Sin Tax Is Counterproductive

Jul03 Sin Tax Is Counterproductive
Category: Ramblings

I oppose, for the most part, what most people refer to as the “Sin Tax”. I mean that extra fee besides sales tax that is tacked onto things deemed “sinful” like cigarettes and alcohol.

While I think that a small tax on luxury goods and items of this nature would be acceptable, in some places the taxes are high enough to create black markets. If I smoked, and I could buy some cigarettes smuggled in from a neighboring state for less, I would. Sure high prices may begin to curb consumption, but they are also going to encourage that black market scenario I just mentioned.

It is also a limit on free choice when the sin tax makes things cost prohibitive. Just because you think the consumption of alcohol is a sin does not mean you have the right to project it upon somebody else. Why should you be able to penalize somebody else for their decisions? Especially when their decisions are primarily going to affect only themselves.

Here’s the big one: health expenses. Many supporters of the sin tax say it helps to offset the cost of providing health services to the users of sinful items. In theory, that makes sense. This extra bit of tax would help cover the cost of treatment for lung cancer of smokers for example. One study on people in the Netherlands on obesity found the opposite to be true.

Until age 56 y, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers.

If you think about it, that makes a ton of sense. Sure the diseases and risks of smoking are expensive, but they die sooner. Keeping “healthy” people alive to the ages of 80, 90 or even 100 is more expensive!

I say to each his own. Smoke, drink, do whatever pleases you. Just follow my cardinal rule of good citizenship “Do whatever the fuck you want, so long as it does not infringe upon my right to do whatever the fuck I want to do”.

More from GodlessBlogger

Tags: alcohol, sin, sin tax, smoking

View Comments

mpatter
In the UK, cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed, but the rationale is that the government has a responsibility to encourage people to lead healthier lives (and of course they have to pay through the NHS to fix lots of lung cancer and liver disease).
godlessblogger
Basically the same thing as the US, but from what I've read it is a much heavier tax.
mpatter
I don't have a problem with the idea. It's not motivated by a notion of "sin", rather a pragmatic consideration of the effects: smoking makes you ill. A government wouldn't be providing very well for its citizens if it failed to let them know about that...
Justin
But governments for many years failed to let people know about smoking or do anything that would encourage people to give the habit up. For a long time big tobacco had the govts. in their pockets.

I'd argue it was independent organizations (we have QUIT here in Aus) who done a hell of a lot more to bring awareness to the dangers of smoking.
mpatter
The timeline of government rejection of smoking after the evidence become clear isn't an area I know too much about, but this government-commissioned report in the US was important and published in 1964:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_and_Health:_Report_of_the_Advisory_Committee_to_the_Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States

...and the UK's equivalent 2 years earlier. Anyway, GB's position would seem to be that the government shouldn't interfere with individual choice because consumers are somehow automatically informed enough to act in their own interest, so he might not be happy that his taxes were spent on such social engineering! And the idea that it's cheaper to let people die early than keep them alive - well, this is what differentiates the motives of a half-decent government from a profit-making enterprise. If we were run by Pepsico then that's exactly what they would do.

I benefit tremendously from living in an organised society, where I pay for things like the police (I'm not very good at fighting, you see). You might resent having a government, but the alternative is not pretty.
Justin
I never said I resented having a government. I don't even think I implied it.
godlessblogger
I feel like it's already common knowledge. And as I mentioned in my
post, it's cheaper for the government as most of these people die
prematurely. Morbid way to think about it? Yes. But that doesn't make
it untrue.
mpatter
Well, it may be common knowledge but if there's a culture of smoking the next generation will be influenced by older people around them, and it won't die off. Plus the role of government is to look after its citizens, not leave them to the elements and save themselves money!