6 ms·

> Some states charge the (relatively low) commissions that the illegal market charges because they would prefer to stamp out the illegal market Slight tangent,

> Some states charge the (relatively low) commissions that the illegal market charges because they would prefer to stamp out the illegal market Slight tangent, but I am now of the view the state should not be allowed to tax legal vices. (Drugs, gambling, alcohol primarily). The reason is it keeps pushing amazing conflicts of interest, and the state ends up incentivized to maintain the behavior it supposedly does not want. Either [vice] is wrong and should be illegal, or is tolerated and regulated but in no way profited from by those that do the regulation.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
Taxing vices is how you control the amount of them while still allowing people to do them. Taxation is an important form of regulation.
- fwip 2y ago
  Sort of. It's how you bankrupt poor people addicted to the vice while not meaningfully affecting the well-off.
  - nerdponx 2y ago
    Ideally you would make it extremely expensive to get started, but inexpensive if you're already addicted and beyond the point of thinking rationally about money.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That's one theory. Another Theory is that the state is simply piling on and further exploiting these people. A third theory is that the state shouldnt be in the position of playing nanny or parent, influencing behavior. If it is illegal, prevent it from happening. If it is legal, it shouldn't it shouldnt interfere.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    > A third theory is that the state shouldnt be in the position of playing nanny or parent, influencing behavior. If it is illegal, prevent it from happening. If it is legal, it shouldn't it shouldnt interfere. This sort of black-and-white position basically means either a complete ban (presumably with a harsh penalty for people who participate in the activity) or no regulation at all. A ban will just get circumvented if you don't penalize people for getting around it, so you're going to have to penalize addicts for illegal gambling, not just the people who enable that gambling. If you want to take the other extreme, are laws that force people to put lung cancer warnings on cigarettes "playing nanny"? In real life, we usually take middle ground positions, and that means doing things that influence behavior, whether they are taxes or restrictions on labeling.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Yes, I do think government should be more black and white, and the government should stay in it's lane. I support regulation that empowers and informs individuals to make their own choices. Labeling of side effects, calories, and similar topics fall into that category of empowering the citizen. Sin taxes dont educate or empower, they simply punish and try to prevent individuals from acting on their own choices. The two are very different.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        So do you believe that any behavior should be prohibited? Do you think sales of raw milk, which have been known to cause listeria outbreaks when people drink from an unsafe batch, should simply force labels of "this milk may be unsafe" or do you think that should be prohibited? Do you think rhino horn should be legal to sell with the label of "this likely came from poached animals"?
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Yes, lots of behavior should be prohibited. Specifically when they cause direct and indisputable harm to another person. I think raw milk should be legal, and the labeling requirement should depend on the actual risk level, not just a vague possibility. rhino horn is a tricky one. Poaching animals is a form of stealing, so it is clearly illegal. Off the cuff, I think selling recently harvested rhino horn should be legal but required to have evidence that it was not poached.
Workaccount2 2y ago
I think the taxes thing is mainly to appease the voting public. People want the profits of the bad things to pay for the good things. It makes the ugly pill possible to swallow.
- fidotron 2y ago
  The tempting comparison is the tendency, at least in England, for things like church maintenance fundraisers to be funded by lotteries, by another name (raffle). i.e. donate money, and you might win. Either gambling is bad or it's not, but in practice people like to be incredibly selective about it, as here, where as you point out sports betting lacks the positive externalities which for some part of the population offset the negative effects.
  - cameldrv 2y ago
    A church raffle only happens once a year, and the time between buying the ticket and getting the reward is relatively long. That is not going to lead to an addiction. Having the TV blaring gambling commercials at you constantly and having the ability to place a bet from your phone at a moments notice is completely different. You’re comparing having a glass of wine on a special occasion with downing a fifth of whiskey every night.
    - fidotron 2y ago
      > You’re comparing having a glass of wine on a special occasion with downing a fifth of whiskey every night No one pretends one of those isn’t drinking though, whereas everyone pretends raffles aren’t gambling, or churches could hardly go in for it so much. > That is not going to lead to an addiction. So while the public described by the person I was replying to consider positive externalities sufficient to get around the “gambling bad” label for you it is all about how addictive you think an individual form of it would be for other people? There are people that think all drink is addictive, and some people for whom this is true, but suggest banning alcohol and you are considered a crackpot. I have known people that worked in the gambling industry and their descriptions of the addicts are mind bending. For example, they would show up at the offices and demand to gamble in person because they couldn’t find enough in life to bet on. Such people would find board games problematic, let alone a raffle situation.

