do you support taxes to deter 'harmful' activities?

No, adults should be allowed to die however they wish, science on second hand smoke is as dubious as the Tobacco industry's claim that nicotine is not addictive.
 
I'm personally all for sin taxes (to include legalizing drugs and taxing them, and taxing porn), because they are a good source of revenue, and your not harming anything that is a benefit to society the way income, property, and investments are.

These products also create costs for society through litter and medical expenses. The only reason why I might oppose taxes on soda is because you are essentially taxing millions of children, whereas with adult products you don't have that happening.
 
Socrtease said:
No, adults should be allowed to die however they wish, science on second hand smoke is as dubious as the Tobacco industry's claim that nicotine is not addictive.
Click to expand...

Welcome back, Soc.

Well, like so many things in the realm of health, there has been some wavering on the matter of second hand smoke. The current wisdom seems to be veering back into the direction that it is, indeed harmful. Not as much as primary inhalation, but harmful nonetheless.

I just don't like it and avoid it as much as possible.
 
The purpose of taxation is to generate revenue. As such, taxation in order to supress undesired behavior in society is self defeating. If the tax does alter/diminish the unwanted behavior, the tax revenues go down. If the tax revenues do not go down, that means the purpose of diminishing the unwanted behavior is not working.

Of course, the idea that the government is purposely manipulating societal behavior is abhorent to me, while the idea of a sin tax is the tax payer has only their own behavior to blame for how much sin tax they pay. So for me, if they want to emplace a sin tax, let it be for the purpose of generating revenues as opposed to altering societal behaviors, and the level of said tax be set to maximize those revenues.
 
Absolutely not. If the person is only hurting themselves then there is no need to regulate it.

And the so called "sin taxes" are the worst sort of pandering.
 
A adult ought to be able to take care of themselves and there minor children without the Governments help, and furthermore what will be deemed hazardous next?

I am a smoker and I respect those that aren't at all cost, if I cant get away from them I don't smoke, no one should have to breath my smoke no matter how harmful it is, this is all just ways to raise taxes, when the cigarette tax came out allot where on board and I said then, what will be next,here we are.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Do you support higher taxes on things like tabacco, alcohol, soda drinks, etc. to curb or deter those activities, and if so.....why?
Click to expand...

My answer is supported by your very statement. No, I don't agree with or believe in the so-called "sin taxes" because of precisely what you just said. We have taxes already, on alcohol and tobacco, these are controlled substances. But where do you get the balls to include soda drinks? Where does the 'nannying' stop? You want to tax my Whopper and Big Mac too? Will I have to pay more tax to buy a box of Lucky Charms instead of Cheerio's? In the future, might I have to join a fitness center to avoid a tax penalty? These things may sound absurd now, but this is exactly what comes down the pike, when you open this can of worms.
 
Thorn said:
Welcome back, Soc.

Well, like so many things in the realm of health, there has been some wavering on the matter of second hand smoke. The current wisdom seems to be veering back into the direction that it is, indeed harmful. Not as much as primary inhalation, but harmful nonetheless.

I just don't like it and avoid it as much as possible.
Click to expand...
There is better evidence that second hand smoke inside is harmful than there is that smoking outside is somehow harmful to somebody who simply smells it.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Do you support higher taxes on things like tabacco, alcohol, soda drinks, etc. to curb or deter those activities, and if so.....why?
Click to expand...

How about harmful activities like invading and occupying Iraq?
I think taxes should have been raised on an annual basis to pay for the Iraq war. aka paygo.
 
Good Luck said:
The purpose of taxation is to generate revenue. As such, taxation in order to supress undesired behavior in society is self defeating. If the tax does alter/diminish the unwanted behavior, the tax revenues go down. If the tax revenues do not go down, that means the purpose of diminishing the unwanted behavior is not working.

Of course, the idea that the government is purposely manipulating societal behavior is abhorent to me, while the idea of a sin tax is the tax payer has only their own behavior to blame for how much sin tax they pay. So for me, if they want to emplace a sin tax, let it be for the purpose of generating revenues as opposed to altering societal behaviors, and the level of said tax be set to maximize those revenues.
Click to expand...

The same could be said of productive revenue sources. Except I do not believe sin taxes will cause the bad behaviors they target to decrease much. It will simply burden the "sinners" and benefit the rest of society by creating revenue. Personally, I say that's much better than overburdening people with high income and property taxes, etc.
 
Good Luck said:
The purpose of taxation is to generate revenue.
Click to expand...

One purpose of taxation is revenue. That is not all the purposes of taxation, however. Clearly, it can be used to discourage behavior, which may be the purpose of the tax.

Since that logical fallacy is the basis of the entire rest of your rant, I feel no need to address the rest.
 
Watermark said:
One purpose of taxation is revenue. That is not all the purposes of taxation, however. Clearly, it can be used to discourage behavior, which may be the purpose of the tax.

Since that logical fallacy is the basis of the entire rest of your rant, I feel no need to address the rest.
Click to expand...

please show me where that power lies in the constitution....that congress can lay and collect taxes to discourage behavior....
 
Yurt said:
please show me where that power lies in the constitution....that congress can lay and collect taxes to discourage behavior....
Click to expand...

1. It says congress can lay and collect taxes. It places no qualifiers on the purpose of the tax.

2. States can lay and collect taxes for any purpose with no limitation. The constitution, in general, places very few restrictions on states. They didn't even have to follow the bill of rights until the 14th was put in place.
 
Watermark said:
One purpose of taxation is revenue. That is not all the purposes of taxation, however. Clearly, it can be used to discourage behavior, which may be the purpose of the tax.

1. It says congress can lay and collect taxes. It places no qualifiers on the purpose of the tax.
Click to expand...

The federalist papers, constitution, and supreme court would disagree with you.

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
1. It says congress can lay and collect taxes. It places no qualifiers on the purpose of the tax.

2. States can lay and collect taxes for any purpose with no limitation. The constitution, in general, places very few restrictions on states. They didn't even have to follow the bill of rights until the 14th was put in place.
Click to expand...

the constitution does not declare what congress can lay taxes for? have you read the constittion?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay (here comes the qualifiers watermark)the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

the list goes on...i suggest you read the constitution.

and the states cannot raise taxes for any purpose without limit...i suggest you read the california constitution or your state constitution. CA does in fact place limits, so you're wrong about the "states"...and i am sure your state's constitution also places limits. good lord watermark, you think the government is virtually omnipotent when it comes to taking our money...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top