Skip to main content

The means that governments use to provide revenues for whatever purposes they have, whether good or not (You're entitled to your opinion, as am I) include in addition to routine taxation and fees the assessing of fines for minor misconduct like speeding or illegal parking and the so-called "sin" taxes such as those on alcohol, tobacco, and gambling.

These may produce a sizeable cash flow; especially in specialized cases such as communities that primarily depend on speed trap or casino revenue.

But these are also behaviors that the governing body at least obstensibly is attempting to discourage by making it costly.

Here's whether the problem comes in with "sin" taxes: if they are too small, they do not serve as a proper deterrent. But if they are sizeable, they suppress the undesired conduct effectively and the governing body achieves a corresponding loss of revenue! And if they seek some happy medium, the governing body is behaving hypocritically.

To my way of thinking, the strongest justification for giving up beer is to screw the state and the feds out of the tax money!

But, I'm okay about fines and "sin" taxes if they're entirely up front and admit that they're doing it for the money. Then they merit the same respect as call girls.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." -- Gilbert Keith Chesterton
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Finding the break-even point is a rather large task. If the government does not charge a high enough premium on these behaviours then it looks like they are supporting them. If the government charges too much then it gives the impression of trying to legislate them. Is the government trying to get rich off the vices of the citizens or trying to offset the costs that the vices will cost the other taxpayers?
I don't know whether we should even assume misdirected a nanny-like government trying to discourage those behaviors as providing the impetus behind the sin taxes. They are simply easier to levy because many people oppose those actions to begin with. The people who make our laws or run the government are no more smart or altruistic than the rest of us.
Excellent observation, Fat.

John, I think you assume that the government is looking out for the citizens. Ha ha ha.

The government will do it's best to extract the maximum tax dollars with the minimum uprising. As to the Fair Tax, it has been shown that the Fair Tax would result in more revenue, a more equitable system, and a drastic reduction of the IRS. The fact that it is fair, efficient, and would benefit the citizens is probably the reason why it hasn't been enacted by the government.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×