pclmulqdq 2y ago

Taxing vices is how you control the amount of them while still allowing people to do them. Taxation is an important form of regulation.

fwip 2y ago
Sort of. It's how you bankrupt poor people addicted to the vice while not meaningfully affecting the well-off.
- nerdponx 2y ago
  Ideally you would make it extremely expensive to get started, but inexpensive if you're already addicted and beyond the point of thinking rationally about money.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
That's one theory. Another Theory is that the state is simply piling on and further exploiting these people. A third theory is that the state shouldnt be in the position of playing nanny or parent, influencing behavior. If it is illegal, prevent it from happening. If it is legal, it shouldn't it shouldnt interfere.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  > A third theory is that the state shouldnt be in the position of playing nanny or parent, influencing behavior. If it is illegal, prevent it from happening. If it is legal, it shouldn't it shouldnt interfere. This sort of black-and-white position basically means either a complete ban (presumably with a harsh penalty for people who participate in the activity) or no regulation at all. A ban will just get circumvented if you don't penalize people for getting around it, so you're going to have to penalize addicts for illegal gambling, not just the people who enable that gambling. If you want to take the other extreme, are laws that force people to put lung cancer warnings on cigarettes "playing nanny"? In real life, we usually take middle ground positions, and that means doing things that influence behavior, whether they are taxes or restrictions on labeling.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Yes, I do think government should be more black and white, and the government should stay in it's lane. I support regulation that empowers and informs individuals to make their own choices. Labeling of side effects, calories, and similar topics fall into that category of empowering the citizen. Sin taxes dont educate or empower, they simply punish and try to prevent individuals from acting on their own choices. The two are very different.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      So do you believe that any behavior should be prohibited? Do you think sales of raw milk, which have been known to cause listeria outbreaks when people drink from an unsafe batch, should simply force labels of "this milk may be unsafe" or do you think that should be prohibited? Do you think rhino horn should be legal to sell with the label of "this likely came from poached animals"?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Yes, lots of behavior should be prohibited. Specifically when they cause direct and indisputable harm to another person. I think raw milk should be legal, and the labeling requirement should depend on the actual risk level, not just a vague possibility. rhino horn is a tricky one. Poaching animals is a form of stealing, so it is clearly illegal. Off the cuff, I think selling recently harvested rhino horn should be legal but required to have evidence that it was not poached.

Workaccount2 2y ago

I think the taxes thing is mainly to appease the voting public. People want the profits of the bad things to pay for the good things. It makes the ugly pill possible to swallow.

fidotron 2y ago
The tempting comparison is the tendency, at least in England, for things like church maintenance fundraisers to be funded by lotteries, by another name (raffle). i.e. donate money, and you might win. Either gambling is bad or it's not, but in practice people like to be incredibly selective about it, as here, where as you point out sports betting lacks the positive externalities which for some part of the population offset the negative effects.
- cameldrv 2y ago
  A church raffle only happens once a year, and the time between buying the ticket and getting the reward is relatively long. That is not going to lead to an addiction. Having the TV blaring gambling commercials at you constantly and having the ability to place a bet from your phone at a moments notice is completely different. You’re comparing having a glass of wine on a special occasion with downing a fifth of whiskey every night.
  - fidotron 2y ago
    > You’re comparing having a glass of wine on a special occasion with downing a fifth of whiskey every night No one pretends one of those isn’t drinking though, whereas everyone pretends raffles aren’t gambling, or churches could hardly go in for it so much. > That is not going to lead to an addiction. So while the public described by the person I was replying to consider positive externalities sufficient to get around the “gambling bad” label for you it is all about how addictive you think an individual form of it would be for other people? There are people that think all drink is addictive, and some people for whom this is true, but suggest banning alcohol and you are considered a crackpot. I have known people that worked in the gambling industry and their descriptions of the addicts are mind bending. For example, they would show up at the offices and demand to gamble in person because they couldn’t find enough in life to bet on. Such people would find board games problematic, let alone a raffle situation.