Sin taxes (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

I'm curious as to what all of you think about the recent trend for governments to charge sin taxes on goods and services with negetive social outcomes. For example, there is a strong movement for a higher tax upon alcohol to cut down on binge-drinking, with the alcopops tax being one particular facet of this movement. The Henry Tax Review apparently calls for a uniform (and on average, higher) tax rate to be applied to all forms of alcohol on a per-standard-drink basis. There is also a proposed increase in tax on tobacco.

I know some of you will hate the idea as an infringement upon your personal liberty to spend your money anyway in which you please, but what about everyone else?

Personally, I have no problem with the increases, as long as they are kept within moderation. I don't want to see the price of booze rising 200% without any economic justification, just because one socially conservative politician launched a with-me-or-against-me crusade upon binge-drinking.

Also, I would prefer it if politicians didn't go on about how the increased taxes are going to reduce these negetive social outcomes and instead focused more upon the fact that they are there to internalise the negetive externalities of the market price mechanism. For example, they shouldn't be increasing alcohol taxes to reduce binge-drinking, but instead to cover it's estimated cost to the healthcare system (in the form of assault victims, liver-damage, mental diseases etc.) and other areas of society where these costs can be objectively analysed.

Smokes $20 a pack under tax revamp - The West Australian

EDIT: I tried to add a poll but the fucking forum doesn't like it if you take more than four minutes to do so. Can I get a mod to volunteer to do it for me, if I tell them the options I wanted?

 

[Slidey]

It's called evidence-based policy (with the key factors to considering being civil order and personal health -> healthcare cost). I see no problem with it.

I do see a problem with the inconsistency with which it is applied: why is marijuana still illegal, for example, when it is safer and less socially harmful than both nicotine and alcohol?

However, I don't want to see policy dictated by social conservatives or religious nutjobs, either. That's not evidence-based policy.

 

[mitchy_boy]

I agree with it. It won't effect most people in the community to much, only the ones who go too far.

 

[katie tully]

Like the increase cost of cigarettes to fund health care reform. Not sure about funding health care reform because I have a feeling Rudd's health care reform will be a stinking pile of shit, but given the burden smokers place on the health system, increasing the cost of smokes to putt money in the health systems coffers is okay with me. Ye

 

[funkshen]

It's called a pigovian tax morans. And I believe it's perfectly acceptable to tax activities to correct negative externalities. Property rights motherfuckers.

The only contentious bit is the subjective interpretation of social externalities, but as Slidey said such policy is most often evidence-based and so you can be fairly confident of its legitimacy.

 

[SylviaB]

yeah its okay to steal money from people i see no problem with this

 

[funkshen]

tax = theft

tea party in protest

 

[Lolsmith]

Absolutely no problem with sin taxes against tobacco and alcohol.

 

[SylviaB]

Absolutely no problem with sin taxes against tobacco and alcohol.

freedom hating swine

 

[aussie-boy]

Tobacco tax revenues >>>>>>>>>> cost to healthcare system

These smokers are being taxed simply because they're easy prey... its OK to the point where they compensate all the externalities from their behaviour but when it goes past that point you gotta question whether its fair

Alcohol laws are stupid - we should be getting more progressive. Here in Canberra we have $2 drinks (good ones) and yet everyone isnt vomitting in the streets/fighting.

 

[pman]

Tobacco tax revenues >>>>>>>>>> cost to healthcare system

These smokers are being taxed simply because they're easy prey... its OK to the point where they compensate all the externalities from their behaviour but when it goes past that point you gotta question whether its fair.

I'd rather see higher costs on cigs, it will stop people starting to smoke and i might be able to breathe.....either have insane taxes on it or no health cover from Medicare if your a smoker

 

[BOS Negro]

I'd rather see higher costs on cigs, it will stop people starting to smoke and i might be able to breathe.....either have insane taxes on it or no health cover from Medicare if your a smoker

I'm pretty sure people don't smoke for the first time because of the cheapness of cigarettes.

 

[aussie-boy]

or no health cover from Medicare if your a smoker

Did you even read my post?
Smokers have already paid for all the extra health costs; they've paid for their own Medicare funding and are now subsidising everyone else's

With this in mind, I think the Gov's supposed right to keep taking money is questionable

 

[0bs3n3]

I'd rather see higher costs on cigs, it will stop people starting to smoke and i might be able to breathe.....either have insane taxes on it or no health cover from Medicare if your a smoker

You do realise the increased chance of getting lung cancer from second hand smoke is negligible?

Not exposed to second hand smoke: 10 in 1,000,000
Exposed to second hand smoke: 12.5 in 1,000,000

 

[Riet]

the hilarious thing is that if it has the benefit of reducing the number of smokers there will be a massive revenue gap that then needs filling. If that was the real reason it could be achieved through other means such as refusing to pay for treatment of smoking related illness. Fact of the matter is that it is just gouging money from an easy target, and there is no benefit to the government for reducing the number of smokers as the revenue from cigarette tax is far greater than the actual cost to the system.

It's like the insane excise on petrol and yet then we have system with salary sacrifice that encourage people to drive at least 25,000 km a year.

You do realise the increased chance of getting lung cancer from second hand smoke is negligible?

Not exposed to second hand smoke: 10 in 1,000,000
Exposed to second hand smoke: 12.5 in 1,000,000

and that was based on people who had to work in smokey environments, not on people who just happen to stand next to a smoker for 30 seconds while waiting for the lights.

Second hand smoke (now it's is banned indoors, which I agree with) is no worse for us than exhaust fumes or coal power station emissions.

 

[pman]

I would do anything not have my bedroom smell of my next door neighbors cigarette smoke of a morning, even if it isn't likely to work (and closing the window isn't an option because i have power cables running out the window)

 

[Riet]

why in fucks name do you have power cables running out your window? That unsightly view is far worse than a hint of cigarette smoke.

 

[jarkler]

Careful he could be giving your computer cancer: Cigarette Smoke Damage to Computers

 

[Slidey]

Here in Canberra we have $2 drinks (good ones) and yet everyone isnt vomitting in the streets/fighting.

lol

a) Canberra is the most civilised area in Australia, by many measures
b) Yes they fucking are. Ever been to Civic at night?

 

[Lentern]

lol

a) Canberra is the most civilised area in Australia, by many measures

Newtown? I speak CA and tend to err on the side of overdressing but even so I sense they can just tell I'm from the south west and look down on me like trouble making riff raff.