"Sin taxes"

P

parmalee

peripatetic artisan
Valued Senior Member
I honestly do not have a very strong position regarding so-called "sin taxes" generally. I just don't know.

As far as I can tell, there ain't really nothing that's all bad. Tobacco? Not great, strongly associated with a number of health complications, but it's got some attributes that are widely believed (not much scientific consensus either way) to be helpful for a number of neurological and psychiatric ailments. Doritos? Again, mostly crap--empty calories, non-helpful fats, etc.--but, I don't know, maybe they provide some sort of psychological "comfort" to people in certain circumstances?

Does anyone have any strong opinions regarding "sin taxes"? If so, please attempt to persuade me to adopt some sort of position.
 
parmalee said:
Does anyone have any strong opinions regarding "sin taxes"? If so, please attempt to persuade me to adopt some sort of position.
Click to expand...
No strong feelings.

Pluses:
- Tends to discourage damaging behavior, which tends to save money overall (both for the person and the government)
- Easier to pass, since people don't mind spending more on "bad" stuff


Minuses:
- Government becomes dependent on the money, and so sometimes ends up encouraging the "sin" to keep their income up
 
billvon said:
Pluses:
- ...
- Easier to pass, since people don't mind spending more on "bad" stuff
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know about that. A lot of people seemed pretty upset about limitations on soft drink sizes in NYC.

Tangentially, some years ago, I was touring the states with a European act and we stopped at a service station for coffee, etc. The smallest coffee cup available was 16 oz, which I personally find utterly ridiculous. My friend agreed and filled a cup with about 4 oz and tried to "bargain" with the clerk. Needless to say, he didn't get anywhere.

billvon said:
Minuses:
- Government becomes dependent on the money, and so sometimes ends up encouraging the "sin" to keep their income up
Click to expand...
Yes. And this is one of those foreseeable consequences wherein it eventually becomes apparent that the proponents for such (specific matters, of course--not re: sin taxes generally) are willingly and knowingly playing into it.
 
billvon said:
But that's not a tax - that's a ban. In general I think bans are a bad idea.
Click to expand...
But it effectively amounts to the same thing. Generally, when you buy the larger option, it costs less on an ounce per ounce basis. So with the 5 gallon Big Gulp (that's about right, isn't right? :D) no longer being available, they have to buy five one gallon Big Gulps and pay more.

Remember all that talk about "shrinkflation" during the election season? They always seemed to use a bag of Doritos as an example. Why? Wouldn't proper food have made a more effective example?

Anyway, I generally agree regarding bans.
 
parmalee said:
But it effectively amounts to the same thing.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I think making something more expensive is vastly better (and quite different from) a ban. In one case you simply can't get the thing any more; in the other case it's just more expensive.
 
billvon said:
Minuses:
- Government becomes dependent on the money, and so sometimes ends up encouraging the "sin" to keep their income up
Click to expand...
I would also add that "sin taxes" often affect lower-income peoples disproportionately--both in the sense that they simply have less money, but also in that products which are given such taxes are frequently products that are more widely used by lower-income groups.
 
parmalee said:
I would also add that "sin taxes" often affect lower-income peoples disproportionately--both in the sense that they simply have less money, but also in that products which are given such taxes are frequently products that are more widely used by lower-income groups.
Click to expand...
If I drink reasonably why should I pay more because people do not do that?
Our government MUST be happy we smoke and drink because that generates taxes, not too much though because then we stress the NHS.
 
Pinball1970 said:
If I drink reasonably why should I pay more because people do not do that?
Click to expand...
Because there is value in having a society where fewer people abuse alcohol. You are at less risk of being killed by a drunk driver, and your hospital won't have to raise your payments because they are providing free (EMTALA) emergency care for drunks.
 
billvon said:
Because there is value in having a society where fewer people abuse alcohol. You are at less risk of being killed by a drunk driver, and your hospital won't have to raise your payments because they are providing free (EMTALA) emergency care for drunks.
Click to expand...
Agree.
I actually DO drink too much so I cannot complain about lung cancer patients recieving chemo can I?
 
parmalee said:
I would also add that "sin taxes" often affect lower-income peoples disproportionately--both in the sense that they simply have less money, but also in that products which are given such taxes are frequently products that are more widely used by lower-income groups.
Click to expand...
It's often worse than this, though, in that the alternative "healthier" options are often out of their reach. For example, we're often encouraged to eat fresh fruit and vegetables, unprocessed foods etc, but they actually come at a premium. Of course, not drinking alcohol or smoking doesn't require an alternative - simply stop (yeah, it's clearly that easy! ;)) - but the point is that "sin taxes" have to be mindful of the affordability (or lack thereof) of the alternatives that the government is trying to move the behaviour toward.

