4 ms·

The dis/incentive aspect is already abused, imo. If a small percentage of society participates in one activity, eg. smoking, it's too easy for the majority to t

by nverno 4y ago

The dis/incentive aspect is already abused, imo. If a small percentage of society participates in one activity, eg. smoking, it's too easy for the majority to tax the crap out of them to fund whatever activities they want.

danaris 4y ago
I'm really not sure invoking smoking as your boogeyman here is making the point you want it to. It's already very well known that the reason it remained unrestricted for so long is because the tobacco giants actively suppressed the studies that clearly showed how deadly it was, both for smokers and for the people around them. I don't think using something like sin taxes to discourage doing something that actively harms both you and anyone who has to share your air can reasonably be called an abuse of government power, unless you're one of the people who thinks that anything (besides maybe enforcing property rights) is an abuse of government power.
- nverno 4y ago
  You're missing the point. It's too easy for the majority to support taxing the minority over anything like this, cause it's no skin off their back. [Not to mention there are already laws pretty much everywhere restricting smoking to places where secondhand smoke isn't an issue- people can smoke at home you know. If you are worried about air quality, then driving in the city should be taxed, but it wouldn't be b/c the majority does it regularly]
  - danaris 4y ago
    There's a massive difference between taxing something like "being black" or "renting an apartment", where it's either an immutable part of who you are or something very difficult for many to change due to something like socioeconomic status, and something like smoking, which, while yes, it's addictive, is still a choice. And, again, it's a choice that is actively harmful to the smoker and everyone around them. So if you really want to make a point, I strongly encourage you to find a different example, because this one just sounds like you're a smoker who's angry that they have to pay more in taxes to continue to be able to pollute the air with carcinogens.
    - nverno 4y ago
      The point is people support taxing whatever is convenient for them. Another of the many conforming effects of overgrown democracy.
      - danaris 4y ago
        If you can show an actual example of that, rather than an example of people taxing objectively negative behaviour in an attempt to reduce it, then I might take your point more seriously.
Majestic121 4y ago
In countries with socialized health care, the high tax on tobacco does not cover the costs of treating cancer patients : https://www.science-environnement.com/modes-de-vie/les-taxes-fumeurs-rapportent-plus-d-argent-qu-ils-n-en-coutent/ https://www.science-environnement.com/modes-de-vie/les-taxes... It's a mistake to believe the tax is here to fund "whatever activities"
- nverno 4y ago
  I've seen reports like this from anti-smoking campaigns before. It's hilarious they don't account for the estimated costs of treating those dead patients had they lived to old age. Calling BS on that one.

by nverno 4y ago

danaris 4y ago

I'm really not sure invoking smoking as your boogeyman here is making the point you want it to. It's already very well known that the reason it remained unrestricted for so long is because the tobacco giants actively suppressed the studies that clearly showed how deadly it was, both for smokers and for the people around them. I don't think using something like sin taxes to discourage doing something that actively harms both you and anyone who has to share your air can reasonably be called an abuse of government power, unless you're one of the people who thinks that anything (besides maybe enforcing property rights) is an abuse of government power.

nverno 4y ago
You're missing the point. It's too easy for the majority to support taxing the minority over anything like this, cause it's no skin off their back. [Not to mention there are already laws pretty much everywhere restricting smoking to places where secondhand smoke isn't an issue- people can smoke at home you know. If you are worried about air quality, then driving in the city should be taxed, but it wouldn't be b/c the majority does it regularly]
- danaris 4y ago
  There's a massive difference between taxing something like "being black" or "renting an apartment", where it's either an immutable part of who you are or something very difficult for many to change due to something like socioeconomic status, and something like smoking, which, while yes, it's addictive, is still a choice. And, again, it's a choice that is actively harmful to the smoker and everyone around them. So if you really want to make a point, I strongly encourage you to find a different example, because this one just sounds like you're a smoker who's angry that they have to pay more in taxes to continue to be able to pollute the air with carcinogens.
  - nverno 4y ago
    The point is people support taxing whatever is convenient for them. Another of the many conforming effects of overgrown democracy.
    - danaris 4y ago
      If you can show an actual example of that, rather than an example of people taxing objectively negative behaviour in an attempt to reduce it, then I might take your point more seriously.

Majestic121 4y ago

In countries with socialized health care, the high tax on tobacco does not cover the costs of treating cancer patients : https://www.science-environnement.com/modes-de-vie/les-taxes-fumeurs-rapportent-plus-d-argent-qu-ils-n-en-coutent/ https://www.science-environnement.com/modes-de-vie/les-taxes... It's a mistake to believe the tax is here to fund "whatever activities"

nverno 4y ago
I've seen reports like this from anti-smoking campaigns before. It's hilarious they don't account for the estimated costs of treating those dead patients had they lived to old age. Calling BS on that one.