Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Well, this would be less "nanny state" and more "tax and spend," the main difference being the claim that it's going to use the money it generates to pay for the costs that arise out of the consumption of what's being taxed.
For the record, I don't view sin taxes as indicative of a nanny state; I view them more as taxes to offset costs that arise out of the use of the taxed products. Call it "socialized" if you will, but I wouldn't call it "nanny state." The public is still free to consume these things, often in excess.
|
The justification for these taxes in the first place is that these things were bad, therefore the government should discourage people from using them by taxing them so much that people don't buy as much. That was part of the justification for taxes on cigarettes. The justification for the soda and pizza tax was that obesity is a problem and the government needs to do something about it.
Since the government can't realistically outright ban these things, like they did with cyclamates and DDT, they tax them.
Maybe it's a question of semantics for socialism vs nanny state, but I sure see these taxes as a way for the government to try to protect people from themselves, i.e. nanny state.