Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Sin Tax

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:05:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Some of you may have heard of the supposed "Sin Tax" which is somewhat of a euphemism because it essentially penalizes you for making what the government would call, "a bad health decision." A sin tax is a consumption tax on anything the government deems "bad for you." How does the government spin it though?

Take for instance Coca-Cola. We all know that drinking large quantities of Coke is not optimal to your health. For that reason, the government uses that as the pretense that they

1. Actually give a sh*t about your health
2. Might deter you from drinking Coke and choose a healthier option

In actuality, it's extortion. It's a way for the gub'ment to get their greedy hands on an already over-taxed society to help fund their roads to nowhere, their bloated pensions, and their high-priced wars.

Discuss.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:07:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:05:49 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Some of you may have heard of the supposed "Sin Tax" which is somewhat of a euphemism because it essentially penalizes you for making what the government would call, "a bad health decision." A sin tax is a consumption tax on anything the government deems "bad for you." How does the government spin it though?

Take for instance Coca-Cola. We all know that drinking large quantities of Coke is not optimal to your health. For that reason, the government uses that as the pretense that they

1. Actually give a sh*t about your health
2. Might deter you from drinking Coke and choose a healthier option

In actuality, it's extortion. It's a way for the gub'ment to get their greedy hands on an already over-taxed society to help fund their roads to nowhere, their bloated pensions, and their high-priced wars.

Discuss.

You're speculating about motive with no evidence to support.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:14:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You're speculating about motive with no evidence to support.:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:15:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Increasing taxes on "unhealthy," practices is just the nanny-state at work....
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:20:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:05:49 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Some of you may have heard of the supposed "Sin Tax" which is somewhat of a euphemism because it essentially penalizes you for making what the government would call, "a bad health decision." A sin tax is a consumption tax on anything the government deems "bad for you." How does the government spin it though?

Take for instance Coca-Cola. We all know that drinking large quantities of Coke is not optimal to your health. For that reason, the government uses that as the pretense that they

1. Actually give a sh*t about your health
2. Might deter you from drinking Coke and choose a healthier option

In actuality, it's extortion. It's a way for the gub'ment to get their greedy hands on an already over-taxed society to help fund their roads to nowhere, their bloated pensions, and their high-priced wars.

Discuss.

You can always get back at them by eating healthy :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:30:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:05:49 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Some of you may have heard of the supposed "Sin Tax" which is somewhat of a euphemism because it essentially penalizes you for making what the government would call, "a bad health decision." A sin tax is a consumption tax on anything the government deems "bad for you." How does the government spin it though?

Take for instance Coca-Cola. We all know that drinking large quantities of Coke is not optimal to your health. For that reason, the government uses that as the pretense that they

1. Actually give a sh*t about your health
2. Might deter you from drinking Coke and choose a healthier option

In actuality, it's extortion. It's a way for the gub'ment to get their greedy hands on an already over-taxed society to help fund their roads to nowhere, their bloated pensions, and their high-priced wars.

Discuss.

You're looking at a generally politically safe route for tax reveneue but also a historical relic with roots from after the prohibition.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 12:48:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Many years ago I would support such taxes, now I fully support self-determination. We know certain things are unhealthy, it is our right to indulge ourselves as we see fit. We are not children. Well some of us are obviously.

Also by imposing such taxes we harm jobs.

It is only justified when a product causes genuine harm to the enviroment, or needs careful management to make is sustainable, and for some reason only the Government can handle this. I can't think of a suitable situation.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 12:54:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 12:48:17 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Many years ago I would support such taxes, now I fully support self-determination. We know certain things are unhealthy, it is our right to indulge ourselves as we see fit. We are not children. Well some of us are obviously.

Also by imposing such taxes we harm jobs.

It is only justified when a product causes genuine harm to the enviroment, or needs careful management to make is sustainable, and for some reason only the Government can handle this. I can't think of a suitable situation.

I agree. The taxes would've been far more appropriate when we first started finding out the detrimental effects of the drugs.

At this point, it's generally speaking, common knowledge, and if a person chooses to drink or smoke, it's their own decision. Again, the government should help govern, not babysit.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 1:01:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 12:54:54 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/17/2011 12:48:17 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Many years ago I would support such taxes, now I fully support self-determination. We know certain things are unhealthy, it is our right to indulge ourselves as we see fit. We are not children. Well some of us are obviously.

Also by imposing such taxes we harm jobs.

It is only justified when a product causes genuine harm to the enviroment, or needs careful management to make is sustainable, and for some reason only the Government can handle this. I can't think of a suitable situation.

I agree. The taxes would've been far more appropriate when we first started finding out the detrimental effects of the drugs.

At this point, it's generally speaking, common knowledge, and if a person chooses to drink or smoke, it's their own decision. Again, the government should help govern, not babysit.

However the government does not tax revenue. Do people really think its better to increase taxes on income and other consumption goods rather then a sin tax? I'd rather have a tax that discourages sin rather than one that discourages work (income tax).

However, I think a sin tax could have unintended consequences. Its well known that poor people aren't actually good at balancing their budget and tend to smoke a lot. Sin taxes can cause poorer people to be less healthy since they will have less disposable income to pay for food and medical services.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 1:10:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:05:49 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Some of you may have heard of the supposed "Sin Tax" which is somewhat of a euphemism because it essentially penalizes you for making what the government would call, "a bad health decision." A sin tax is a consumption tax on anything the government deems "bad for you." How does the government spin it though?

Take for instance Coca-Cola. We all know that drinking large quantities of Coke is not optimal to your health. For that reason, the government uses that as the pretense that they

1. Actually give a sh*t about your health
2. Might deter you from drinking Coke and choose a healthier option

In actuality, it's extortion. It's a way for the gub'ment to get their greedy hands on an already over-taxed society to help fund their roads to nowhere, their bloated pensions, and their high-priced wars.

Discuss.

http://www.debate.org...

There was a discussion here a couple of days ago. Thought you might find it interesting.