Tobacco Taxes: Is this shit even ethical?

Evander

When you cannot calculate thing, you need to do best estimates, and maybe calculate a low and high.

You don't just remove it from the equation because you can't be sure of it.

ronya

KevinNash wrote: »

ronya wrote: »

KevinNash wrote: »

Spoiler:

MrMonroe wrote: »

KevinNash wrote: »

Amphetamine wrote: »

Being someone who leans extremely to the left on most everything, I've noticed a strange, strange pattern among even the most hardcore of liberals- the push to expand legality on the majority of consumptions and activities (again, I'm not contesting this part) while wanting to almost eliminate tobacco entirely from the country. This is especially evident in the whole "legalize it!" argument while in the same paragraph going on about how fucking evil cigarettes are.

Addressing a mantra I saw repeated in the thread, the "no sympathy for smokers so tax it the fuck till they can't do shit" deal, do you feel the same lack of sympathy towards cocaine users? Heroin users? I'm not gonna strawman the fuck out of this one so I'm just going to ask if the whole no sympathy for the devil thing carries on over into the realm of drugs? It seems as though that line of thinking would lead to a want to abolish rehab programs in favor of a social Darwinism system where those who get caught up in heavy drugs just get set aside to die.

It's basically about taxing other people. Those who don't smoke want to tax those who do into oblivion because hey, it's them and not us. Similar logic applies to taxation of the rich. Once again it's a great idea to tax the fuck out of everybody else.

At least taxing the rich is progressive. Taxing smokers? Couldn't be more regressive, on an addictive substance no less, which is why it's so fucking sinister.

I'm a smoker and I support cigarette taxes, and I'm going into a profession that is likely to cause me to jump several tax brackets yet I still believe the total impact of taxation should be progressive.

So you believe in progressive taxation but support cigarette taxes which are regressive?

Do you see a logical problem here?

You aren't making the money yet, you might feel differently when you are. That said, if I'm gonna pay taxes, I think progressive income is far more just than regressive sin. That doesn't mean I don't think income taxes are too high.

My reply to this exact argument, last page:

Spoiler:

ronya wrote: »

edit: anyway, if anyone feels unduly bothered by Tzar's proposed conundrum: tax regression matters primarily when considering total tax, not bits of it. And, unsurprisingly, the proportion of income spent on cigarettes is so low that the fact that cigarette taxes are regressive does not make the net effective tax rate regressive.

Cigarette taxes hence don't matter unless we are considering raising them so hilariously high that the average smoker begins spending a large fraction of his income on those taxes (even after adjusting for decreased smoking). Unrealistic, but regardless, in which case we can compensate by spending those taxes on something else this income group uses. Regression is still not an issue.

A libertarian might say: this is an inefficient use of resources. Or: this is paternalistic. Or: the externality doesn't exist. Or: the externality does exist, but Pigovian taxes encourage abuse of power. Etc. All of these objections have some validity, even if they're wrong or outweighed by benefits.

On the other hand, waving the "regressive, haha contradiction" flag? That is just silly.

edit: to elaborate. Remember why tax regression is bad to begin with - institutionalization of poverty, etc. etc. All of these only matter through the total effective tax rate. Of course, implementing a regressive tax will make the effective tax rate less progressive, but this is hardly a difficult problem to counteract - just make other taxes more progressive. What logical problem?

The primary issue is that by making taxes more regressive and then also more progressive, the poor now rely on the government more and rely less on themselves. Taking their money and then simply giving it back in the form of food stamps or counseling after it's been laundered through a government agency is inefficient and also presents a number of other ethical issues.

This is exactly true, I think (given its assumptions), but I feel obliged to point out that you start with the premise that social engineering is bad (reliance on the government?) and thence conclude that, yes, social engineering is bad. Unsurprisingly, you find that you disagree with the liberal position that occasionally social engineering produces benefits.

Also, from a economic point of view, your most interesting point is governmental-department inefficiency (just the spending on additional administrative costs, not the distributional inefficiency 'deadweight loss' common in economics). Handing back food stamps functions as a negative income tax - people just substitute money income away from food once they have more food stamps. It effectively just hands money back to the poor. The eventual impact on consumption patterns, including smoking: nil. Honest. You're overestimating the effectiveness of government activity, which is pretty funny, all things considered.

The only people affected are those who aren't recompensated in a liquid manner - middle classes, etc. - so tax policies can be fine-tuned to affect particular demographic groups.