Amazon.com Widgets

Do the costs of a 'sin tax' outweigh the benefits?

  • Just another excuse for more taxes!

    The economy is bad and a lot of people do not have jobs. The first amendment states that we have freedom of religion and church and state. The government proposing a sin tax is against our first amendment rights. What is sinful to one person, may not be sinful to another. What others taxes are we going to come up with next?

  • Judging then Slapping a Tax on it is Wrong

    I do not believe that a person has the right to tell another person that what he or she is doing is wrong and place a tax on it. It can be proven that things like beer and tobacco does more harm than good, but how is it alright to place a tax on it based on our own opinions? These people could think that some of the things we do like littering and waste do more harm than good. But then can we go and place a tax on people who litter? We have a right to our own opinions, and by placing the tax we could create a whole new rebellion that we do not need to face right now. There is a better way of raising money for the country than this, because it is just gong to divide us even more.

  • YES

    Sin taxes set a precedent where you can tax any behavior that the majority doesn't agree with and thinks is unhealthy. Sin taxes set a precedent where we are agreeing that those who engage in those behaviors deserve to be treated differently than those who choose to refrain.

    Besides, the logic on sin taxes is asinine. I'm going to get taxed for choosing to have a soda or two a week, but people who choose to engage in unsafe sex and keep having kids when they're already on welfare are given a free pass.

    The logic behind this is that we tax the crap out of things that may cause ill effects over long periods of time when they are consumed to excess, while big sins that cause a lot of money immediately are ignored.

  • No, but all 'sins' should be included and none excluded to benefit society

    I present the unpopular view, considering I may be the first to submit an argument in favor of the sin tax. Since tobacco is already the most highly taxed item on the 'sin' list at 56% of the cost per pack, these taxes have proven they reduce smoking rates significantly each time the rates are raised. I don't believe being judged for a behavior has anything to do with the issue because stigmatization already exists for these sins. Sugary soda is already known to cause Type-2 Diabetes and obesity; Alcohol is the number one killer after cancer and heart disease; Pornography isn't included in sin tax proposals but is harmful to relationships and has increased the incidence of rape. One could argue that these sins are self-defeating and only affect the person engaged in the behavior, but this doesn't apply to a person who drives while intoxicated and places innocent lives in danger. What is unfair is to tax selected sinful behaviors and not all the other sins that are equally harmful to society. Only then can people make informed choices and decide whether they want to pay for indulging in their chosen sin.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.