Sin Taxes
In California this primary, we are being asked to vote on a $1 per pack cigarette tax. My inclination, of course, is to vote no. But I thought I'd check: Are there any conservative arguments in favor of sin taxes?
Here are the basic arguments against, some cribbed from plausible (if occasionally unsourced) arguments on Wikipedia, others cribbed from Curtis Dubay of the Heritage Foundation:
- Sin taxes can trigger black markets (saw this personally when I lived under the British cigarette tax).
- Sin taxes are regressive, taking money from the poor (and sending it, in some cases, to treatment programs that one suspects are usually used by the middle class).
- Sin taxes do not, on balance, discourage unhealthy behavior; raising alcohol prices might push teen drinkers towards pot, and raising cigarette prices pushes smokers to high-tar cigs.
- Sin taxes raise less revenue than anticipated, as they target activities that are declining in popularity (and see also the black markets above). Thus, sin taxes will increase the deficit.
- Sin taxes are coercive attempts to regulate individual decisions about legal behaviors.
Conservative arguments in favor? Well, in The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith approvingly cites Britain's use of alcohol taxes to curb lower-class drinking.
I'd say on balance the no's have it--or do any Ricocheteers know of other conservative arguments in favor of sin taxes?
UPDATE: Libertarian arguments are fine too; sorry if I seemed to be trying to exclude those.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Sin Taxes
We don't get more poverty. The poverty measurements do not include the aid given to those who qualify - resulting in the wealthiest group of 'impoverished' people the world has ever seen.
In America, no one dies of starvation (except in cases of criminal negligence). There are less than 3000 people per year whose cause of death includes some form of malnutrition.
That being said, I don't get sin taxes at all - I would vote no on general principle.
Jan '11
Re: Sin Taxes
When one supports a so-called sin tax, from my point of view it is no different than saying: "At least some non-trivial percentage of well-meaning folks abhor this behavior. And, in your best interest -- as well as the best interest of those who may be watching you engage in this behavior -- we are going to have you pay more for the privilege of being able to continue to behave the way you've chosen. I only wish we had the political courage to outright prohibit what you're doing but at least the extra cost you'll be forced to pay will go to a good cause...that amount which is left over after paying for enforcement costs, anyway."
If someone can find a conservative justification for this I would be very interested in hearing it...and arguing against it.
Nov '11
Re: Sin Taxes
There was a Federal raid on a house right across the highway from us for illegally buying bulk cigarettes. These were just regular folk breaking sin taxes. Sort of like those awful raw milk people who do not (allegedly) follow regs. Seems like a waste of SWAT teams to me, among other things.
Jul '10
Re: Sin Taxes
cbc: ...
Alcohol fits this category but so does chocolate.
As a teetotaler, I have no qualm with an alcohol tax, but chocolate! That's crossing a line!!!
Jun '10
Re: Sin Taxes
J. D. Fitzpatrick: Thanks, all, for your comments so far. Sounds like there's a case for a Pigovian tax based on fire, but not one based on smoke.
The OP could have given a better indication of what the tax proposed to fund. Thanks, Casey, for adding that link. · 14 hours ago
You're very welcome.
I've run some preliminary numbers, and if this thing passes y'all should be able to build 1 high school per year, with a little bit left over to refurbish the bathrooms at Santa Monica Beach. So there's that.
Nov '11
Re: Sin Taxes
Are sin taxes usually leveled on medicine?
Nov '11
Re: Sin Taxes
I could make an argument against sin taxes but it would end up being an argument against all taxation.
But let me make a different one:
Sin taxes are a means of punishing someone else for doing something that you disagree with. You can claim that smoking or drinking harms society and drains public resources, and therefore it justifies the tax, but that is the exact same justification used for soda taxes, and any other piece of nanny state action.
So, vote for the sin tax if you wish, but never complain about the nanny state after that.
Dec '11
Re: Sin Taxes
But sometimes the folks aren't always so "regular."
Oct '10
Re: Sin Taxes
Muleskinner
But sometimes the folks aren't always so "regular." · 13 minutes ago
Sounds like all the more reason for eliminating sin taxes on cigarettes. Why can't we get behind the slogan, "Defund Al Qaida by ending cigarette taxes"?
(I know; they would just move into other lucrative illegal activities. Also, some leftists who support sin taxes might actually like the idea of creating new business opportunities for terrorists, though I certainly hope it's no more than a handful, if any.)
Edited on April 29, 2012 at 9:58pmMay '11
Re: Sin Taxes
Giving nanny-state liberals the power to control individual behavior by taxing anyone who deviates from their utopian vision? What could possibly go wrong?