PUB DISCUSSION Taxes to discourage certain behaviors - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 03-29-2009, 08:43 PM

WBBM 780 - Chicago's #1 source for local news, traffic and weather - Cigarette Taxes Going Up; Seen As Revenue, Health Issue

(Think of this as an article from the newspaper sitting on the stool

)

Cigarette Taxes Going Up; Seen As Revenue, Health Issue click to show

Quote:

Cigarette Taxes Going Up; Seen As Revenue, Health Issue

Mar 29, 10:45 AM EDT

Smokers face a hit as tobacco taxes spike

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- However they satisfy their nicotine cravings, tobacco users are facing a big hit as the single largest federal tobacco tax increase ever takes effect Wednesday.

Tobacco companies and public health advocates, longtime foes in the nicotine battles, are trying to turn the situation to their advantage. The major cigarette makers raised prices a couple of weeks ago, partly to offset any drop in profits once the per-pack tax climbs from 39 cents to $1.01.

Medical groups see a tax increase right in the middle of a recession as a great incentive to help persuade smokers to quit.

Tobacco taxes are soaring to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. President Barack Obama signed that health initiative soon after taking office. Governor Quinn has proposed adding a dollar-a -pack tax in Illinois.

Other tobacco products, from cigars to pipes and smokeless, will see similarly large tax increases, too. For example, the tax on chewing tobacco will go up from 19.5 cents per pound to 50 cents. The total expected to be raised over the 4 1/2 year-long health insurance expansion is nearly $33 billion.

Smokers are mulling their options.

Standing outside an office building in downtown Washington last week, 29-year-old Sam Sarkhosh puffed on a Marlboro Light. His 8-year-old daughter has been pleading with him to quit, he explained, and he has set a goal to give up smoking by his 30th birthday.

"I'm trying to quit smoking, and it could help," said Sarkhosh, an information systems specialist. "I don't think it will stop me from buying cigarettes every now and then, but definitely not as often." A friend who smokes Camels went out and bought four cartons in advance, he said.

The tax increase is only the first move in a recharged anti-smoking campaign. Congress also is considering legislation to empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. That could lead to reformulated cigarettes. Obama, who has agonized over his own cigarette habit, said he would sign such a bill.

Prospects for reducing the harm from smoking are better than they have been in years, said Dr. Timothy Gardner, president of the American Heart Association. The tax increase "is a terrific public health move by the federal government," he said. "Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up, the use of cigarettes goes down."

About one in five adults in the United States smokes cigarettes. That's a gradually dwindling share, though it isn't shrinking fast enough for public health advocates.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says cigarette smoking results in an estimated 443,000 premature deaths each year, and costs the economy $193 billion in health care expenses and lost time from work. Smoking is a major contributor to heart disease, cancer and lung disease.

Public health officials are urging individual doctors and staff at telephone "quit lines" in every state to make the most of the tax increase by reaching out to smokers. But it's unclear how deeply the tax will cut into tobacco consumption.

Eric Lindblom, research director for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, says he expects a drop of at least 6 percent to 7 percent among young smokers.

Philip Gorham, who tracks the tobacco business for Morningstar, the investment research firm, said he expects an overall drop of 4 percent to 5 percent this year. What happens after that is less certain, especially as the economy recovers.

"I would expect a road bump this year," said Gorham. "But these companies will still be extremely profitable. I still think they will make their return on capital by wide margins in the long run."

Philip Morris USA, the largest tobacco company and maker of Marlboro, is forecasting a drop, but spokesman Bill Phelps said he cannot predict how big. Philip Morris raised Marlboro prices by 71 cents a pack early this month, and prices on smaller brands by 81 cents a pack. Other major companies followed suit.

The pricing moves raised eyebrows. "That's nothing more than greed," said Kevin Altman, an industry consultant who advises small tobacco companies. "They weren't required to charge that until April 1. They are just putting that into their pockets."

Responded Phelps: "We raised our prices in direct response to the federal excise tax increase, and people who are upset about that should find out how their member of Congress voted, and contact him or her."

Some policy analysts have questioned the wisdom of boosting tobacco taxes to finance health care for children. They argue that the fate of such a broad program should not depend on revenues derived from a minority of the adult population, many of whom have low incomes and are hooked on a habit. The tobacco industry is also warning that the steep increase will lead to tax evasion through old-fashioned smuggling or by Internet purchase from abroad.

But smoking control advocates such as Lindblom say tobacco taxes should be even higher. "There's a lot of room to go after cigars and smokeless," he said. "We are certainly hopeful that health care reform will include some more increases."

Standing outside a Washington department store, attorney Margaret Webster, 42, puffed on a Marlboro Ultra Light and lamented the fact that the government is reaching deeper into her pocketbook.

"I don't think we (smokers) like it," she said. "But I've heard so many people say they were going to quit when the price went up ... and they're still smoking."

