←back to thread

36 points hhs | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.443s | source
Show context
alsetmusic ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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(6): >>42071048 #>>42071082 #>>42071175 #>>42071317 #>>42071320 #>>42071392 #
presentation ◴[] 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 #
1. zie ◴[] 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 #
2. dgfitz ◴[] 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