From the article: <i>Sin taxes are blunt policy instruments. People who only have the occasional drink are not taking on any great health risks, yet they are taxed no differently than serious alcoholics.</i><p>But surely the alcoholics are taxed way more than people who have an occasional drink because of the sheer volume? If you drink or smoke a lot, the taxes do accumulate into significant amounts annually.<p><i>Policymakers should still consider implementing sin taxes if they intend to intervene to change individuals’ behaviour. But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others.</i><p>It might be blunt in the economic sense if the taxed behaviour doesn't exhibit clear external costs but in a social context the scheme works great. Using taxation to discourage behaviour is a better way to collect taxes than taxing everyone.<p>Taxing goods or behaviour that is deemed harmful both brings in the money and also makes a statement. Further, if alcohol taxes bring in 1% of the state budget it means everyone's income is that much lower because of taxing alcohol.<p>"Sin taxes" are also economically unpredictable because when the collected amounts begin to drop the tax is working as intended. But socially this is exactly why they were used in the first place.
“smokers tend to die earlier, meaning that they probably save governments money since they draw less from state pensions.”<p>Wow, that’s some furious hand-waving assumption if I’ve ever seen any. Smokers die of cancer, which costs a boatload, and smoking removes people prematurely from the workforce.<p>Took less than two seconds to find well studied contrary evidence:<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/</a><p><a href="https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjph/cgi-bin/sjphsite/the-economic-burden-of-smoking/" rel="nofollow">https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjph/cgi-bin/sjphsite/the-eco...</a><p>It appears that the idea that early death is a net economic positive is actually smoking industry propaganda: <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120774/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120774/</a>
Of course, as far as governments are concerned whether such taxes reduce "sinful" activities is irrelevant, so long as they increase tax revenue and allow politicians a way to improve their public images.
I feel the article was really complaining about the tax being inefficient than ineffective. The article answers with: yes, they are effective but inefficient because it's a blunt policy that impacts everyone including people that occasionally travel and drink alcohol.<p>Often, economic policies don't take into consideration the complexity in a patchwork approach in implementation. Yes, it's more efficient result wise, but it carries over a lot of overhead. An across the board implementation is easier to carry out.
<i>But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others.</i><p>Erm... really?<p>"Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin' says Prof David Nutt" [<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210</a>] based on his research available here: <a href="http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt-lance...</a>
My problem with sin taxes is they're usually sponsored by a corporate entity. Eg: in Seattle the sugar tax doesn't apply to Starbucks hilariously.
It's bizarre reading comments on this from people in countries where these taxes do little or nothing to rectify the issue that's being taxed in the first place.<p>The UK is far from perfect but at least revenue raised from smoking is invested into both preventative care (ie cessation programmes) and actual treatment.<p>Arguments that the tax should be even higher, or substances banned, obviously come from people who have no understanding of how black markets work. Vast networks of tobacco smuggling already exist. You have to pick a balance.
What has always bothered me about "sin taxes" is that it's been a way to divide and conquer the populace.<p>Most of the people in my city and state I've called home for a couple decades have been vocal about and voted consistently to not enact new taxes and higher taxes, even when people say "its for the children" (eg we need money for schools, need to raise property taxes)<p>However politicians can cut that group being vocal into pieces by coming out with alternatives like liqour taxes.<p>We recently enacted a new stripper tax, adding to the door fees of establishments that provide "adult entertainment".<p>People can debate if it's trying to reduce consumption for public health and all that, they say the money it going towards trafficking victims. I had never known there was a shortage of money there.<p>I don't think there is a shortage of money there, in fact our state has had a surplus of money for some time. But it makes for a nice boogey man to drum up emotions and try to make someone look like a golden knight fighting for what's right.<p>Sadly, the extra few bucks you take from someone at the door of these places is just reducing the discretionary spending of the patrons and therefor most likely just taking money away from the strippers (those extra few dollars would of likely ended up as tips on the stage).<p>Of course who is going to stand up and be vocal about not extra taxing strippers, or those self medicating with nicotine or alcohol? NOt enough of a crowd, they are easily divided and conquered.<p>It's often the minority that bears the burden of things like this from what I have seen, and not enough of the majority thinks about it.<p>Let the tourists suffer the outrageous hotel tax,
let the gamblers pay for the colleges,
the drinkers pay for whatever.<p>Divide and conquer.
It's minority bashing usually.
>Some policymakers argue that people who engage in unhealthy habits also impose negative externalities, since they tend to present taxpayers with bigger medical bills. <i>In practice, however, these costs tend to be overstated.</i><p>citation needed.
"Sin taxes" misses most of the problem of the availability in the first place.<p>In lax states I end up paying half (i.e. $25 for a $50 bottle).<p>That substantial difference is not taxes alone. I'd guess 15% is due to blocking private stores from entering the market.<p>So I would rather pay higher taxes if my total cost for liquor goes down, if that makes any sense.
I'm okay with "sin" taxes if the taxes goes directly to fixing the problem. Like the additional taxes for Tobacco goes to finance former smokers diseases; or that of sugar to fight obesity.<p>It's like "Here you pay medication/trouble while you consume".
In the UK, to avoid the sugar levy, soft drinks manufacturers have added sweeteners to their recipes to reduce the sugar content. Lose-lose for all of us – wouldn't mind paying more for sugary drinks but instead we get the yuckier sweetener versions.
Sounds like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_as_you_throw" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_as_you_throw</a>
I prefer sin taxes to income taxes. I'd rather be taxed for vice (gambling, prostitution, smoking, what-have-you (not that I do any of those things)) then virtue (getting up and working hard to earn a living and be a positive, value-added member of society).
Modern sin taxes tend to be about maximizing tax revenue and not reducing harmful acts. When sin taxes are enacted, they tend to be relatively reasonable. I've heard as high as 20% for marijuana legislation, however I can promise you that 20-30 years after legalization, that tax will have crept slowly, higher and higher.