I'm curious what everyone thinks of this. I most recently worked for an economist/congressional candidate who frequently made the point that we need to tax behaviour we want to discourage and not punish activities we'd like to see more of. The most common reason this would come up is that someone would ask him about carbon taxes, but the philosophy applies here as well. Cigarette smoking is a genuine public health issue, and increased taxes could both discourage it as well as bring in some new revenue. There's a bit of truth to the idea that if the tax works too well then there's no revenue to be made, but the final quote in the article addresses that: many people are all talk and little action. They say they'll quite because prices are going up, but continue to smoke. Likewise, people drove less and bought fewer gas guzzlers when the price of gas was high, but I recently read that something like 50% of people are less concerned about the environment now that prices are down.

Do you support increased taxes for behaviour that we, as a society, deem harmful? It seems to me that it is one of the best tools government has to direct culture. Far better than prohibitions or PSAs.

ASU2003 · 03-29-2009, 08:56 PM

Yes. And I think we could reduce other taxes like property and income taxes if imported oil had a tax on it to promote domestic renewable energy production, fatty fast foods were taxed to subsidize gym memberships, or if buying alcohol had a tax to pay for police services.

A lot of the problems come from a broken tax policy that is supposed to be 'fair', but doesn't reward good behavior and impede bad behaviors. But, it isn't to say that the bad behavior should be illegal, but they should pay for the full impact to society for indulging in using that product.

But, I also think that large internet retailers should be taxed. I'm sure Amazon, newegg and eBay had something to do with many local small stores closing up. You just need to tax them at a flat rate nation wide and put it towards INS, homeland security, and customs agencies.

SecretMethod70 · 03-29-2009, 08:59 PM

I agree with most of that except the imported oil part. I'm generally pro-globalization and I don't support interfering in that process. The world is getting smaller, and we need to do more than just accept that fact, we need to embrace it. The problem is not imported oil, it's oil (and other dirty energies) in general.

inBOIL · 03-29-2009, 09:27 PM

If the activity isn't bad enough to ticket and fine people over, it's not bad enough for the government to discourage. It also takes the focus away from problems that harm society and shifts it unjustly to individual acts that, by themselves, don't hurt anyone. For example:

Quote:

or if buying alcohol had a tax to pay for police services.

I have no problem with fines for people who drive drunk, start barfights, etc., but alcohol taxes affect those who drink responsibly as much as those who cause problems.

SecretMethod70 · 03-29-2009, 09:35 PM

Setting aside the issue of second and third hand smoke, because no such thing exists for alcohol consumption, don't you think it would be better if it were possible to reduce things like income tax in favor of taxing less productive activities? This is probably not realistically possible, but hypothetically at least, isn't it worth looking into?

FuglyStick · 03-29-2009, 09:37 PM

It's a slippery slope, because its in effect a fine on "objectionable" behavior.

What happens when they decide pornography is a vice that they can wring some cash from? It's still allowed by law, but they add a "sin" tax on the retail price of magazines and DVDs. Those that derive their income from porn production have to pay an additional income tax. Then the powers that be turn their sights on R rated movies and erotic fiction.

Purely hypothetical, but it opens the door to many abuses.

dogzilla · 03-30-2009, 01:27 AM

No, I don't support taxes like that at all. One question is who gets to define that objectionable behavior?

We have had a $.05 deposit on soda bottles for years, supposedly to encourage recycling. Most of my soda bottles go in recycling anyway. It's just not worth my time and space to collect up a bunch of soda bottles, clean them, and bring them back where I bought them.

Just recently, our governor wanted to impose a bunch of taxes, including a tax on non-diet soda. The reason for the tax on non-diet soda was supposedly to encourage people to drink diet soda and reduce obesity. Who is the state to tell me what I should and should not drink? I happen to drink non-diet soda because I don't like the taste of diet sweeteners at all. Some of them give me headaches, and I'm not convinced they are healthy. I remember cyclamates from years ago. I also have no problems with obesity at all, so why should the state punish me?

The tax ended up getting dropped anyway, thanks to Obama's stimulus bill giveaway. But what happens next time?

ASU2003 · 03-30-2009, 01:51 AM

The imported oil tax would go to the military that gets billions for protecting the ability to have no disruptions in the flow of oil.

Quote:

According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the economic penalties of America's oil dependence total $297.2 to $304.9 billion annually. If reflected at the gasoline pump, these “hidden costs” would raise the price of a gallon of gasoline to over $5.28.

That was from 2003 when gas was around $2. Money would go towards inventing fusion batteries or better & cheaper electric car batteries. Coal power station taxes would go towards building renewable energy facilities (that the power company that paid the coal tax would still own). But, it would work without human interaction and be a cleaner source of power that we can make ourselves. And there are no price fluctuations with green power.

A porn or strip club tax might be interesting. Most of the porn is free on-line, so individuals wouldn't pay much. But, they still make a lot in advertising or something. Money from the porn production companies or strip clubs would provide a disincentive going into that business, and might push them into something else. Or the money could be put to use in sex education, disease prevention, internet addiction, and stopping sex slavery.

