A sin tax is basically a tax on anything that is unhealthy or immoral. Alcohol and tobacco have a sin tax. But why do we have sin taxes?
If you're going to drink the evil alcohol or eat the fattening candies, those immoral decisions should have an increased tax for two reasons. One, it helps push people away from making bad decisions. Two, more money goes to the government so they can help the people by funding more drug wars, feed into a failing education system, and so on.
What do you think? Should the government be allowed to tell us what is moral and immoral by means of taxes? Should the government have a say in morality at all? Okay, stealing, lying, killing, those are all immoral. But should the government decide it's immoral to eat unhealthy food or to use drugs?
i think that the "sin" part is just a way to justify taxing those goods.... most if not all are addictive. true... they are in fact unhealthy and go against the morals of a lot of people...
the government needs money... it has to get the money from somewhere, so why not increase the taxes on goods/actions of which people are addicted? sure... there may be a few people who quit partaking in such things b/c of increased taxes... but i think i know several who would axe out other things in their lives before they would quit smoking and drinking.
as for morals.... that should be your own personal decision. The government should only tell us what is acceptable and what is unacceptable...as in crimes you've mentioned.
i really think they are doing this because if it is ever contested it could be put to a vote by the general populace and the general populace would most likely vote to keep using the "sin" tax.
the second part is a valid statement/opinion zydrate.... but... irrelevant to this threads immediate interests
the government is not run by religion... although those that run it may or may not be religious.
i think this is opposite to indulgences b/c those monies were considered a positive thing by those paying them...and voluntary...whether they wanted to go to heaven or not is irrelevant... they had the ultimate decision to pay for indulgences. plus having the ability to pay indulgences promoted sin in a sense... and made it easier to make the decision to do such actions.
this tax hypothetically makes it harder to commit such actions
The sin part is just a way to justify them adding more tax onto the item. Stuff that's unhealthy or immoral or addictive sells like hotcakes, and the government wants/needs money, so they tax them more and present it as a sin tax, like Sonata said.
Perhaps it's better with the taxes. For example, smoking. If there are little taxes in place, demand and supply would rise, which would lead to more money spent on medical care. Taxpayer money which could have gone into other areas such as education or defense. Plus, hospitals might be overstaffed. So should the whole nation be forced to suffer the side effects due to its smokers?
Perhaps it's better with the taxes. For example, smoking. If there are little taxes in place, demand and supply would rise, which would lead to more money spent on medical care. Taxpayer money which could have gone into other areas such as education or defense. Plus, hospitals might be overstaffed. So should the whole nation be forced to suffer the side effects due to its smokers?
that's actually true. there was a time in canada when cigarettes were the cool thing, and had countless adds and commercials. the government was making ridiculous amouts of money from the taxes. fast forward 50-70 years later, all these smokers that were encouraged to smoke, were all sick from cancer and all the smoking related ailments. let's remember that canada has free health care. so the smokers would come and get there medicine and whatnot from the hospitals, and the government was losing more money than it was making from the taxes due to paying for the health care cost.
nowadays the one commercial you don't see are cigarette ads(they've been outlawed or something) , and now the one thing 50 years ago that was considered immoral/bad (alcohol) is getting the chance to advertise like crazy. the government is still enforcing high taxes on cigarettes, but now it's "supporting" alcohol (although, i think there are taxes on it).
as far as the original question: whoever is in power, and thinks that something can be highly taxed because the people are addicted to it (a sinful action i guess)
Well, tobacco has it's own side effects such as second hand smoke which affects other innocent people.
Actually...second hand smoke pretty much just annoys people, and I'll be the first to admit, it annoys the hell out of me. But second hand smoke is not dangerous. Watch this please(NSFW). Ha, lately it would seem that I have a Penn & Teller episode for every occasion =P
I would not so much say that these things are immoral; just stupid. And I would be more than happy to have an "idiot tax" as long as the government watches itself...I mean, who are they to pick and choose what we can eat by making the things more expensive? I am rather undecided at this point.
In a free-market system, what one person chooses to buy / use is based off of individual choice, so they would choose these "demerit goods" out of their own choice just as they choose, if they would, to exercise, buy food, etc.
Obviously, if the government has economic influence (like in universal healthcare), then they are justified in creating taxes for demerit items, limiting individual freedoms. They end up having to do this because it is unfair to have one person suffer (through taxes) for another's choice. Another thing they could do is cut the person who chooses this action out entirely from their plan - under universal healthcare, that person would be unable to acquire insurance.
Perhaps we shouldn't look at it in terms of morals and sins. We should look more at the direct impacts such actions might have on people and others in the country.
I mean, who are they to pick and choose what we can eat by making the things more expensive?
These "sins" are decided by the relevant society. As nichodemus suggested, it is a consensus that a particular product or activity is harmful in some way that determines whether or not it would qualify for a "sin tax." But let's be clear, a government that establishes such a tax is not making any sort of claim about the morality of the product or activity. Granted, one of the alleged goals of these taxes is to discourage the use of the product or engaging in the activity, but I am doubtful that this is a realistic or expected goal.
Consensus does not imply truth.
You're absolutely right, but in this case it's not the truth that we're after. There are no claims that activity X is strictly immoral, that's not the government's role. Really, the OP of this thread is misleading - it conflates legislation with morality. Even when considering crimes - even heinous ones - the laws set out punishments and means of convicting people of these crimes. But there is no overt allusion to morality or anything like that.
Why make the drug/ fast food in the first place if your going to get taxed? Just make it illegal. I mean if they put it legal then they should just stop annoying people using it. But i would not mind for a ticket if you smoke in a non-smoking place.
