Comments on: A Tax on ALL Sinners

By: Money Infant

Money Infant — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:50:17 +0000

It is a very slippery slope and you have to ask yourself how much power should the government have over peoples lives? I’ve never been a fan of laws that are meant to protect us from ourselves…I can make that choice for myself thank you very much.

By: Young Professional Finances

Young Professional Finances — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:49:30 +0000

I used to not really care that much about this – tax on cigarettes? Great, I hate them. Tax on alcohol and gambling? Why not?

Then I read a post asking if we thought there should be a tax on sugar. That opened my eyes. If the government can tax sugar of all things, it’s a slippery slope – from there, who knows what else they would tax.

So I changed my mind. This whole “sin”, “vice” or “things that are bad for you” is defined way too loosely. I don’t like this “sin tax” at all.

By: Money Infant

Money Infant — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:10:57 +0000

I’m with you in the free will camp. I don’t think the government needs to protect us from ourselves.

Legalized and taxed? I’m sure that’s the route our government would take and considering the potential revenues they might even be able to balance the budget for a few years.

By: I Am 1 Percent

I Am 1 Percent — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:00:13 +0000

I give people the free will to make their own choices, so I subscribe to the philosophy that none of these should have a “special” tax and I think that drugs and prostitution should be legalized. As you stated above, the illigalization of these activities creates a black market for these goods and services.

By: Money Infant

Money Infant — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:38:20 +0000

Sounds too much like Big Brother to me. Hopefully we never get to this point!

By: Matt @ RamblingFever Money

Matt @ RamblingFever Money — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:54:22 +0000

If only the government(s) could figure out a way to tax actual “sin!” That would truly be a FAIR Tax… as nobody can escape the perils of sin.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:50:11 +0000

But, in countries with a National Health Service where most health treatment is free (well paid by the government out of everyone’s taxes) the fact remains that smokers use a lot of the resources. So, if there were no cigarettes then although the tax revenues from tobacco would disappear, we wouldn’t have to spend some of the other tax we do get on healthcare for smokers.

By: Money Infant

Money Infant — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:09:01 +0000

Very good point Andrew, but one that I don’t think will gain a lot of traction with the voters.
There was a motion in New York a while ago to put a tax on sodas and I think even on white sugar, but needless to say it got eaten alive.

By: Andrew @ 101 Centavos

Andrew @ 101 Centavos — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:53:59 +0000

How about a tax on fatties? Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins.
Economically speaking, it’s got lots of externalities.
People want to keep on stuffing fruit pies and Ding Dongs down their pie-holes, clogging up the hospitals and their own arteries, they gotta pay. Dammit.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:35:18 +0000

I live in the UK, where things have greatly improved over the years I must admit. Smoking in bars and restaurants is banned, offices and shops too. But, it still doesn’t stop me having to breathe in someone else’s smoke when I might be walking along the street. Some parts of the UK are now even talking about banning smoking in cars where there are children inside, which I think is a good idea. It’s not right that kids should be forced to breathe in their parents’ smoke, it gives them a bad start in life.