Do sin taxes work? And if so, should we allow them?

Sin taxes are just a way for big gov to rob the taxpayers.There should not be a higher tax on anything, tax everthing at the same rate! If the state wants to make more money send a bunch of gov workers home to look for work. Kick thousands of people off of welfare in this state, let them go find a job or starve! It's not up to people that work to support them, we like having money in our pockets too.

So much money would be saved, create jobs for social workers to go door to door again checking up on the welfare abusers. That alone would weed out 85% of the trash. My neighbor brags about her HUD and Welfare and has 6 people living with her in a two bedroom house. None of them work. I'm sick of it, I work my ass off for what I have.

DECay wrote:

So much money would be saved, create jobs for social workers to go door to door again checking up on the welfare abusers. That alone would weed out 85% of the trash. My neighbor brags about her HUD and Welfare and has 6 people living with her in a two bedroom house. None of them work. I'm sick of it, I work my **** off for what I have.

Yeah and they all drive to the welfare office in their new Escalade.
With the exception of cigarette taxes (it has been demonstrated which reduce the number of new smokers) I doubt sin taxes significantly change behavior.
But they do furnish some payment to society for the harm the products do.

"ll tell you why: Social engineering through punitive actions is not the government's job."

__________

As much as I'd like to punish those who will later become a burden on the health-care system, this individual is right! Where is the line drawn and who decides? What if Muslim or Jewish lawmakers decide we can't eat pork and levy a huge tax? What if Catholic lawmakers decide meat is heavily taxed on Fridays during Lent?

What if food companies "pay off" the feds to get their products on the shelves? Sin taxes should go the way of the Puritans.

who cares about this stupid article. Jobs, jobs, jobs is what needs to be discussed.

Who cares if they change behavior. Isn't the goal to get people to pay for the consequences of their own behavior? If you choose to eat nothing but food that makes you develop diabetes and heart disease, that imposes a cost on society unless you're rich enough to cover your own health care. Why should those who make good decisions have to pay higher taxes on everything else? Why should society subsidize your right to make stupid decisions?

DECay wrote:

So much money would be saved, create jobs for social workers to go door to door again checking up on the welfare abusers. That alone would weed out 85% of the trash. My neighbor brags about her HUD and Welfare and has 6 people living with her in a two bedroom house. None of them work. I'm sick of it, I work my **** off for what I have.

Have you reported this person to the proper authorities? I have no problem with people who are on public assistance if they are making an honest effort to make a living. The people that you described are just leeches. For every leech on the system there is one person who can't get assistance who really needs it.

It's not the governments job to save me from myself.

In my opinion the "government" is not interested whether we "sin" or not. What our elected representatives are interested in is the revenue from the taxes on these products. If everyone in the U.S. stopped smoking today you can bet that within a month there would be a tax on something else to replace the lost revenue.

As long as what I am doing is not illegal or harmful to anyone else, it is not up to government or anyone else to judge me or my actions and penalize me because I drink, smoke, or eat foods they don't approve of. Everyone probably does something that some one else doesn't like or approve of. I don't care for people who drink alcohol, but that's their problem. The government has already stuck its nose in our private lives more than it should and if they keep it up, they are likely to cause a revolution. People are getting tired of it. I know I am.

"...soft drinks might be considered to have no nutritional value and many are full of sugar, and thus can contribute to the obesity problem and the rise in health care expense for diseases like Type 2 diabetes."

Soft drinks HAVE no nutritional value and ARE full of sugar and DO contribute to the obesity problem and the rise of health care expenses for disease like Type II diabetes. That's doesn't mean taxing sugar will work.

But the fact that the writer of this article still thinks SUGAR, OBESITY and TYPE II DIABETES MIGHT be linked (and who probably also thinks the Earth MIGHT be flat and not round, and that global warming MIGHT not be happening even though it is happening) shows that it is the author's aim to shoot down a possible alternative before it can be discussed.

Typical Sun-News writer.

