3 ms·

Regressive taxes can be counterbalanced by redistributive policies. Sales taxes are regressive too for example and bring much much more revenue. The issue is sa

Regressive taxes can be counterbalanced by redistributive policies. Sales taxes are regressive too for example and bring much much more revenue. The issue is sales taxes disincentivize consumption whereas gambling taxes disinventivize gambling.

banannaise 1y ago
> whereas gambling taxes disinventivize gambling. Do they, though? The vig is 10%, very transparently shown in the odds, and paid immediately. It proves very little disincentive. The tax is paid annually and only if you win; for most people, it is 0%. Are we really going to argue that the tax is a serious factor in discouraging the behavior?
- laterium 1y ago
  Taxing something almost always decreases usage. By how much depends on the rate and the elasticity of demand. Gambling demand is probably very inelastic, much like cigarettes and alcohol. (Your argument supports this too) If the rate is low too I can see your point about not having much effect. But it still has an effect. Excessive sin taxes can be the sign of a nanny state, but otherwise I agree with it. All taxes are bad anyways, some are just less worse.
- gojomo 1y ago
  When you describe a tax that is "paid annually and only if you win", that's plain generic income tax. That's not the gambling-activity-specific taxes that Stoller's article discusses - typically applied to gambling businesses' revenues, not bet winners specifically.
- mlrtime 1y ago
  Yes, because if the tax were 100% then people would still bet, they would just move it off platform. Just like every other sin tax in existence.
  - hrimfaxi 1y ago
    Every other sin tax is levied on the consumer, unlike gambling taxes.
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      Huh? Cigarette and alcohol taxes are levied on the vendor in exactly the same way a gambling tax is. Make your own alcohol and drink it yourself, share some with your friends, and you'll never pay an alcohol tax.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - hrimfaxi 1y ago
        Cigarette and liquor taxes are levied on the purchaser, just like gas taxes. Gambling taxes are taxes on the gambling houses/platforms not excise taxes.
parineum 1y ago
> Sales taxes are regressive too for example and bring much much more revenue. That's because "tax the rich" is actually pretty bad tax policy because the rich really don't make a lot more income than the upper-middle to lower classes. If you look at countries with robust social safety nets, they don't get there by taxing the rich.
- watwut 1y ago
  They dont get there by making rich untaxed, uncontrolably powerful and above the law either. Taxing the rich is a necessary component, just like the justice system that applies to rich too.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  That’s not the only reason. Well to an extent it is, because the rich are much better at optimizing taxes, however you can close the “loopholes” and such, then there are wealth taxes. The problem is that the rich are ultra mobile, just like their capital, so unless you restrict that they’ll just move somewhere else where taxes are low. So countries basically end up competing with each other by lowering taxes to attract them while destroying their middle classes.. Same more or less applies to companies
- Epa095 1y ago
  They do on the other hand hold a significant portion of the wealth. Unfortunately wealth tax is complicated, both because actually measuring the wealth for tax purposes can be hard, and the rich can (and will) just move away from any sufficiently effecient tax scheme. So upper middle class ends up paying the bill.
  - kiba 1y ago
    It's easy to tax certain assets, such as land. LVT is actually the ideal tax in many ways, since a LVT is undodgable. Actually it doesn't matter whose name is on the title. Sufficiently high LVT will deter speculation, leading to collapse in land price and encouraging efficient usage of land and drastically affecting our political landscape.
  - 1y ago
hrimfaxi 1y ago
Sales taxes are levied on the buyer. Gambling taxes are not levied on the player.

banannaise 1y ago

> whereas gambling taxes disinventivize gambling. Do they, though? The vig is 10%, very transparently shown in the odds, and paid immediately. It proves very little disincentive. The tax is paid annually and only if you win; for most people, it is 0%. Are we really going to argue that the tax is a serious factor in discouraging the behavior?

laterium 1y ago
Taxing something almost always decreases usage. By how much depends on the rate and the elasticity of demand. Gambling demand is probably very inelastic, much like cigarettes and alcohol. (Your argument supports this too) If the rate is low too I can see your point about not having much effect. But it still has an effect. Excessive sin taxes can be the sign of a nanny state, but otherwise I agree with it. All taxes are bad anyways, some are just less worse.
gojomo 1y ago
When you describe a tax that is "paid annually and only if you win", that's plain generic income tax. That's not the gambling-activity-specific taxes that Stoller's article discusses - typically applied to gambling businesses' revenues, not bet winners specifically.
mlrtime 1y ago
Yes, because if the tax were 100% then people would still bet, they would just move it off platform. Just like every other sin tax in existence.
- hrimfaxi 1y ago
  Every other sin tax is levied on the consumer, unlike gambling taxes.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    Huh? Cigarette and alcohol taxes are levied on the vendor in exactly the same way a gambling tax is. Make your own alcohol and drink it yourself, share some with your friends, and you'll never pay an alcohol tax.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - hrimfaxi 1y ago
      Cigarette and liquor taxes are levied on the purchaser, just like gas taxes. Gambling taxes are taxes on the gambling houses/platforms not excise taxes.

parineum 1y ago

> Sales taxes are regressive too for example and bring much much more revenue. That's because "tax the rich" is actually pretty bad tax policy because the rich really don't make a lot more income than the upper-middle to lower classes. If you look at countries with robust social safety nets, they don't get there by taxing the rich.

watwut 1y ago
They dont get there by making rich untaxed, uncontrolably powerful and above the law either. Taxing the rich is a necessary component, just like the justice system that applies to rich too.
wqaatwt 1y ago
That’s not the only reason. Well to an extent it is, because the rich are much better at optimizing taxes, however you can close the “loopholes” and such, then there are wealth taxes. The problem is that the rich are ultra mobile, just like their capital, so unless you restrict that they’ll just move somewhere else where taxes are low. So countries basically end up competing with each other by lowering taxes to attract them while destroying their middle classes.. Same more or less applies to companies
Epa095 1y ago
They do on the other hand hold a significant portion of the wealth. Unfortunately wealth tax is complicated, both because actually measuring the wealth for tax purposes can be hard, and the rich can (and will) just move away from any sufficiently effecient tax scheme. So upper middle class ends up paying the bill.
- kiba 1y ago
  It's easy to tax certain assets, such as land. LVT is actually the ideal tax in many ways, since a LVT is undodgable. Actually it doesn't matter whose name is on the title. Sufficiently high LVT will deter speculation, leading to collapse in land price and encouraging efficient usage of land and drastically affecting our political landscape.
- 1y ago

hrimfaxi 1y ago

Sales taxes are levied on the buyer. Gambling taxes are not levied on the player.