On the whole, though, I've got no issue with "sin taxes"... as long as they aren't imposed on my vices! ;)
 
Sarkus said:
It's often worse than this, though, in that the alternative "healthier" options are often out of their reach. For example, we're often encouraged to eat fresh fruit and vegetables, unprocessed foods etc, but they actually come at a premium. Of course, not drinking alcohol or smoking doesn't require an alternative - simply stop (yeah, it's clearly that easy! ;)) - but the point is that "sin taxes" have to be mindful of the affordability (or lack thereof) of the alternatives that the government is trying to move the behaviour toward.
Click to expand...
But then, if the revenue from the "sin taxes" were put toward making healthier foods more readily available and affordable... Yeah, I've just never been able to construct a strong argument for or against "sin taxes". There are simply too many factors at play.
Sarkus said:
On the whole, though, I've got no issue with "sin taxes"... as long as they aren't imposed on my vices! ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah. I hand-roll cigarettes. I buy tobacco in bulk and it's just tobacco (no fillers, obviously), organic, fresher, and just plain "better" quality tobacco all around. Moreover, with papers included, total cost still works out to less than a dollar a pack. But once, every three years perhaps, something goes awry and I'm compelled to buy a small packet of rolling tobacco (if I can find it--it's scarce in the US, because rolling cigarettes isn't sufficiently "convenient" for Americans or something) or a pack of cigarettes in a shop. This happened a few months back, and said pack cost me nearly 20 dollars! It just felt "wrong", but I couldn't really complain.

But even the taxing involving tobacco is... "complicated". Cigarettes are taxed more heavily than pipe tobacco, for instance; but I suspect that pipe smokers are generally more affluent than cigarette smokers. And occasionally someone proposes banning menthol cigarettes under the weird assumption that they are somehow more appealing to kids; however, the biggest--by far--consumers of menthol cigarettes are Black Americans.
 
parmalee said:
Well, I don't know about that. A lot of people seemed pretty upset about limitations on soft drink sizes in NYC.
Click to expand...

True, but in their way, soft drinks are a newer frontier. There was a weird statistic about liquor during the Covid lockdown, that people started buying better booze; there were a lot of people who were spending more on liquor while not necessarily drinking more. (And no, I don't recall how long that period lasted, so there's that.) And in my time as a cigarette smoker, no, I was not the only one willing to pay a little more for my own reasons.

And, hey, there's a point that circulates on social media reminding how strange it is that our sight, hearing, and teeth, three essential components of our health, are not included in our standard health insurance framework. A sin tax on high-sugar products might bring enough money to kickstart an upgrade of our oral health framework. (Watch the behavioral economy; give people single-payer including dental, they'll happily both pay the candy tax and reduce their sugar intake; it will become just like smoking and drinking when they switch from, "Don't tell me what to do", to, "Stop raising the premium with your unhealthy behavior or else you should be excluded!")
 
The UK applied a "sugar-tax" to soft drinks back in 2015 (iirc), and it did remove c.47,000 tonnes of sugar annually from our consumption. Interestingly the focus of the health benefit has been on the c.5,000 cases of childhood obesity (mostly in girls) it has prevented, which alas is but a drop in the ocean (but the splashes are obviously big! ;)) rather than on dental health. The government of the day promised to reinvest that money back into children's nutrition, although I'm not aware whether that was actually done, or effects thereof.

As an aside... from what I've been made aware of, though, the UK soft-drinks generally have far less sugar than the US counterparts, even before the reduction that the sugar-tax resulted in.
FANTA seems to vary significantly by country - per 330ml there is 43g of sugar in Indian version, 41g in the US version, and 23g in the UK version. Dr Pepper USA has 36g compared to UK's 24g, Schweppes Tonic Water is another vast difference, with USA at a whopping 45g and UK just 17g. Sprite is 38g for USA and 22g for UK. Pepsi and Coca Cola have minor differences (1 or 2g - but interestingly they taste different around the world due to the source of the sugar (sugar beet v corn syrup v sugar cane).

source (2015 data):
Not sure if the UK data is pre- or post- sugar-tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top