By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Single Item Taxes

Kasz216 on 01 April 2009
akuma587 said:
luinil said:
akuma587 said:

...taxes that target a specific activity are a phenomenal way to decrease that activity.


... and decrease liberty.

Is liberty always a good thing?  Should I be free to rob and kill people?  Should I be free to swindle people out of money?  Should companies be free to put harmful chemicals in the food they produce because they save money?  Should nuclear power plants be free to dump toxic waste in landfills?

Freedom is a great thing.  But too much freedom is a terrible thing.

 

Not really the same thing.

What if some politician decides that gay sex is harmful and starts taxing homosexual relationships?

(Anal sex actually does lower your immune system by the way.)

Heck they also lower population growth which is a problem for 1st world countries.

Taxing things because they're "harmful" isn't a good reason.



Around the Network
akuma587 on 01 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
luinil said:
akuma587 said:

...taxes that target a specific activity are a phenomenal way to decrease that activity.


... and decrease liberty.

Is liberty always a good thing?  Should I be free to rob and kill people?  Should I be free to swindle people out of money?  Should companies be free to put harmful chemicals in the food they produce because they save money?  Should nuclear power plants be free to dump toxic waste in landfills?

Freedom is a great thing.  But too much freedom is a terrible thing.

 

Not really the same thing.

What if some politician decides that gay sex is harmful and starts taxing homosexual relationships?

(Anal sex actually does lower your immune system by the way.)

Heck they also lower population growth which is a problem for 1st world countries.

Taxing things because they're "harmful" isn't a good reason.

I'm not suggesting taxing everything that is harmful.  I'm for taxing things that are excessively harmful.

Do you honestly believe that anal sex costs our healthcare system as much as tobacco smoke?

And anal sex is a bad example too.  It would be impossible to enforce a tax on something like that.  And there is no money involved.  There would be nothing to tax.  What you are talking about is more of a civil penalty, not a tax.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 01 April 2009
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
luinil said:
akuma587 said:

...taxes that target a specific activity are a phenomenal way to decrease that activity.


... and decrease liberty.

Is liberty always a good thing?  Should I be free to rob and kill people?  Should I be free to swindle people out of money?  Should companies be free to put harmful chemicals in the food they produce because they save money?  Should nuclear power plants be free to dump toxic waste in landfills?

Freedom is a great thing.  But too much freedom is a terrible thing.

 

Not really the same thing.

What if some politician decides that gay sex is harmful and starts taxing homosexual relationships?

(Anal sex actually does lower your immune system by the way.)

Heck they also lower population growth which is a problem for 1st world countries.

Taxing things because they're "harmful" isn't a good reason.

I'm not suggesting taxing everything that is harmful.  I'm for taxing things that are excessively harmful.

Do you honestly believe that anal sex costs our healthcare system as much as tobacco smoke?

And anal sex is a bad example too.  It would be impossible to enforce a tax on something like that.  And there is no money involved.  There would be nothing to tax.  What you are talking about is more of a civil penalty, not a tax.

 

It's the same difference.  Also our healthcare system is mostly private.  Even if it were government run... why does it make sense to penalize everyone for only those who get cancer?

Furthermore that's not where the money goes.  This tax for example is going to children's healthcare.  Not treating peopel with cancer.

And even if this was the case where it hurts our healthcare shouldn't there be a published study used to set the tax rate?  For all we know cigarrette taxes could (and likely are) pulling in way more then they are taking out of the government.



Rath on 01 April 2009
luinil said:
Too much freedom is never a bad thing. Freedom is a great thing. The thing you described was not freedom, but crime. Crime is anarchy. Anarchy =/= freedom.

Even a little freedom can be used to do bad things. If you wanted to stop all the bad things in the world, there would be no more world.

 

The law is merely a set of limits to our freedoms. They are limits to our freedoms generally in a case where not having the limit would cause the freedom of others to be infringed upon.