I also think an estate tax is a good thing to pay down the national debt.

Taxes are a necessary evil. And we need to come up with a way to pay the bills. Just adding it to the national debt and forgetting about it isn't going to work anymore. Hoping that lowering everyone's taxes and they will spend it all locally (instead of saving it or buying an imported item) don't really work it seems.

---------- Post added at 05:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

No, I don't support taxes like that at all. One question is who gets to define that objectionable behavior?

Objectionable behavior is something that costs society to clean up what an individual (or others who partake in such activity) decides to do. If your impact on the amount of money the government needs to spend is low, you pay less in taxes. If you decide to partake in activities that might make the government spend a lot of money today or in the future, then you should pay for it.

The easy solution is just to levy income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. If you had to pay the full amount of taxes each year in order to balance the budget, I think you would be pissed and call our government socialist, even though you aren't getting very much compared to a actual socialist country.

If you taxed high fructose corn syrup to make it better to use real sugar again, it would be a good thing. Instead of food companies trying to make a quick buck by using the cheap option that is probably a major cause in the obesity epidemic, people would have to adjust their eating habits if a Coke or Pepsi was $3. Actually, with health care costs, psychiatric/mental issues, and subsidized gym memberships, it might be a lot more.

Then again, the whole French Revolution started when taxes were levied on every little thing... The American Revolution started when England was taxing us, but not letting us influence our own policy... Now, we just allow massive government spending and hand the bill to the next generation, I worry about the youth revolting.

dogzilla · 03-30-2009, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Objectionable behavior is something that costs society to clean up what an individual (or others who partake in such activity) decides to do. If your impact on the amount of money the government needs to spend is low, you pay less in taxes. If you decide to partake in activities that might make the government spend a lot of money today or in the future, then you should pay for it.

What ever happened to accepting personal responsibility for your actions? If I have a problem with obesity or other diseases caused by unhealthy lifestyle or diet, why is it the government's responsibility to save me?

There was a news article within the last week or so stating a correlation between eating red meat and some kinds of cancer. What's next, a steak tax?

It's kind of obvious now that our governor gave up his plans for a soda tax after Obama's giveaway, that this was really about increasing tax revenue for the state. My taxes are way too high already.

ASU2003 · 03-30-2009, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

What ever happened to accepting personal responsibility for your actions? If I have a problem with obesity or other diseases caused by unhealthy lifestyle or diet, why is it the government's responsibility to save me?

The government isn't saving you, it is saving the rest of us from paying for the costs associated when people don't live 'responsibly'. The government also has to try and improve the country, fix the problems, protect the people from harm, and ensure that we can lead healthy, happy, and productive lives.

And I know that there are a lot of taxes. But, someone has to pay for it.

Here is a partial list of taxes:

Accounts receivable tax
Building permit tax
Car registration tax
Capital gain tax
CDL License tax
Cigarette tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines
Dog License Tax
Estate Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Federal Income tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest Expense (Tax on gains)
Inventory Tax
IRS interest charges
IRS penalties
Liquor tax
Local Income tax
Luxury tax
Marriage License tax
Medicare tax
Parking meters
Property tax
Real Estate tax
Septic permit tax
Social Security tax
Truckers Road Usage tax
Sales tax
Recreational Vehicle tax
Toll Booth, bridges and tunnels tax
School tax
State income tax
State unemployment tax
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone Service Fee Tax
Telephone surcharge, minimum usage surcharge, and recurring charges tax
Traffic fines
Trailer registration tax
Utility taxes
Vehicle License registration tax
Vehicle sales tax
Watercraft Registration tax
Well permit tax
Workers compensation tax

Terrell · 03-30-2009, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inBOIL

If the activity isn't bad enough to ticket and fine people over, it's not bad enough for the government to discourage. It also takes the focus away from problems that harm society and shifts it unjustly to individual acts that, by themselves, don't hurt anyone. For example:

I have no problem with fines for people who drive drunk, start barfights, etc., but alcohol taxes affect those who drink responsibly as much as those who cause problems.

I agree with this. I'm generally opposed to using the tax code for social engineering.

I'm not opposed to taxes in general, I see them as a necessary evil. I am opposed to taxing something simply because people disapprove of it. I don't have a problem with (reasonable) taxes on gasoline, for example, becuase it could be justified, by using said funds to build and maintain the roads upon which people drive their vehicles (provided said tax is actually used in the fashion I describe).

Derwood · 03-30-2009, 06:18 AM

I'd be interested to see some numbers of the # of US Citizens who a) can't afford health insurance but b) smoke regularly. Maybe making smoking cost prohibitive will cause some people to spend that money on insurance instead

SirSeymour · 03-30-2009, 06:28 AM

While I am not thrilled with taxes in general, I consider the so called "sin" taxes as viable incentives to change behavior. They leave the idea of personal freedom in tact while generating revenue for society as a whole. If you do not wish to pay the tax, change your behavior. It is really that simple. I consider it an adaptation of some sort of flat tax where we pay for the luxuries we want.

