I don't think they should be banned, but I have no problem with a tax on sugary drinks (or tobacco, alcohol, gambling, etc.) if it's enacted by the elected representatives. These things do cause societal harm, and there's a price to pay for that.
My issue is that the organizations that profit from these vices (for lack of a better word) m…
I don't think they should be banned, but I have no problem with a tax on sugary drinks (or tobacco, alcohol, gambling, etc.) if it's enacted by the elected representatives. These things do cause societal harm, and there's a price to pay for that.
My issue is that the organizations that profit from these vices (for lack of a better word) manipulate the "liberty" people into arguing their case for them. Sugar, like cigarettes, is incredibly addictive and wreaks havoc on society. If the elected representatives want to tax that they are entirely within their rights IMO. If the people don't like it they can vote them out and repeal it. I don't think such taxes are very effective, but that's a whole different issue.
The problem as I see it, is that people have become conditioned into viewing any constraint on their behavior as unreasonable when some constraints are required for a functioning society. It's the whole issue where people confuse "liberty" with licentiousness.
We can discuss if these taxes are effective, a good idea, or even needed. But the idea that a tax on a harmful product somehow violates people's liberty is pretty hard to defend. Yet that is what's invariably trotted out. And it's exactly where the left's caricature of us as Neanderthal "muh freedumb" people originated, with some justification IMO.
Call me a neanderthal (not actually an insult, they were very intelligent), but I am against most taxes and licensing fees. Government has an insatiable appetite for power, and taxes finance their addiction and distort markets, which haven't been free in at least a century.
I don't like taxes either and have structured my finances to avoid them whenever possible. However, "sin taxes" have been around forever, they are clearly constitutional, and the idea that they violate people's liberty is kind of absurd, no one is stopping people from doing something. However, if someone wants to engage in a behavior that has a societal cost, society has a right to make it more expensive to do so.
Whether its' a good idea is a different conversation. It's an important nuance, but one that is often lost with absolute positions.
One concern with "sin taxes" is the concern of who gets to decide what is healthy ("sinful") and what is not. You may agree with the current sin taxes, but inevitably "they" will expand the definition of unhealthy items to things you deem healthy. Some "controversially healthy" items come to mind such as butter, eggs, and coconut oil - who determines if they should be taxed because they are unhealthy - each of these items was at one time deemed healthy, then for a time deemed not healthy, then for most people currently they are healthy. But perhaps not everyone thinks they're healthy, so should they be taxed to dissuade consumption?
That's why I said I had no problem with them provided they were enacted by *elected* representatives. If the population doesn't agree then they can be voted out.
And I didn't say I agreed with them, I said they were a valid measure to defray the costs of irresponsible and/or harmful lifestyle choices (aka "sins") on society.
Like it or not though, we make these decisions based on majority rule (unless they are unconstitutional). I don't agree with my taxes funding the Ukraine war but I don't get to withhold a portion of my income tax in response. If society decides an action is harmful and wants to increase the cost of doing so to discourage it, that's entirely within it's purview.
I wouldn't have a problem with "sin taxes" IF those taxes were applied to relieve the "societal harm" as you put it. As it stands, are the "sin taxes" put to use to pay for an alcoholic's treatment or a smoker's cancer treatment? Where DO all those "sin taxes" go?
I don't think they should be banned, but I have no problem with a tax on sugary drinks (or tobacco, alcohol, gambling, etc.) if it's enacted by the elected representatives. These things do cause societal harm, and there's a price to pay for that.
My issue is that the organizations that profit from these vices (for lack of a better word) manipulate the "liberty" people into arguing their case for them. Sugar, like cigarettes, is incredibly addictive and wreaks havoc on society. If the elected representatives want to tax that they are entirely within their rights IMO. If the people don't like it they can vote them out and repeal it. I don't think such taxes are very effective, but that's a whole different issue.
The problem as I see it, is that people have become conditioned into viewing any constraint on their behavior as unreasonable when some constraints are required for a functioning society. It's the whole issue where people confuse "liberty" with licentiousness.
We can discuss if these taxes are effective, a good idea, or even needed. But the idea that a tax on a harmful product somehow violates people's liberty is pretty hard to defend. Yet that is what's invariably trotted out. And it's exactly where the left's caricature of us as Neanderthal "muh freedumb" people originated, with some justification IMO.
Call me a neanderthal (not actually an insult, they were very intelligent), but I am against most taxes and licensing fees. Government has an insatiable appetite for power, and taxes finance their addiction and distort markets, which haven't been free in at least a century.
I don't like taxes either and have structured my finances to avoid them whenever possible. However, "sin taxes" have been around forever, they are clearly constitutional, and the idea that they violate people's liberty is kind of absurd, no one is stopping people from doing something. However, if someone wants to engage in a behavior that has a societal cost, society has a right to make it more expensive to do so.
Whether its' a good idea is a different conversation. It's an important nuance, but one that is often lost with absolute positions.
One concern with "sin taxes" is the concern of who gets to decide what is healthy ("sinful") and what is not. You may agree with the current sin taxes, but inevitably "they" will expand the definition of unhealthy items to things you deem healthy. Some "controversially healthy" items come to mind such as butter, eggs, and coconut oil - who determines if they should be taxed because they are unhealthy - each of these items was at one time deemed healthy, then for a time deemed not healthy, then for most people currently they are healthy. But perhaps not everyone thinks they're healthy, so should they be taxed to dissuade consumption?
That's why I said I had no problem with them provided they were enacted by *elected* representatives. If the population doesn't agree then they can be voted out.
And I didn't say I agreed with them, I said they were a valid measure to defray the costs of irresponsible and/or harmful lifestyle choices (aka "sins") on society.
Like it or not though, we make these decisions based on majority rule (unless they are unconstitutional). I don't agree with my taxes funding the Ukraine war but I don't get to withhold a portion of my income tax in response. If society decides an action is harmful and wants to increase the cost of doing so to discourage it, that's entirely within it's purview.
I wouldn't have a problem with "sin taxes" IF those taxes were applied to relieve the "societal harm" as you put it. As it stands, are the "sin taxes" put to use to pay for an alcoholic's treatment or a smoker's cancer treatment? Where DO all those "sin taxes" go?