's just the poor people who aren't allowed with sin taxes. Just doesn't sit right with me.
gowld 5y ago
Poor people are compensated by separate welfare programs.
Scoundreller 5y ago
It’s the downstream effects that concern me. Do sin taxes reduce consumption in aggregate? Yes. But for those that it doesn’t, it means they’re spending more of their disposable income on their addiction and not things for the rest of their family.
Fogest 5y ago
In places that have free healthcare like Canada the sin taxes actually start to make a lot more sense. Heavy smokers and alcoholics are likely to use more healthcare resources compared to somebody who doesn't engage in those activities. So in my mind it seems "fair" for those things to be taxed higher. However I have seen these sin taxes applied to areas where this is not as true. For example in Canada marijuana is taxed quite heavily. But marijuana isn't something that causes much physical harm or physical dependence like alcohol. So it's odd that it is also so highly taxed. Especially edible versions of it that don't have the associated smoking risk. But I think overall as a whole in societies like this it can make sense. In places like America though maybe sin taxes don't make as much sense. You're paying a lot for your habit but are you getting any extra benefit out of it? If you need extra healthcare that is going to be on your insurance on your pocket. I would compare the sin taxes also to the carbon taxes we have implemented in Canada. You pay an extra tax at the gas station on your fuel. The idea is that those taxes paid are earmarked for climate change initiatives. Now is that tax money actually being spent appropriately? Who knows. But it does make sense in some sense to disincentivize destructive activities and use the taxes to offset the cost of those activities.
- kyleee 5y ago
  "In places that have free healthcare like Canada the sin taxes actually start to make a lot more sense. Heavy smokers and alcoholics are likely to use more healthcare resources compared to somebody who doesn't engage in those activities. So in my mind it seems "fair" for those things to be taxed higher." I'd recommend doing some digging here, I've seen many claims that such folks actually end up being responsible for lower lifetime healthcare expenditure due to earlier death and I'm sure myriad other factors
  - Fogest 5y ago
    Does them living a shorter life mean they are cheaper? I feel like comparing someone who dies of lung cancer at 60 years old to somebody who lives to 90 isn't really a fair comparison. Sure that 90 year old may end up costing more in terms of healthcare, but if you compared their usage up to 60 they would not have used the same. Someone who lives longer simply has more time alive and thus more time in the country where they may require medical care. But I don't think that means they are the same burden as someone who has a shorter life span but requires a lot of unnecessary care due to the unhealthy choices they made during their life.

computerphage 5y ago

Why do you think they're immoral?

fithisux 5y ago
because cigarettes and alcohol are drugs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Zababa 5y ago
  What is your definition of drugs and why are drugs immoral?
peoplefromibiza 5y ago
not OP but I guess because they hit the poorer segment of the population and it's an income that comes from exploiting an addiction. There is no sin tax for very wealthy people with very bad habits, like traveling with their private jets. On the other hand as a smoker I am 100% in favour of the ban on smokes in public places. Maybe more bans and less sin taxes could be a better option, I'm not sure myself, but I can see why someone could consider them borderline immoral.
another-dave 5y ago
Not the OP, but my argument would be that things should either be legal or illegal. Fine if stuff has a naturally high price, everyone can't have a Tesla or a Ferrari, but if something is deemed to be morally OK (and therefore legal), it's not the government's place to then penalising people for spending their money on it. If taxes from cigarettes and alcohol were ring-fenced purely for treating smokers, prevention campaigns & alcohol anonymous programmes etc then I might be in favour. But for example — supposedly treating smokers costs the NHS £2.5bn per year (https://twitter.com/UKHSA/status/887261639720001536 https://twitter.com/UKHSA/status/887261639720001536), but the duty on cigarettes brings in £9.9bn (https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-unit...). For alcohol — the overall budget of the NHS is ~£130bn currently. This article (2016) estimated that alcohol related cases cost the NHS 3.6% of its budget (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/22/alcohol-and-the-nhs-five-key-questions https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/22/alcoho...) which, assuming the same now would be £4.7bn today, but alcohol duty brings in £12bn (https://www.statista.com/statistics/284336/united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts-alcohol-duties-by-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/284336/united-kingdom-hm...). Even accounting for other costs (e.g. accidents), the government is making a huge return on allowing these products to be sold, so it seems hypocritical to then punish people for using them, especially if people want to enjoy them in moderation.
Clubber 5y ago
Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and to overburden a group of people because we don't like what they do (smoke, drink, etc) or who they are (poor) not only puts an undue burden on people already suffering for our moral objectives (quit smoking, quit drinking), but allows others (non-smokers, non-drinkers) to pay less taxes than their fellow citizens. Wealthy people certainly can afford to smoke and drink all they want, it's just the poor people who aren't allowed with sin taxes. Just doesn't sit right with me.

gowld 5y ago

Poor people are compensated by separate welfare programs.

Scoundreller 5y ago

It’s the downstream effects that concern me. Do sin taxes reduce consumption in aggregate? Yes. But for those that it doesn’t, it means they’re spending more of their disposable income on their addiction and not things for the rest of their family.

Fogest 5y ago

In places that have free healthcare like Canada the sin taxes actually start to make a lot more sense. Heavy smokers and alcoholics are likely to use more healthcare resources compared to somebody who doesn't engage in those activities. So in my mind it seems "fair" for those things to be taxed higher. However I have seen these sin taxes applied to areas where this is not as true. For example in Canada marijuana is taxed quite heavily. But marijuana isn't something that causes much physical harm or physical dependence like alcohol. So it's odd that it is also so highly taxed. Especially edible versions of it that don't have the associated smoking risk. But I think overall as a whole in societies like this it can make sense. In places like America though maybe sin taxes don't make as much sense. You're paying a lot for your habit but are you getting any extra benefit out of it? If you need extra healthcare that is going to be on your insurance on your pocket. I would compare the sin taxes also to the carbon taxes we have implemented in Canada. You pay an extra tax at the gas station on your fuel. The idea is that those taxes paid are earmarked for climate change initiatives. Now is that tax money actually being spent appropriately? Who knows. But it does make sense in some sense to disincentivize destructive activities and use the taxes to offset the cost of those activities.

kyleee 5y ago
"In places that have free healthcare like Canada the sin taxes actually start to make a lot more sense. Heavy smokers and alcoholics are likely to use more healthcare resources compared to somebody who doesn't engage in those activities. So in my mind it seems "fair" for those things to be taxed higher." I'd recommend doing some digging here, I've seen many claims that such folks actually end up being responsible for lower lifetime healthcare expenditure due to earlier death and I'm sure myriad other factors
- Fogest 5y ago
  Does them living a shorter life mean they are cheaper? I feel like comparing someone who dies of lung cancer at 60 years old to somebody who lives to 90 isn't really a fair comparison. Sure that 90 year old may end up costing more in terms of healthcare, but if you compared their usage up to 60 they would not have used the same. Someone who lives longer simply has more time alive and thus more time in the country where they may require medical care. But I don't think that means they are the same burden as someone who has a shorter life span but requires a lot of unnecessary care due to the unhealthy choices they made during their life.