Frankly, I think we should do this with more stuff in conjunction with making more things legal. I saw a commentary sometime in the last week or so by a Harvard economist where he noted that this country spends $44 Billion on drug enforcement annually (that is federal, state and local rolled into one number). He estimates that if we would just legalize drugs and tax them we could save the $44 Billion and generate an additional $33 Billion in revenue (not to mention the impact it would have violent and property crime that is connected to drugs in some way). Granted, these are just estimates on his part but for a country running the deficits the US is currently running, a policy change worth an estimated $77 Billion on the plus sides sounds like it should at least get talked about.

rahl · 03-30-2009, 08:12 AM

I have no problem with taxes being used to maintain the general infrastructure of our country(roads, police, fire, etc) but the govn't has no right what so ever to punish me for the way I choose to live my life....PERIOD! We have way too many taxes already. I'm tired of being double and triple taxed. Like paying tax when you buy a house or car, and pay a tax when you sell car or house.

Derwood · 03-30-2009, 08:17 AM

taxes aren't punishment.

dogzilla · 03-30-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

The government isn't saving you, it is saving the rest of us from paying for the costs associated when people don't live 'responsibly'. The government also has to try and improve the country, fix the problems, protect the people from harm, and ensure that we can lead healthy, happy, and productive lives.

I don't think the government should be in the business of either saving me from myself or saving the rest of the country the costs of my irresponsible choices. If someone has health problems as a result of their poor lifestyle choices, I'm of the opinion that person gets to deal with the added health care expenses on their own, be it by higher insurance premiums or otherwise.

If I happen to like non-diet soda and have no health issues because I drink it, then I shouldn't have to pay more taxes to drink it.

My opinion, the government is way too involved in individual's lives.

flstf · 03-30-2009, 09:20 AM

I have a problem with our government taxing legal activities in an effort to discourage them. Sin taxes just don't seem to fit in with the concept of a free nation. I don't like the idea of the politians in power at any given time determining what sins should be taxed. I imagine back in the fifties there were those who might want to tax rock"n"roll and maybe in the sixies long hair and peace symbols. There are polititians today objecting to low baggy pants and rap music. Some even advocate making some of these activities against the law.

It seems like every week there is some substance now determined to cause cancer. I have no problem with advocating people do not eat so much red meat or avoiding charcoal cooking for instance but that is different than trying to tax it out of existence.

dksuddeth · 03-30-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

taxes aren't punishment.

they certainly can be.

new man · 03-30-2009, 10:26 AM

The flip side of this argument is should we give tax breaks for positive behavior? You get to write off interest for education and home loans, but not credit cards anymore. Widows and widowers have a small amount protected from estate taxes. Money spent for health insurance is not taxed, and retirement plan taxes are deferred until you are theoretically in a lower tax bracket in retirement.

SecretMethod70 · 03-30-2009, 10:33 AM

new man: I think that's a perfectly reasonable pairing. In fact, I think it's one of the main benefits of higher taxes on things that cost society. We then lower taxes on things that help society.

Cynthetiq · 03-30-2009, 11:53 AM

I think that taxing to discourage behavior is fine, but linking the tax revenue to a benefit is incorrect since eventually the discouraged behavior no longer can finance the benefit, or the budget feels that they have a new income stream and thus no longer allocate funds.

The examples of this are the cigarette taxes to healthcare, and lottery where the schools win too.

pan6467 · 03-30-2009, 12:03 PM

What happens when people stop the activity being taxed or find a black market for it? What happens when that tax revenue disappears because of this? What do they go after next?

You make it so only the rich can smoke, drink and partake in what government taxes "for our benefit" and we become nothing more than second or third class citizens.

America where the streets are paved with the tears of the forefathers crying over what we have allowed the greatest country in history to become.

flstf · 03-30-2009, 12:47 PM

I suspect that people who are for sin taxes may feel differently when polititians determine that some of their activities are targeted for additional taxation. There is an almost endless list of behaviors and substances that could fit into the should be discouraged category. I wish there was some way to find these intrusions on our legal personal liberties unconstitutional.

dksuddeth · 03-30-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I suspect that people who are for sin taxes may feel differently when polititians determine that some of their activities are targeted for additional taxation. There is an almost endless list of behaviors and substances that could fit into the should be discouraged category. I wish there was some way to find these intrusions on our legal personal liberties unconstitutional.

we essentially lost that ability in 1934 and it was reaffirmed in 2005. The only way of getting that 'right' back is to totally reorganize the electorate in congress and people are just way too divided and partisan for that.

