6 ms·

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 healt

by 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.
  - kyleee 5y ago
    I mean it seems entirely fair to compare since the drugs they're doing are playing a significant contributing factor to their health outcomes
anon54408900f 5y ago
Is this actually true? It seems to vary significantly by 'sin', and by level of consumption. Many smokers die at a younger age than non-smokers, and so end up financially burdening medicare for a fewer number of years. On the other hand, many other dietary habits that are not currently taxed as 'sins' have a long-term medical cost - e.g. diabetes and heart disease.
- Fogest 5y ago
  > other dietary habits that are not currently taxed as 'sins' have a long-term medical cost - e.g. diabetes and heart disease. I have expressed this in another comment, but unhealthy foods are taxed here as well. Things like fruits and vegetables are not. However even with the taxes processed foods still end up being more cost effective. But I think that is a separate problem of its own. I am not necessarily sure the argument that they have a shorter lifespan is a good one. Like sure someone may use more if they live 20 years longer, but if you compare two 60 years olds where one is healthy and the other is a heavy smoker it's almost guaranteed that the heavy smoker has costed society a lot more. Is it far to compare that same 60 year old smoker who just died to a 90 year old? That 90 year old got 30 more years of life. Sure they may have ended up costing more in healthcare in those 90 years, but they also alive 30 more years. To me that seems like a positive thing to strive for.
retrac 5y ago
> 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. There are a lot of things that people do which fall in the same category. Unhealthy eating. Extreme sports. Unsafe sex. Should we tax them all?
- ratww 5y ago
  For unhealthy eating, certainly, why not? For the other two it's a bit harder to directly tax those activities, but taxing indirectly it's definitely feasible: private health insurance and life insurance already have different pricing depending on amount of exercise, lifestyle, previous conditions, etc.
- Fogest 5y ago
  Unhealthy eating is already taxed higher here. Processed foods are taxed here whereas things like produce typically have no tax. Extreme sports are nowhere near as popular as things like smoking, drinking, and unhealthy eating. And extreme sports still have the same taxes other material objects would have. If I go mountain biking there is a lot of expensive gear you're paying for which would be taxed at 15% here. Injuries from mountain biking at most usually result in some kind of musculoskeletal injury. They are not usually long term problems and don't involve anywhere near the amount of resources something like a cancer patient would require. An alcoholic may drive drunk and injure someone else, they may have to go through multiple detox programs, they often end up in the hospitals for days, etc... And they also don't have the same benefits an extreme sport can have. Someone who does a lot of mountain biking is going to be a much healthier person. They'll require less doctor visits and overall are also probably mentally more healthy. Really not sure what specifically unsafe sex means. What would be the "sin tax" there? They aren't purchasing something? We are talking about taxing people's unhealthy purchases. Not taxing someone because they engage in an activity.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    as a non American what always strucks me is that cigarettes are taxed because they harm the person smoking them - they are heavily taxed in my country as well and only the State can sell them in licensed shops, it's a State monopoly -, but guns and ammunitions are not.

by Fogest 5y ago

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.
- kyleee 5y ago
  I mean it seems entirely fair to compare since the drugs they're doing are playing a significant contributing factor to their health outcomes

anon54408900f 5y ago

Is this actually true? It seems to vary significantly by 'sin', and by level of consumption. Many smokers die at a younger age than non-smokers, and so end up financially burdening medicare for a fewer number of years. On the other hand, many other dietary habits that are not currently taxed as 'sins' have a long-term medical cost - e.g. diabetes and heart disease.

Fogest 5y ago
> other dietary habits that are not currently taxed as 'sins' have a long-term medical cost - e.g. diabetes and heart disease. I have expressed this in another comment, but unhealthy foods are taxed here as well. Things like fruits and vegetables are not. However even with the taxes processed foods still end up being more cost effective. But I think that is a separate problem of its own. I am not necessarily sure the argument that they have a shorter lifespan is a good one. Like sure someone may use more if they live 20 years longer, but if you compare two 60 years olds where one is healthy and the other is a heavy smoker it's almost guaranteed that the heavy smoker has costed society a lot more. Is it far to compare that same 60 year old smoker who just died to a 90 year old? That 90 year old got 30 more years of life. Sure they may have ended up costing more in healthcare in those 90 years, but they also alive 30 more years. To me that seems like a positive thing to strive for.

retrac 5y ago

> 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. There are a lot of things that people do which fall in the same category. Unhealthy eating. Extreme sports. Unsafe sex. Should we tax them all?

ratww 5y ago
For unhealthy eating, certainly, why not? For the other two it's a bit harder to directly tax those activities, but taxing indirectly it's definitely feasible: private health insurance and life insurance already have different pricing depending on amount of exercise, lifestyle, previous conditions, etc.
Fogest 5y ago
Unhealthy eating is already taxed higher here. Processed foods are taxed here whereas things like produce typically have no tax. Extreme sports are nowhere near as popular as things like smoking, drinking, and unhealthy eating. And extreme sports still have the same taxes other material objects would have. If I go mountain biking there is a lot of expensive gear you're paying for which would be taxed at 15% here. Injuries from mountain biking at most usually result in some kind of musculoskeletal injury. They are not usually long term problems and don't involve anywhere near the amount of resources something like a cancer patient would require. An alcoholic may drive drunk and injure someone else, they may have to go through multiple detox programs, they often end up in the hospitals for days, etc... And they also don't have the same benefits an extreme sport can have. Someone who does a lot of mountain biking is going to be a much healthier person. They'll require less doctor visits and overall are also probably mentally more healthy. Really not sure what specifically unsafe sex means. What would be the "sin tax" there? They aren't purchasing something? We are talking about taxing people's unhealthy purchases. Not taxing someone because they engage in an activity.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  as a non American what always strucks me is that cigarettes are taxed because they harm the person smoking them - they are heavily taxed in my country as well and only the State can sell them in licensed shops, it's a State monopoly -, but guns and ammunitions are not.