←back to thread

Sin taxes are suffering from a shortage of sinners

(www.economist.com)
41 points hhs | 8 comments | 06 Nov 24 22:26 UTC | HN request time: 1.406s | source | bottom
Show context
alsetmusic ◴[06 Nov 24 23:08 UTC] No.42070992[source]▶
I worked at a liquor store when I was 21 and lived in a midwestern bible-belt state. We had flyers at the counter educating customers to vote against a raise of sin-taxes (alcohol, tobacco, possibly adult material, I don't recall) to offset a budget deficit (specifically upkeep of roads and highways).

It's not right for my vices to pay for your infrastructure. Tax tobacco to fund cancer research. Tax alcohol to advance treatment of liver disease. Tax porn to fund, I dunno, therapy for people who can't view it in moderation.

On a similar note, I do NOT have a problem with paying for schools even though I don't have kids. It raises property values and that's a benefit to me and everyone in the district. Plus, educating young people benefits society as a whole. I'm not some "don't tax me" guy because taxes are good. They just should be limited and targeted and not levied unfairly against those with bad habits for the benefit / relief of all.

That said, I apologize for quitting drinking. Research into treating cirrhosis of the liver will have to take a moderate hit and that's my fault. /s but only sorta

replies(5): >>42071023 #>>42071118 #>>42071334 #>>42071358 #>>42071396 #
amanaplanacanal ◴[06 Nov 24 23:12 UTC] No.42071023[source]▶
Fuel taxes should be raised to pay for road infrastructure. Align the incentives so that people can make good decisions about whether to drive or not. And shippers can make better decisions about whether to ship via rail, ship, or truck.
replies(7): >>42071048 #>>42071082 #>>42071175 #>>42071317 #>>42071320 #>>42071392 #>>42091532 #
1. presentation ◴[06 Nov 24 23:15 UTC] No.42071048[source]▶
IMO money is fungible and specifically locking in a tax to fund a specific thing seems like a good way to make the funding available for that thing volatile unless it’s so expensive that no matter what the tax pulls in it will never be enough. I doubt people would actually adjust their fuel consumption to the ideal balance between personal utility and road infrastructure funding.
replies(2): >>42071232 #>>42072798 #
2. zie ◴[06 Nov 24 23:32 UTC] No.42071232[source]▶
It's very easy to stop funding X from the general fund and using the specific allocated money, so the overall spend on X doesn't increase at all, it's just the money now comes from the special tax, instead of the general fund.

The general fund money can then be spent on whatever again, say the mayor's sin habit ;)

replies(1): >>42071559 #
3. dgfitz ◴[07 Nov 24 00:03 UTC] No.42071559[source]▶
> It's very easy to stop funding X from the general fund

Yeah it only takes a cliche called: an act of congress

replies(1): >>42079831 #
4. creer ◴[07 Nov 24 02:44 UTC] No.42072798[source]▶
The problem is how to get voters to approve your tax change. It's easy if you can split the voters. That is, blame X of them and tax them, which the rest and a few good souls will happily support. Otherwise you are back to suggesting a falt tax increase which very few will support - until you exempt much of the population, etc, etc.
5. zie ◴[07 Nov 24 19:13 UTC] No.42079831{3}[source]▶
Why do you think that?
replies(1): >>42081281 #
6. dgfitz ◴[07 Nov 24 21:31 UTC] No.42081281{4}[source]▶
Doesn't congress need to approve the budget?
replies(1): >>42081922 #
7. zie ◴[07 Nov 24 22:40 UTC] No.42081922{5}[source]▶
At the federal level, yes. but that's not related to my point at all.

If you've never read the federal budget, it's a great exercise in knowing how the govt operates. I encourage it.

If they say spend $100 on toilet paper. It's assumed it comes from the general fund. If they later decide taxing toilet sales for that $100 is a great idea. Awesome. What happens to that $100 budgeted out of the general fund? Sometimes it gets re-allocated, but sometimes not. It almost never means they are suddenly going to start spending $200 on toilet paper though. To do that, they have to specifically write that into the budget.

Hence, just because you taxed toilets $100 doesn't mean $100 MORE dollars will get applied to toilet paper.

Obviously $100 on TP for the federal government is absurdly low, but that's not the point and I'm too lazy to go figure out the actual costs on toilet paper. I'm sure it's a lot though.

replies(1): >>42082316 #
8. dgfitz ◴[07 Nov 24 23:28 UTC] No.42082316{6}[source]▶
I’ve read it. I stopped reading your comment after skimming saw a bunch of toilet paper references.