SecretMethod70 · 03-30-2009, 03:14 PM

Well let's think about this then... how to distinguish between the more obviously useful (carbon taxes) and the potential abuses (porn taxes)?

pan6467 · 03-30-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I suspect that people who are for sin taxes may feel differently when polititians determine that some of their activities are targeted for additional taxation. There is an almost endless list of behaviors and substances that could fit into the should be discouraged category. I wish there was some way to find these intrusions on our legal personal liberties unconstitutional.

You mean like:

Taxes on golf.... wasteful uses of land why look at them, eyesores, sand traps, little ponds, trees, golf carts emitting toxic waste.... besides only very rich golf.

Taxes on fast food.... very unhealthy have to protect you from those healthcare costs and obviously you can afford the taxes you aren't cooking at home which is cheaper to do.

Taxes on daycare..... one of the parents or grandparents should watch them... having to work is no excuse, obviously you can afford the taxes YOU WORK.

Taxes on cellphones... they may cause brain cancer that will overburden our health system, besides you can live without having to carry a phone around.

Yeah, as sarcastic and stupid as those sound, I have a feeling once they get every thin dime they can out of tobacco, caffeine, trans fat, and so on, they will go after other things....possibly the above.

mixedmedia · 03-30-2009, 04:04 PM

This is an interesting topic and I don't quite know what I think of it.

If the government were to impose taxes aimed at curbing undesirable behaviors, we would probably want to limit it to those behaviors that are the primary factors in proven financial burdens on society. Which includes cigarettes and not porn, for example. The reality of it is though, that politicians and other influential types are so gifted in finessing bullshit for public consumption, that abuse and manipulation of the system would be inevitable.

Just as an aside, when I first glance at this thread title I thought it read: TEXAS to discourage certain behaviors. I have to admit I perked up at that.

Derwood · 03-30-2009, 07:43 PM

The government should just adopt universal health care, cover everyone with every condition, and then we don't have to worry about who is straining what by doing X.

Yes, I'm totally serious.

pan6467 · 03-30-2009, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

The government should just adopt universal health care, cover everyone with every condition, and then we don't have to worry about who is straining what by doing X.

Yes, I'm totally serious.

I once was all for universal healthcare but the more I watch government the less I want it.

I'm to the point now where there is only 1 way I would approve it: Government subsidizes the insurance companies premiums based on income with government subsidizing the cost AND an iron clad law that states government has no right to dictate or tax what a person can or cannot eat or do. If it is legal.... they cannot regulate it or tax it any more than it now is without 67% of both houses approval.

In other words, no new taxes or regulations on tobacco, diet/regular soda, caffeine, sugar, meat, skydiving, bungee jumping, whatever.

ASU2003 · 03-30-2009, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I once was all for universal healthcare but the more I watch government the less I want it.

I'm to the point now where there is only 1 way I would approve it: Government subsidizes the insurance companies premiums based on income with government subsidizing the cost AND an iron clad law that states government has no right to dictate or tax what a person can or cannot eat or do. If it is legal.... they cannot regulate it or tax it any more than it now is without 67% of both houses approval.

In other words, no new taxes or regulations on tobacco, diet/regular soda, caffeine, sugar, meat, skydiving, bungee jumping, whatever.

And I would say that the amount of 'tax/health insurance premium' you pay a month (if you have the means to pay) should be determined by a thought out health assessment survey and lifestyle risks. Why should I, as a person who exercises, eats healthy foods, has no STIs, and monitors my health, pay for someone who doesn't care about what they do to their body and needs more frequent medical care (or should get medical care to prevent the spread of diseases)?

I am now understanding why nothing has been done to the current health insurance setup in 40 years. There is no way to make a universal system that will please everyone in the US. There are small things like electronic records, digital ID cards, and computerized reminders that make sense for everyone, but when you try to figure out who is going to pay for it and how to promote healthy and happy people, it doesn't go anywhere.

dogzilla · 03-31-2009, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

And I would say that the amount of 'tax/health insurance premium' you pay a month (if you have the means to pay) should be determined by a thought out health assessment survey and lifestyle risks. Why should I, as a person who exercises, eats healthy foods, has no STIs, and monitors my health, pay for someone who doesn't care about what they do to their body and needs more frequent medical care (or should get medical care to prevent the spread of diseases)?

That was my point. Why should I, if I am healthy and physically fit, be taxed for anything I like to eat or drink? Why does the government get to decide what is a healthy food and what isn't? What is healthy food for one person may not be healthy food for another.

Derwood · 03-31-2009, 04:24 AM

But if you base it on a European system like England or France, there ARE not premiums. Your taxes pay for everything. No bills ever. So, would you be willing to have an increase in your federal income tax if it meant you never paid another doctor/hospital bill for the rest of your life?

dogzilla · 03-31-2009, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

But if you base it on a European system like England or France, there ARE not premiums. Your taxes pay for everything. No bills ever. So, would you be willing to have an increase in your federal income tax if it meant you never paid another doctor/hospital bill for the rest of your life?

If you are asking me, no. I don't think the government should be responsible for health care. I prefer a system where I or my employer can pay for the level of medical care I need.

