> sin taxes
How about we don't let the state decide what I get to do with my body (and mind)?
How about we don't let the state decide what I get to do with my body (and mind)?
Generally speaking I'd rather reduce taxes but I fail to see what's wrong with e.g. an alcohol excise tax going towards rehabilitation and/or highway safety programs. "Sin tax" is just a colloquial name for an excise tax, which a state has every right to enact.
And if I choose to smoke in the privacy of my own home (or yard)? What societal harm am I causing?
As for alcohol, the societal harm caused is a laundry list of already illegal behaviors that are illegal regardless of alcohol's involvement with the exception of sin tax avoidance.
Why not outlaw the societal harm instead?
> e.g. an alcohol excise tax going towards rehabilitation and/or highway safety programs
Both of those seem like good things regardless don't they? Why do we need a special tax on alcohol for things that are generally good? It's not like only people who consume alcohol are the only ones who need rehab or they're the only problem with highway safety.
Does the tobacco tax go toward lung cancer patients? It actually goes towards funding campaigns that overstate (ie, lie) about the dangers of smoking to the point that people vastly overestimate the dangers of smoking [1].
> Sin tax" is just a colloquial name for an excise tax, which a state has every right to enact.
Of course it's legal, it's just garbage policy. Sin taxes come from the pairing politicians wanting more money and pearl clutching interest groups pleading to think about the children.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... > 99.5% of respondents overestimated absolute risk, only about 0.3% estimated it correctly (by giving an answer of 30), and 0.2% underestimated it (by giving an answer less than 30).
Weren't you just saying how you don't want the state legislating what you put in your body and mind? That's why.
Another example is driving a car, which results in thousands of fatalities and many more injuries daily. Not to mention environmental impacts which affect others. The state chooses to require drivers to have insurance and their cars to pass smog tests, rather than outlawing driving.
Smoking and alcohol use can also not harm others. Should those who smoke and drink responsibly be held responsible for those who don't? How does the tax ameliorate those harms?
(PDF): https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19980430_97-1053E_53c59...
It most certainly does. The retort your parent made is for those who make the argument that a tax is necessary because X (smoking, in this case) costs the country economically.
If you want to make the purely _economic_ argument, it's a benefit to the bottom line.
But a sin tax ostensibly accounts for the economic externality*. We know that cigarettes impose a cost on society beyond the individual smoker. I'm all in favor of making people pay for things that we know cause damage to society more broadly. And I hardly think it's controversial that social media is in many aspects harmful to society.
*Sin taxes are technically different than pigovian taxes, but I and I think most people tend to use the terms interchangeably.
What's that cost?
From what I've read, all economic costs smokers impose on society are more than made up for in their dying early, they actually cost less [1]. I guess everyone should smoke to save the state money!
[1] https://pantagraph.com/news/fact-check-do-smokers-cost-socie...
Neither you or the government/state decides what you get to do with your mind. An advertising company decides what to do with it and can manipulate it however it decides best benefits itself. Not you, not society, Facebook, what makes Facebook the most money.
So, advertising company hurts me and the state gets compensated?
The state acts on the collective when the public is not making good decisions for themselves and causing net harm onto themselves, usually with the public paying the price. Sometimes thats overt like with death rates from accidents without seatbelts, or cancer from asbestos exposure. Sometimes its less overt like the behavioral issues, increased incidents of mental illness, and crime rate increases from leaded pipes and gasoline.
I'm willing to bet social media causes net harm. It hasn't enabled communication that wasn't possible before; if you can get access to a facebook account you therefore have email and access to irc. But it has cost probably trillions in productivity from people staring at it so much during all their idle time, and the cost to treat mental health issues that wouldn't have cropped up without toxic social media culture.
I say we have these companies pay for these externalities if they are forcing us to pay for them otherwise. By not passing a tax on externalities like this, the state is deciding that I need to pay for facebook's ills on society whether I use the service or not, which should anger you as a libertarian as much as it angers me as someone on the left.
- The US prohibits people under 21 years old from buying alcohol, and allows those over 21 to do so.
- The US prohibits anyone of any age from driving a motor vehicle over a certain blood alcohol level.
This is something which causes health and community harm (alcohol), which we have allowed and denied to people in certain ways.
And honestly, I think struck a fair balance between individual liberty and social liberty/good.
I don't think anyone would argue that everyone should be allowed to drive anywhere, as drunk as they wanted to, at whatever age they wanted to.
I wear my seatbelt, I don't smoke, I don't drink and I'm vaccinated.
Everyone keeps talking about these "negative externalities" without being specific. Why not just make the societal harm illegal and let people hurt themselves without buying permission from the government?
Because these are all statistical precursors to accidentally killing someone with a car.
How about you take full responsibility: you get to not put whatever in your body, and you agree never to take an ambulance ride or be treated by a hospital.
Don't want the vaccine? That's fine, it's your right. But now when you can't breathe, nobody coming to help.
Absolutely not. I know lots of people that manage to drink alcohol responsibly. They never drink and drive, don't regularly over indulge and it makes their and their peers lives _better_.
What negative externality are they paying for with alcohol taxes?
> How about you take full responsibility: you get to not put whatever in your body, and you agree never to take an ambulance ride or be treated by a hospital.
> Don't want the vaccine? That's fine, it's your right. But now when you can't breathe, nobody coming to help.
If I pay for health insurance, I'm already taxing myself in this instance. It would be perfectly reasonable for a health insurance company to offer incentives for people to be vaccinated just like they offer incentives to non-smokers.
If the government wants to start providing that healthcare, then they can have a say in the cost of poor health decisions.