Anarchy = freedom, essentially the defintion of anarchy is a state where every individual has absolute liberty.



tarheel91 on 01 April 2009
akuma587 said:

Sure, why not. If a product is creating a negative externality that hurts society, you should tax it to reduce consumption.

Cigarettes: cost the healthcare system more money, cause harm to people through secondary smoke, are physically addictive, etc.

Vehicles that weigh over a certain amount/have larger engines than necessary: Use more gasoline than other vehicles and drive up the cost of fuel, typically emit more smog and other pollutants, endanger other people on the highway who drive smaller cars.

Carbon based energy tax: has become a national defense issue, hurts our long-term economic growth, many of the sources of energy we currently use create an unacceptable amount of pollutants, would encourage investment in nuclear and renewable energy.

Why not tax things that create problems for the economy and society as a whole? Its like putting regulations on businesses that cause harm to the consumer. Not to mention it generates revenue. And taxes that target a specific activity are a phenomenal way to decrease that activity.

This.  Cigarettes harm others, and for that reason, I'm okay with taxing them.

Vehicles are a little harder.  Not all vehicles are used the same.  Driving a sports car on the weekend is no where near as bad as that same car every day.  Also, is it city or highway miles.  Corvettes can get well over 30 MPG on the highway despite their massive LS engines.  There's too many variables to fairly tax something like cars.

 



Around the Network
Tyrannical on 02 April 2009

"Sin Taxes" are unfairly aimed at the poor.

Why not just pass a law, you make under $40k a year, you're not allowed to smoke or drink?



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

donathos on 02 April 2009
Rath said:
luinil said:
Too much freedom is never a bad thing. Freedom is a great thing. The thing you described was not freedom, but crime. Crime is anarchy. Anarchy =/= freedom.

Even a little freedom can be used to do bad things. If you wanted to stop all the bad things in the world, there would be no more world.

The law is merely a set of limits to our freedoms. They are limits to our freedoms generally in a case where not having the limit would cause the freedom of others to be infringed upon.

Anarchy = freedom, essentially the defintion of anarchy is a state where every individual has absolute liberty.

Well... I think that anarchy is usually seen as the absence of government.

Many people take "liberty" to mean something much more specific than just "being able to do whatever you want," and do not find liberty incompatible with government.

OT: I don't like cigarettes.  I also don't like it when the majority throws its weight around against any minority population, just because it can.

 



Rath on 02 April 2009
donathos said:
Rath said:
luinil said:
Too much freedom is never a bad thing. Freedom is a great thing. The thing you described was not freedom, but crime. Crime is anarchy. Anarchy =/= freedom.

Even a little freedom can be used to do bad things. If you wanted to stop all the bad things in the world, there would be no more world.

The law is merely a set of limits to our freedoms. They are limits to our freedoms generally in a case where not having the limit would cause the freedom of others to be infringed upon.

Anarchy = freedom, essentially the defintion of anarchy is a state where every individual has absolute liberty.

Well... I think that anarchy is usually seen as the absence of government.

Many people take "liberty" to mean something much more specific than just "being able to do whatever you want," and do not find liberty incompatible with government.

OT: I don't like cigarettes.  I also don't like it when the majority throws its weight around against any minority population, just because it can.

 

Its because to have complete liberty would almost require an absence of government.



draik on 02 April 2009

I'm a smoker, but they should just outright ban it.

Stop raising taxes on it under the pretence that you are doing it for our own good.
"If it costs more you'll smoke less or quit", no you are not trying to do us a favour, you're raking in cash. If the government really cared about our health then they would ban it.



 

Rath on 02 April 2009
draik said:
I'm a smoker, but they should just outright ban it.

Stop raising taxes on it under the pretence that you are doing it for our own good.
"If it costs more you'll smoke less or quit", no you are not trying to do us a favour, you're raking in cash. If the government really cared about our health then they would ban it.

 

Except banning it would be about as effective as the prohibition was. Raising taxes, preventing marketing and education are the way to eliminate smoking.