I think the government taxes me for far too many things already, but that's another discussion.

rahl · 03-31-2009, 05:38 AM

I don't want higher taxes in exchange for a bad healthcare system. Universal Healthcare would mean the Govn't gets to tell me which doctor I can go to and how often. I don't want to have to wait 3 months to have a surgery or see a physician like they do in Canada and in Europe

Derwood · 03-31-2009, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

I don't want higher taxes in exchange for a bad healthcare system. Universal Healthcare would mean the Govn't gets to tell me which doctor I can go to and how often. I don't want to have to wait 3 months to have a surgery or see a physician like they do in Canada and in Europe

Care to cite those waiting times? I think it's a common misnomer about their systems. In England, you can go to whatever doctor you want. There are standard waiting times for non life-threatening surgeries, but it's not months and months in many cases. Go to Europe and ask some people if they like their health care system and you're giong to get a positive response.

As long as US insurance companies are in it for profit, then I want to change the system.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2009, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

This is an interesting topic and I don't quite know what I think of it.

If the government were to impose taxes aimed at curbing undesirable behaviors, we would probably want to limit it to those behaviors that are the primary factors in proven financial burdens on society. Which includes cigarettes and not porn, for example. The reality of it is though, that politicians and other influential types are so gifted in finessing bullshit for public consumption, that abuse and manipulation of the system would be inevitable.

and when congress trots out several studies saying that porn, be it online or not, causes less mentally stable individuals to act out with child molestation and rape, therefore they will implement prohibitive taxes to discourage it, would you still agree with taxation to curb undesirable behaviors?

rahl · 03-31-2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Care to cite those waiting times? I think it's a common misnomer about their systems. In England, you can go to whatever doctor you want. There are standard waiting times for non life-threatening surgeries, but it's not months and months in many cases. Go to Europe and ask some people if they like their health care system and you're giong to get a positive response.

As long as US insurance companies are in it for profit, then I want to change the system.

Perspectives on the European Health Care Systems: Some Lessons for America

what this article says in a nutshell is that no system is perfect, especially the european system of healthcare. What needs to happen is a type of hybrid form, private healthcare and govn't systems.

I personally don't want higher taxes to pay for healthcare. The govn't has proven that they are incompotent and inefficient when it comes to money management. Just look at any govn't agency and programs and it is clear they don't work or are broken. Medicare is practicaly bankrupt, so is social security

braisler · 03-31-2009, 07:16 AM

The issue for me is of two parts. Positive for the use of tax to shape behavior. Negative for the ability of government to manage the tax responsibly.

I would like to see taxes used as a means to shape behavior in both positive and negative direction. Economists smarter than me have shown this to be one of the most cost effective way of changing behavior. That is, carbon-tax versus EPA trying to monitor and regulate industrial pollution. The former is a much more simple way to get the company to change their carbon footprint. The latter has a much higher cost to both the taxpayer and to the company. I also support tax breaks/incentives to encourage growth and investment by individuals and companies, for example, in sustainable energy to stick with a similar theme.

I honestly don't have too much worry over taxation being used to shape individual behaviour, re: porn, fast food, sugary soda, etc. Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't see legislation like that actually moving forward. Who knows, the Christian lobby is so powerful in this country, maybe they could push through a tax break on attending church... oh wait, that already exists.

One of the main problems that I see with taxes being used to discourage certain behaviors, is that the tax will just drop into the bottomless pit that is our government's yawning, hungry mouth. It is extremely unlikely that the extra taxes will be used for what they were intended, or that they will offset some other area of taxation. More likely, is that the extra tax revenue will be used to fund some ridiculous pork project or congressional junkets to Thailand.

I'm reminded of the early days of state lotteries. I live in Florida at the time that they were pushing the idea of starting a lottery there. They sold the idea, and sold it hard, with the promise that every dollar that the lottery raised would go to funding education. How can you argue with that? Everybody likes kids, wants them to get a better education, right? Well, what they didn't say was that they were going to use the extra cash from the lottery to take state tax revenues away from funding education and spend it somewhere else. The net benefit to education was exactly zero.

I worry that taxes used to shape behavior would be used in exactly the same way. Get some extra tax to fund program A, remove existing funding for program A, redirect that funding to unrelated program Y.

mixedmedia · 03-31-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and when congress trots out several studies saying that porn, be it online or not, causes less mentally stable individuals to act out with child molestation and rape, therefore they will implement prohibitive taxes to discourage it, would you still agree with taxation to curb undesirable behaviors?

I don't think you read my post. Try again, and if you still have a question let me know.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I don't think you read my post. Try again, and if you still have a question let me know.

nah, i'm good. making my mental note now to have at least one extra cup of coffee before I try posting on message boards.