LJM wrote:

As long as what I am doing is not illegal or harmful to anyone else, it is not up to government or anyone else to judge me or my actions and penalize me because I drink, smoke, or eat foods they don't approve of. Everyone probably does something that some one else doesn't like or approve of. I don't care for people who drink alcohol, but that's their problem. The government has already stuck its nose in our private lives more than it should and if they keep it up, they are likely to cause a revolution. People are getting tired of it. I know I am.

Agreed but only if stu pid people like you pay DOUBLE what I pay for my health insurance to make up for your stu pid decisions.

Megan wrote:

It's not the governments job to save me from myself.

And I shouldn't have to pay higher health insurance premium because you make stup id decisions. But I do.

Megan wrote:

It's not the governments job to save me from myself.

True, it's to save everyone else from you.

Corrections wrote:

<quoted text>
And I shouldn't have to pay higher health insurance premium because you make stup id decisions. But I do.

I would bet that you do something that I consider stupid that probably raises the cost of my health insurance premiums also.

LA Times quotes "Based on a statewide $50 per ounce tax proposed in a legalization bill introduced by Sen. Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), the report said state tax revenues could range from $650 million to $1.49 billion. " $650 Million in taxes to the government??? this just makes complete sense to me. I am a medical marijuana user, and am more than willing to pay the taxes. Cigarettes are already taxed at a higher rate. I think soda and junk food SHOULD be taxed as well. Prevention education is not working. Diabetes and heart disease don't scare people anymore. But conditions such as these are a very heavy financial burden on the community. If they can't afford the tax on the soda.. water works fine!!!

Sin taxes are unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that just compensation be made when private property is taken for public use. Money is priave property in this case. ALL taxes are takings and thus the government must provide just compensation to the one from whom the property was taken.

Also to be legitimate, taxes can ONLY by for generating revenue to be used by the government. It is illegitimate for government to tax in order to reduce consumption. ANYONE who has studied the power to tax should already know this.

Corrections wrote:

"...soft drinks might be considered to have no nutritional value and many are full of sugar, and thus can contribute to the obesity problem and the rise in health care expense for diseases like Type 2 diabetes."
Soft drinks HAVE no nutritional value and ARE full of sugar and DO contribute to the obesity problem and the rise of health care expenses for disease like Type II diabetes. That's doesn't mean taxing sugar will work.
But the fact that the writer of this article still thinks SUGAR, OBESITY and TYPE II DIABETES MIGHT be linked (and who probably also thinks the Earth MIGHT be flat and not round, and that global warming MIGHT not be happening even though it is happening) shows that it is the author's aim to shoot down a possible alternative before it can be discussed.
Typical Sun-News writer.

I think you're unfamiliar with colloquial speech, verbiage etc. You're basing your entire rant on two words "might be" which can arguably be used in a variety of manners. I think, based on the accompanying text, it is obvious that the point of this sentence was an agreement that sugar in excess can cause health problems, but that tax is still wrong.

In other words, take a breath and please take your finger off the Caps Lock button.

LJM wrote:

As long as what I am doing is not illegal or harmful to anyone else, it is not up to government or anyone else to judge me or my actions and penalize me because I drink, smoke, or eat foods they don't approve of. Everyone probably does something that some one else doesn't like or approve of. I don't care for people who drink alcohol, but that's their problem. The government has already stuck its nose in our private lives more than it should and if they keep it up, they are likely to cause a revolution. People are getting tired of it. I know I am.

While behaviors such as smoking or eating unhealthy may not have DIRECT affect on others, but the cost of lifetime medical care provided by the government due to these behaviors DOES affect the population in general. As more and more people need chronic medical condition treatment, the costs to the taxpayers will go up. If we give incentives to individuals for healthy life choices, the cost MAY actually go down. Incentives= tax breaks. I don't believe that the government should be "up in our business", but if it affects the budget... it's fair game.

One only needs to talk to First Lady Michelle Obama, and the former Sicko Mayor of San Fran Sicko, the current Lt. Governor of Liberal California, Mr. Newsom. Watch the Obama Food Czars, or will we just call Obama, Michelle, and the Czars the Real sins against this once great Republic ? The Real Sin,= Is that Obama & Michelle are in The White House !