Talk:Sin tax

Untitled
This article needs to be expanded, however, first the issue of how some jurisdictions levy takes on illicit drug sales needs to be clarified. (Patrick 09:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

^I edited-out a statement to the effect of "cocaine and cannabis are taxed", as it was grossly misleading. I eliminated cocaine and left marijuana, because while both *can* be proven to be taxed, in theory, only cannabis' tax is remotely relevant. Cannabis, in my country (US), is a murky area - while states that allow medical and/or recreational consumption technically tax the market, the federal government deems the business itself illegal (see states v fed law on medical marijuana and states-rights), so in a practical sense very little is seen from taxes. Cocaine, on the other hand, cannot be said to have a sin tax in any sense of the term. The only legal uses of coca alkaloids are medical (tightly regulated by legal/medical standards; this is enforced through the DEA and the FDA in the US), and the occasional areas where it is indigenous and legal to be used in the context of chewing the leaves of the coca plant, which contain cocaine alkaloids. Neither of these uses, or taxes related to them, can be said to be a 'cocaine sin tax', as the former example's tax isn't due to sin but a simple line-item on research labs' budgets akin to test-tubes, and the latter scenario is not 'cocaine' it is 'coca leaves'. Nowhere in the world is processed cocaine a truly legal product, and in no place could a citizen pay a tax on processed cocaine for their own consumption (ie sin tax) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.37.129 (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge
I suggest that this article be merged with Pigovian tax, since sin tax is essentially a subset of it. Beno1000 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's not the case. Sin taxes need not involve any negative externality. See this economist article for an example of that usage of the phrase. I've restored the article for now so we can discuss this further. William Pietri (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The referred article to is unreadable for non-payers, but I can't see any differences in definition in this article except for the negative connotations that the term "sin tax" implies. The only question seems to be if things considered socially-proscribed goods imply a social cost or not. The examples cited (alcohol, tobacco and gambling) certainly does. In general this article seems to only serve the purpose of critizising sumptuary taxes without providing a definition or balanced views. I support merge. Joakimlundborg (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent "Sin Tax"
Why isn't the sin tax by Obama mentioned? The one on cigarettes and alcohol. I was watching it on CNN. I think it should be mentioned. 71.210.126.225 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad Intro
Sin tax is not a euphemism for sumptuary tax (in fact it makes it sound worse) nor is it a tax against 'proscribed' goods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.239.199 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Opposition
An additional opposition I've heard is that proponents for sin taxes tend to double count the benefits. A tax on cigarettes, for example, would be described as both raising money and stopping the harmful behavior of smoking. However, it's impossible to do a good job of accomplishing both goals simultaneously, as you can only succeed at one by failing at the other. If the tax is raising a lot of money, it means that people are still consuming a lot of cigarettes. If lots of people are quitting smoking, they're no longer paying the tax. It's not technically untrue, but it's still dishonest to describe such a policy as accomplishing two separate goals when it will inevitably be ineffective at one of them. Could something like this be added to the article? 168.16.132.59 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It only makes sense to do so if someone can find a reputable and notable source that gives this conclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox; our job is to present the facts, not to draw our own conclusions from them (like Fox News does.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.101.34 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously if the tax is high enough it could achieve both, if you raised taxes by 10% and cut smoking by 5% then it's plain to see that tax revenues are up and smoking is down, accomplishing both goals at the same time. Poor understanding of basic accounting and a handful of anti-tax rhetoric isn't a good basis for trying to score a point on wikipedia. Additionally, the fact that it's possible to double-count effects, doesn't mean that anyone is actually doing it. If you provided a reliable link showing that governments actually do this then you'd have a worthwhile point to make.--122.19.143.240 (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Support
These are clearly written by someone in opposition to Sin taxes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.132.156 (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smith was quoted totally out of context. The quotation came from the chapter called "Unreasonableness of Restraints". A few lines after the quotation, Smith wrote "[i]t deserves to be remarked too, that, if we consult experience, the cheapness of wine seems to be a cause, not of drunkenness, but of sobriety. The inhabitants of wine countries are in general the soberest people in Europe; witness the Spaniards, the Italians and the inhabitants of southern provinces of France. People are seldom guilty of excess in what is their dairy fare." Visoot (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

^That's a fantastic quote, thank you (and is far deeper/more profound than an article on sin tax warrants investigating). I was about to pull that quote myself, as "acknowledged" /= "supported". Here's the edited, original that I removed: Adam Smith supported the medical and moral arguments in The Wealth of Nations: “It has for some time been the policy of Great Britain to discourage the consumption of spirituous liquors, on account of their supposed tendency to ruin the health and corrupt the morals of the common people.”

Name
The things are not (necessarily) levied on sinful things. Recreational drinking and smoking is not sinful. A more fitting name would be "fun tax" (or, albeit the words are not usually used this way, "luxury tax"): they are levied on things that are done for fun and not necessary for in upkeep of natural functions. That's it. In addition, some of these consumptions are such that society might think they should be held within limits. That's it, but that doesn't make them sinful either. Unless, of course, you follow the Puritan teachings that fun be sin. If the things really were sins and the fact that they are were the reason for this measure - well, states have been known to use two methods in that case. One is tolerance (is there an adultery tax, anywhere?) The other is seeking to eradicate them with the full force of penal law. Just levying a tax would be very unusual. Now for the actual question: Where does the name "sin tax" come from? Is it actually used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A60:15B0:A601:A805:71F9:1E27:423E (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)