03-29-2009, 08:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Yes. And I think we could reduce other taxes like property and income taxes if imported oil had a tax on it to promote domestic renewable energy production, fatty fast foods were taxed to subsidize gym memberships, or if buying alcohol had a tax to pay for police services. A lot of the problems come from a broken tax policy that is supposed to be 'fair', but doesn't reward good behavior and impede bad behaviors. But, it isn't to say that the bad behavior should be illegal, but they should pay for the full impact to society for indulging in using that product. But, I also think that large internet retailers should be taxed. I'm sure Amazon, newegg and eBay had something to do with many local small stores closing up. You just need to tax them at a flat rate nation wide and put it towards INS, homeland security, and customs agencies. Last edited by ASU2003; 03-29-2009 at 09:02 PM..

03-29-2009, 08:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I agree with most of that except the imported oil part. I'm generally pro-globalization and I don't support interfering in that process. The world is getting smaller, and we need to do more than just accept that fact, we need to embrace it. The problem is not imported oil, it's oil (and other dirty energies) in general. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-29-2009, 09:35 PM	#5 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Setting aside the issue of second and third hand smoke, because no such thing exists for alcohol consumption, don't you think it would be better if it were possible to reduce things like income tax in favor of taxing less productive activities? This is probably not realistically possible, but hypothetically at least, isn't it worth looking into? __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-29-2009, 09:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	It's a slippery slope, because its in effect a fine on "objectionable" behavior. What happens when they decide pornography is a vice that they can wring some cash from? It's still allowed by law, but they add a "sin" tax on the retail price of magazines and DVDs. Those that derive their income from porn production have to pay an additional income tax. Then the powers that be turn their sights on R rated movies and erotic fiction. Purely hypothetical, but it opens the door to many abuses. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

03-30-2009, 06:28 AM	#13 (permalink)
SirSeymour Ambling Toward the Light Location: The Early 16th Century	While I am not thrilled with taxes in general, I consider the so called "sin" taxes as viable incentives to change behavior. They leave the idea of personal freedom in tact while generating revenue for society as a whole. If you do not wish to pay the tax, change your behavior. It is really that simple. I consider it an adaptation of some sort of flat tax where we pay for the luxuries we want. Frankly, I think we should do this with more stuff in conjunction with making more things legal. I saw a commentary sometime in the last week or so by a Harvard economist where he noted that this country spends $44 Billion on drug enforcement annually (that is federal, state and local rolled into one number). He estimates that if we would just legalize drugs and tax them we could save the $44 Billion and generate an additional $33 Billion in revenue (not to mention the impact it would have violent and property crime that is connected to drugs in some way). Granted, these are just estimates on his part but for a country running the deficits the US is currently running, a policy change worth an estimated $77 Billion on the plus sides sounds like it should at least get talked about. __________________ SQL query SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 Zero rows returned....

03-30-2009, 01:27 AM	#7 (permalink)
dogzilla Junkie Location: New York	No, I don't support taxes like that at all. One question is who gets to define that objectionable behavior? We have had a $.05 deposit on soda bottles for years, supposedly to encourage recycling. Most of my soda bottles go in recycling anyway. It's just not worth my time and space to collect up a bunch of soda bottles, clean them, and bring them back where I bought them. Just recently, our governor wanted to impose a bunch of taxes, including a tax on non-diet soda. The reason for the tax on non-diet soda was supposedly to encourage people to drink diet soda and reduce obesity. Who is the state to tell me what I should and should not drink? I happen to drink non-diet soda because I don't like the taste of diet sweeteners at all. Some of them give me headaches, and I'm not convinced they are healthy. I remember cyclamates from years ago. I also have no problems with obesity at all, so why should the state punish me? The tax ended up getting dropped anyway, thanks to Obama's stimulus bill giveaway. But what happens next time?

03-30-2009, 06:18 AM	#12 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I'd be interested to see some numbers of the # of US Citizens who a) can't afford health insurance but b) smoke regularly. Maybe making smoking cost prohibitive will cause some people to spend that money on insurance instead

03-30-2009, 08:12 AM	#14 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	I have no problem with taxes being used to maintain the general infrastructure of our country(roads, police, fire, etc) but the govn't has no right what so ever to punish me for the way I choose to live my life....PERIOD! We have way too many taxes already. I'm tired of being double and triple taxed. Like paying tax when you buy a house or car, and pay a tax when you sell car or house.

03-30-2009, 08:17 AM	#15 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	taxes aren't punishment.

03-30-2009, 09:20 AM	#17 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I have a problem with our government taxing legal activities in an effort to discourage them. Sin taxes just don't seem to fit in with the concept of a free nation. I don't like the idea of the politians in power at any given time determining what sins should be taxed. I imagine back in the fifties there were those who might want to tax rock"n"roll and maybe in the sixies long hair and peace symbols. There are polititians today objecting to low baggy pants and rap music. Some even advocate making some of these activities against the law. It seems like every week there is some substance now determined to cause cancer. I have no problem with advocating people do not eat so much red meat or avoiding charcoal cooking for instance but that is different than trying to tax it out of existence.

