I need some help understanding something

[melm00se]

I am struggling to understand the wisdom of using a so called "sin" tax to fund a long term program.

For example: raising tobacco taxes to pay for SCHIP.

(I need to state right up front: I no longer smoke and I support SCHIP)

so called "sin" taxes tend to drive down the use of the taxed products (I quit when taxes drove the cost of a pack up over $4 each) so the long term trend would seem to indicate a declining revenue stream and the SCHIP program would seem to indicate growth in the money necessary to run the program (if for no other reason than overall population growth).

The normal response would be to increase the "sin" tax even further and the cycle begins again until you get to the point where the level of taxation creates a secondary, underground market for the taxed item (a nice way of saying "black" market). It happened in Canada when they jacked the cigarette tax up to the point that huge smuggling rings operated along the US/Canada border and through the cross border Indian reservations.

How does this make any sense?

[elleng]

1. Find another way to pay for SCHIP, later.

Sense? I dunno.

[.... callchet ....]

2. It boils down to "Getting their way "

Without regard to logic. If a person is against something, they will do anything they can bring down what they don't like. Look at unions. The Republicans will say and do anything they can to bring down unions. Unions have improved the lives of millions of people, but that makes no difference to the Republicans. They don't want anybody sharing in their wealth. Unions were at the forefront of getting and protecting safe work places. Republicans are against anything that costs them money. Look at mining disasters over the last 30 years. All or almost all were at non-union mines. The sin tax is a way of punishing to get their way. Good to quit smoking. Does the sin tax help, I am sure it did. Are there people whose kids are getting less of something because of the sin tax. I'll bet there is. Increasing the sin tax to the point that it turns smokers into felons. Could happen. Then the helping stops and people go to jail because someone doesn't want them to smoke.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. It is a short-sighted quick fix

Unfortunately, politicians often don't look past the next election.

[Uben]

4. It's nothing more than......

...another way to get someone else to pay taxes for something everyone uses. When you fund a program, why not just increase taxes on everyone if everyone benefits from it. Why are we using programs doomed to failure? Logic tells us that the more you increase taxes on tobacco, the fewer people will use it, thus, less revenue. If it's all that bad, outlaw it! But, if you do that, you lose ALL the revenue, and then we will have to start taxing other items that only a select number use so everyone doesn't have to pay their fair share. How about we tax feminine hygeine products? How about a fifty dollar per unit tax on Bibles? How about a huge tax increase on heart medicine? These people will be dying soon so we should get all we can from them before they die!

Sin taxes? Who said it was a sin to smoke? Whose religion states that? What about separation of religion and state? Do we only use it when it's convenient?

I have an idea, why don't we place a tax on air? Everyone uses it and they are getting it for free. You want to tax smokers for the air they use, so why not tax others for the air they use? That way, we can all use it as we choose and we all pay the same amount! Hold it, that's fair, and we can't get somebody eles to pay our taxes for us. Fuck that!

But, smokers pollute the air! They are cheating us out of precious oxygen! Well, what comes out of your lungs when you exhale?
Carbon dioxide, not oxygen. So, everyone pollutes the air they breathe. Logic. Don't you just hate it?

[melm00se]

6. Sin tax

is just a phrase that is used when a tax is applied to something perceived as a vice (smoking, gambling and alcohol are the most common ones).

[TreasonousBastard]

5. There is no wisdom there, and it makes no sense, except...

that it is a politically expedient (i.e-- cowardly) way to raise money.

Truth is, after all the talk and bluster they are just beating up on a few groups that have little money and less influence. Along with state lotteries, the idea stems partly from an honored Republican belief that the real problem is that poor people have too much money while the rich don't have nearly enough.