6 ms·

I'm sorry, but have we ever left "those days"? There are dozens of examples of sin taxes on things like Cigarettes, Gambling, Alcohol, Carbon Emissions, etc.

softwarebeware 4y ago
Taxes on cigarettes, in the US, at least, are not driven primarily by Christian moralists. I was part of a prominent US non-profit that is behind both higher cigarette taxes and laws that ban smoking in public areas. The motivation is health.
whimsicalism 4y ago
Carbon has clear negative externality. Most of those other taxes were first instituted during periods of much greater Christian beliefs in the US than now.
- datadata 4y ago
  So are you OK with a sin tax if it is on something with a negative externality? Do you think advertising does not have any negative externalities?
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Carbon is not a sin and that is not the historical reason it is taxed, unlike say alcohol and cigarettes. Many of these other things may have externalities, both positive and negative, but not so clear cut as carbon.
    - jlund-molfese 4y ago
      The reason you're getting downvoted is because you compared a tax on ad spend to "Christian moralist" taxation in the United States, otherwise known as sin taxes. But you changed your definition of a sin tax halfway through the thread. These days, sin taxes like those on soda are often not motivated by religious concerns, at least in the US. They're taxes on goods or services that are harmful to individuals or society.
- qwytw 4y ago
  And Cigarettes, Gambling & Alcohol don't?
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    The primary impact of all of these things is on the purchaser. So not an externality. Of course, there are arguments around the externalities of all of these things. I view most of those arguments as society contextual (people don't like others smoking, so it is an externality) as opposed to something like carbon which would have a negative externality regardless of this societal/cultural context.
    - datadata 4y ago
      Some externalities of smoking for non-smokers include increases in health care coverage costs, reduced access to health resources, and loss of loved ones to smoking related health issues.
    - at-w 4y ago
      >Of course, there are arguments around the externalities of all of these things. I view most of those arguments as society contextual (people don't like others smoking, so it is an externality) as opposed to something like carbon which would have a negative externality regardless of this societal/cultural context. I agree with you here and find the obsession many people here have with advertising weird. Still, alcohol pretty clearly has a negative externality "regardless of societal/cultural context." The consistently high percentage of vehicular deaths, assaults, rapes, damage to developing babies through FAS, and so on are all largely borne by people besides the drinker themselves.

softwarebeware 4y ago

Taxes on cigarettes, in the US, at least, are not driven primarily by Christian moralists. I was part of a prominent US non-profit that is behind both higher cigarette taxes and laws that ban smoking in public areas. The motivation is health.

whimsicalism 4y ago

Carbon has clear negative externality. Most of those other taxes were first instituted during periods of much greater Christian beliefs in the US than now.

datadata 4y ago
So are you OK with a sin tax if it is on something with a negative externality? Do you think advertising does not have any negative externalities?
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Carbon is not a sin and that is not the historical reason it is taxed, unlike say alcohol and cigarettes. Many of these other things may have externalities, both positive and negative, but not so clear cut as carbon.
  - jlund-molfese 4y ago
    The reason you're getting downvoted is because you compared a tax on ad spend to "Christian moralist" taxation in the United States, otherwise known as sin taxes. But you changed your definition of a sin tax halfway through the thread. These days, sin taxes like those on soda are often not motivated by religious concerns, at least in the US. They're taxes on goods or services that are harmful to individuals or society.
qwytw 4y ago
And Cigarettes, Gambling & Alcohol don't?
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  The primary impact of all of these things is on the purchaser. So not an externality. Of course, there are arguments around the externalities of all of these things. I view most of those arguments as society contextual (people don't like others smoking, so it is an externality) as opposed to something like carbon which would have a negative externality regardless of this societal/cultural context.
  - datadata 4y ago
    Some externalities of smoking for non-smokers include increases in health care coverage costs, reduced access to health resources, and loss of loved ones to smoking related health issues.
  - at-w 4y ago
    >Of course, there are arguments around the externalities of all of these things. I view most of those arguments as society contextual (people don't like others smoking, so it is an externality) as opposed to something like carbon which would have a negative externality regardless of this societal/cultural context. I agree with you here and find the obsession many people here have with advertising weird. Still, alcohol pretty clearly has a negative externality "regardless of societal/cultural context." The consistently high percentage of vehicular deaths, assaults, rapes, damage to developing babies through FAS, and so on are all largely borne by people besides the drinker themselves.