03-30-2009, 10:26 AM	#19 (permalink)
new man Banned	The flip side of this argument is should we give tax breaks for positive behavior? You get to write off interest for education and home loans, but not credit cards anymore. Widows and widowers have a small amount protected from estate taxes. Money spent for health insurance is not taxed, and retirement plan taxes are deferred until you are theoretically in a lower tax bracket in retirement.

03-30-2009, 10:33 AM	#20 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	new man: I think that's a perfectly reasonable pairing. In fact, I think it's one of the main benefits of higher taxes on things that cost society. We then lower taxes on things that help society. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-30-2009, 11:53 AM	#21 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I think that taxing to discourage behavior is fine, but linking the tax revenue to a benefit is incorrect since eventually the discouraged behavior no longer can finance the benefit, or the budget feels that they have a new income stream and thus no longer allocate funds. The examples of this are the cigarette taxes to healthcare, and lottery where the schools win too. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

03-30-2009, 12:03 PM	#22 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	What happens when people stop the activity being taxed or find a black market for it? What happens when that tax revenue disappears because of this? What do they go after next? You make it so only the rich can smoke, drink and partake in what government taxes "for our benefit" and we become nothing more than second or third class citizens. America where the streets are paved with the tears of the forefathers crying over what we have allowed the greatest country in history to become. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

03-30-2009, 12:47 PM	#23 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I suspect that people who are for sin taxes may feel differently when polititians determine that some of their activities are targeted for additional taxation. There is an almost endless list of behaviors and substances that could fit into the should be discouraged category. I wish there was some way to find these intrusions on our legal personal liberties unconstitutional.

03-30-2009, 03:14 PM	#25 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Well let's think about this then... how to distinguish between the more obviously useful (carbon taxes) and the potential abuses (porn taxes)? __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-30-2009, 04:04 PM	#27 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	This is an interesting topic and I don't quite know what I think of it. If the government were to impose taxes aimed at curbing undesirable behaviors, we would probably want to limit it to those behaviors that are the primary factors in proven financial burdens on society. Which includes cigarettes and not porn, for example. The reality of it is though, that politicians and other influential types are so gifted in finessing bullshit for public consumption, that abuse and manipulation of the system would be inevitable. Just as an aside, when I first glance at this thread title I thought it read: TEXAS to discourage certain behaviors. I have to admit I perked up at that. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

03-30-2009, 07:43 PM	#28 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	The government should just adopt universal health care, cover everyone with every condition, and then we don't have to worry about who is straining what by doing X. Yes, I'm totally serious.

03-31-2009, 04:24 AM	#32 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	But if you base it on a European system like England or France, there ARE not premiums. Your taxes pay for everything. No bills ever. So, would you be willing to have an increase in your federal income tax if it meant you never paid another doctor/hospital bill for the rest of your life?

03-31-2009, 05:38 AM	#34 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	I don't want higher taxes in exchange for a bad healthcare system. Universal Healthcare would mean the Govn't gets to tell me which doctor I can go to and how often. I don't want to have to wait 3 months to have a surgery or see a physician like they do in Canada and in Europe

03-31-2009, 07:16 AM	#38 (permalink)
braisler Addict Location: Midway, KY	The issue for me is of two parts. Positive for the use of tax to shape behavior. Negative for the ability of government to manage the tax responsibly. I would like to see taxes used as a means to shape behavior in both positive and negative direction. Economists smarter than me have shown this to be one of the most cost effective way of changing behavior. That is, carbon-tax versus EPA trying to monitor and regulate industrial pollution. The former is a much more simple way to get the company to change their carbon footprint. The latter has a much higher cost to both the taxpayer and to the company. I also support tax breaks/incentives to encourage growth and investment by individuals and companies, for example, in sustainable energy to stick with a similar theme. I honestly don't have too much worry over taxation being used to shape individual behaviour, re: porn, fast food, sugary soda, etc. Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't see legislation like that actually moving forward. Who knows, the Christian lobby is so powerful in this country, maybe they could push through a tax break on attending church... oh wait, that already exists. One of the main problems that I see with taxes being used to discourage certain behaviors, is that the tax will just drop into the bottomless pit that is our government's yawning, hungry mouth. It is extremely unlikely that the extra taxes will be used for what they were intended, or that they will offset some other area of taxation. More likely, is that the extra tax revenue will be used to fund some ridiculous pork project or congressional junkets to Thailand. I'm reminded of the early days of state lotteries. I live in Florida at the time that they were pushing the idea of starting a lottery there. They sold the idea, and sold it hard, with the promise that every dollar that the lottery raised would go to funding education. How can you argue with that? Everybody likes kids, wants them to get a better education, right? Well, what they didn't say was that they were going to use the extra cash from the lottery to take state tax revenues away from funding education and spend it somewhere else. The net benefit to education was exactly zero. I worry that taxes used to shape behavior would be used in exactly the same way. Get some extra tax to fund program A, remove existing funding for program A, redirect that funding to unrelated program Y.