do you support taxes to deter 'harmful' activities?

SmarterThanYou said:
Watermark would prefer that constitutions didn't exist, or that they could just be ignored. Freedom is just another word for anarchy to him.
Click to expand...

that explains his cluelessness regarding what the constitution actually says...still odd that he woudl proclaim it doesn't say something or limit something, when in fact it does...makes him look ignorant, which i don't think, overall, he is.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Watermark would prefer that constitutions didn't exist, or that they could just be ignored. Freedom is just another word for anarchy to him.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how the Constitution does not back you up on that one, its a rediculous point to make. Since a sin tax will ultimately generate revenue to pay off debts, promote the general welfare, etc., then there is really no argument there.

The question comes down to which is more productive to society - raising income, property, and capital gains taxes, or sin taxing drugs, alcohol, porn, products that generate massive amounts of litter and waste, and even prositution as some have advocated...
 
Threedee said:
Seeing as how the Constitution does not back you up on that one, its a rediculous point to make.
Click to expand...
Where does it not back me up on that?

Since a sin tax will ultimately generate revenue to pay off debts, promote the general welfare, etc., then there is really no argument there.

The question comes down to which is more productive to society - raising income, property, and capital gains taxes, or sin taxing drugs, alcohol, porn, products that generate massive amounts of litter and waste, and even prositution as some have advocated...
Click to expand...

google 'power to tax power to destroy'. numerous supreme court decisions back me up on that, as well as the federalist papers.
 
Threedee said:
Seeing as how the Constitution does not back you up on that one, its a rediculous point to make. Since a sin tax will ultimately generate revenue to pay off debts, promote the general welfare, etc., then there is really no argument there.

The question comes down to which is more productive to society - raising income, property, and capital gains taxes, or sin taxing drugs, alcohol, porn, products that generate massive amounts of litter and waste, and even prositution as some have advocated...
Click to expand...

ultimately is not the constitutional test...the "reason" for the tax is or at least should be...the constitution is clear that it is "to pay"....sin taxes are "to discourage"...IMO, it would be a gross misreading of the constitution to say otherwise

maybe the government should tax each time you have sex, afterall, ultimately it is going to pay off debts
 
Do you all forget the Whiskey Tax and the Whiskey rebellion?

Our first sin tax.
The father of our country rallied a larger troop contingent than for any revoloutionary war battle to go after the Whiskey Tax evaders in PA.
 
Yurt said:
ultimately is not the constitutional test...the "reason" for the tax is or at least should be...the constitution is clear that it is "to pay"....sin taxes are "to discourage"...IMO, it would be a gross misreading of the constitution to say otherwise

maybe the government should tax each time you have sex, afterall, ultimately it is going to pay off debts
Click to expand...

And so it would be to pay. Sins, by definition are not going to go away, and so you aren't taxing them for the purpose of stopping them. You are merely taxing them because they are less reputable than productive behavior such as earning money, creating wealth, and owning property.
 
Threedee said:
And so it would be to pay. Sins, by definition are not going to go away, and so you aren't taxing them for the purpose of stopping them. You are merely taxing them because they are less reputable than productive behavior such as earning money, creating wealth, and owning property.
Click to expand...

so where in the constitution does it give the government any power to tax activities they find disreputable, but legal?
 
Threedee said:
Article I, Section 8, where Congress is given the power to lay and collect taxes so that it can carry out its responsibilities.
Click to expand...

and it's responsibilities are laid out in that same clause. I posted it above. Not one of those responsibilities says 'promote the general morality'.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and it's responsibilities are laid out in that same clause. I posted it above. Not one of those responsibilities says 'promote the general morality'.
Click to expand...

No, but there's an assumption that the jobs will get done. It also doesn't say punish the rich by jacking up their tax rates, but we do it anyway. The manner in which taxes are collected is not an issue unless it is strictly unconstitutional (like the income tax pre-16th Amendment) or we decide that the specific tax is not pragmatic or useful and should thus not be enacted.
 
Threedee said:
No, but there's an assumption that the jobs will get done. It also doesn't say punish the rich by jacking up their tax rates, but we do it anyway. The manner in which taxes are collected is not an issue unless it is strictly unconstitutional (like the income tax pre-16th Amendment) or we decide that the specific tax is not pragmatic or useful and should thus not be enacted.
Click to expand...

and numerous supreme court decisions have invalidated taxes for being prohibitive, so there is obviously something there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top