Re:Do “sin taxes” work?
by microcolonel on Sunday August 12, 2018 @04:39PM
(#17746304)
Particularly if they're not so high as to effect a "ban", the effect is a ban on people less affluent than some mark making "sinful" purchases in a particular jurisdiction. Sin taxes are particularly regressive, since they tend to be higher than typical sales taxes (which are already regressive in some sense).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
If policy makers are concerned about potential regressive effects, they could take the revenue earned and apply it towards helping the poor. One "easy" method is lowering the bottom tax bracket - in the US they could cut the explicitly regressive payroll tax.
Re:Do “sin taxes” work?
by votepaunchy on Sunday August 12, 2018 @05:56PM
(#17746638)
Social security (the large majority of the payroll tax) is highly progressive when paid out and then taxed.
This isn't a critique of social security payouts -- other than political expediency, there is no particular need to couple the payments with the current payroll tax source.
Re:Do “sin taxes” work?
by microcolonel on Sunday August 12, 2018 @07:20PM
(#17747022)
The end result is still a policy which oppresses the people who can not afford the tax more severely than it oppresses those who can. If the desired effect is a reduction in smoking, for example, the appropriate approach is to track and limit sales on a per-person basis. This, of course, is less attractive to the state, and more cumbersome to administer and specify, but it doesn't suffer from the obvious moral wrong: artificially pricing people out of perceived vice on the basis of class.