Tweet
Yes, but do you consider being able to smoke and drink more important than other activities that also require you to have an income to take part in them?
-
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry. -
That's irrelevant."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Why? I think it very relevent if you are drawing a comparison between income taxes and sin taxes.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
It's irrelevant to my definition of coercion."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
You are really confusing me now.
Sin taxes are coercive because they constrain people from smoking and drinking, right? But you say being constrained in buying or spending on non-sin tax items and activities is irrelevant, even though that constraint arises from the income tax?One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Sin taxes are coercive because they take away money from people who smoke and drink."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
But how does that lead to the conclusion that "sin taxes certainly are more coercive than income taxes".
Sorry to keep repeating myself here, but you really haven't answered the question that is central to your claim.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Again, because they disproportionately take away money from the poor. Income taxes take away money from people who could more easily afford to be taxed."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
People working is something we consider a good thing, so we should want to tax it less, as opposed to people getting drunk or smoking, which is something we wish to discourage so we tax it more."I'm moving to the Left" - Lancer
"I imagine the neighbors on your right are estatic." - SlowwhandComment
-
I seriously doubt that banning tobacco would have effects like those of meth now and alcohol in times past. More like pot maybe, but then I doubt people would be going out of their way to seek a substance that lacks a high.Originally posted by Barinthus
And expand the Drug War? No thanks.
Speaking only on my personal experience I would be able to quit easily were they not available so readily. As a smoker I say ban the stuff if it is so bad.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
Ultimately, the poor, who have less money to spend, are disproportionately hurt by sin taxes. Thus, they're more coercive than income taxes.
Non sequiter, and it's NOT coercive, because the poor don't have to be hurt at all by the sin taxes if they don't want to.Comment
-
Wrong. The tax hurts the consumers of the goods no matter which decision they make. I've already explained that to you. Why don't you address my explaination?Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Ultimately, the poor, who have less money to spend, are disproportionately hurt by sin taxes. Thus, they're more coercive than income taxes.
Non sequiter, and it's NOT coercive, because the poor don't have to be hurt at all by the sin taxes if they don't want to.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Yes, it hurts the consumers of the goods. However, you aren't coerced into being a consumer of the good.
Anyway, taxes are all "coercive", the point is to collect them in the least damaging (to the economy and society as a whole; not least coercive) way possible.Comment
-
That depends on how much utility you get from the good and your income.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes, it hurts the consumers of the goods. However, you aren't coerced into being a consumer of the good.
No. The point is to make them fair.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Anyway, taxes are all "coercive", the point is to collect them in the least damaging (to the economy and society as a whole; not least coercive) way possible.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
That depends on how much utility you get from the good and your income.
It's a sin tax. There is NO element of coercion in buying a luxury. At least SOME can be argued for buying necessities.
No. The point is to make them fair.
That's impossible, because it's only fair to have a flat tax. It's not fair to tax some people at a greater proportion of their income than others.
However, a flat % tax would make it impossible for the government to collect the income it needs (at least, without causing enormous economic strain). Thus, a progressive tax is better, because it does less damageComment
Comment