Cigarettes and alcohol taxes aren't sin taxes, they're healthcare cost reclaiming taxes. The entire article is based on an utter misunderstanding of how these were driven and is a blatant agenda...
Cigarettes and alcohol taxes aren't sin taxes, they're healthcare cost reclaiming taxes. The entire article is based on an utter misunderstanding of how these were driven and is a blatant agenda driven op-ed masquerading as news.
...that's literally what a sin tax is--a tax on unhealthy or societally non-beneficial goods. you're quibbling with what they're called for basically no good reason.
Cigarettes and alcohol taxes aren't sin taxes, they're healthcare cost reclaiming taxes.
...that's literally what a sin tax is--a tax on unhealthy or societally non-beneficial goods. you're quibbling with what they're called for basically no good reason.
The word "sin" implies morality. Morality is not the same as health care costs, at least not directly. So no, a sin tax is not literally a healthcare cost reclaiming tax.
The word "sin" implies morality. Morality is not the same as health care costs, at least not directly. So no, a sin tax is not literally a healthcare cost reclaiming tax.
Maybe you would like the term to change to imply something broader, as the arguments for sin taxes are not only grounded in morality, but that is certainly how the term is used. If you search "sin...
Maybe you would like the term to change to imply something broader, as the arguments for sin taxes are not only grounded in morality, but that is certainly how the term is used.
If you search "sin tax," you'll see a whole lot about various kinds of harm to society, not necessarily only moral harm.
That's not what the article you linked literally says tho: If that's what a sin tax is, that's quite different from healthcare cost reclaiming taxes, that's a tax on lifestyle and personal choices.
That's not what the article you linked literally says tho:
Two claimed purposes are usually used to argue for such taxes. In contrast to Pigovian taxes, which are to pay for the damage to society caused by these goods, sin taxes are used to increase the price in an effort to lower their use, or failing that, to increase and find new sources of revenue. Increasing a sin tax is often more popular than increasing other taxes. However, these taxes have often been criticized for burdening the poor, taxing the physically and mentally dependent, and being part of a nanny state.
If that's what a sin tax is, that's quite different from healthcare cost reclaiming taxes, that's a tax on lifestyle and personal choices.
It's the or I am taking issue with here. It is specifically that they cost $x in publicly funded health care, and therefore that $x should be reclaimed. The fact they are non-beneficial is utterly...
unhealthy or societally non-beneficial goods
It's the or I am taking issue with here. It is specifically that they cost $x in publicly funded health care, and therefore that $x should be reclaimed. The fact they are non-beneficial is utterly irrelevant.
So, you're implying that meat is unhealthy and non-beneficial? Attempting to make a comparison between the horrible impacts if the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry to a normal...
-a tax on unhealthy or societally non-beneficial goods
So, you're implying that meat is unhealthy and non-beneficial?
Attempting to make a comparison between the horrible impacts if the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry to a normal agricultural ware is a massive stretch., The impacts of drugs on humanity is very clear, sure meat production needs to be more sustainable (and in the US it actually is in many ways when compared to other markets) but to say that it is bad for society is a little absurd.
As far as fighting climate change goes I'd rather put the cost* directly on the production of greenhouse gases than have a patchwork of consumption taxes on whatever products catch the public's...
As far as fighting climate change goes I'd rather put the cost* directly on the production of greenhouse gases than have a patchwork of consumption taxes on whatever products catch the public's attention. I also worry that this trend of prominent consumer-facing environmental solutions (light bulbs, plastic bags and straws, meat) will reduce the public pressure on government to force corporations to take responsibility; if everyone is going vegetarian to save the environment it feels like a lot is being done because everyone personally is feeling the change in their lives.
There's also the political cost. Meat production is tied to rural (and usually conservative) areas and meat consumption is often strongly associated with identity. You could say that's stupid and immature and whatever else you want but it won't change people's minds or how they see themselves, and "liberals hate you and want to take your red meat!" could change the outcome of an election.
Here in Canada we're already seeing a dangerous level of political divide with Conservatives centred in Alberta and "they're coming for Alberta beef!" won't help anything. Dairy farmers in Quebec are also a political force and Conservatives doing well there could be on their way to a majority government which would be disastrous for the environment. Is all that worth a meat tax?
* Carbon taxes (including methane) are popular as a solution but they're not the only option. I don't know what's best between carbon taxes, cap and trade, or other solutions.
Totally. This would also allow the market to incentivize carbon neutral ranching, while penalizing the typical industrial meat producers. Meat isn't necessarily cheap and it shouldn't be...
Totally. This would also allow the market to incentivize carbon neutral ranching, while penalizing the typical industrial meat producers. Meat isn't necessarily cheap and it shouldn't be subsidized (as it essentially indirectly is currently).
The trend of consumer facing "solutions" is also incredibly hypocritical when you are surrounded by a constant campaign to buy more, when even the current economy needs you to do so, and when you...
The trend of consumer facing "solutions" is also incredibly hypocritical when you are surrounded by a constant campaign to buy more, when even the current economy needs you to do so, and when you can't afford spending more on a "green" product and are led to feeling guilty about it.
In Spain it has become illegal for supermarkets (or any other shop) to give you plastic bags for free. That would make sense if they weren't selling styrofoam containers with four apples individually wrapped, and all kind of products buried under layers of unnecessary plastic wrapping. At least plastic bags serve a purpose!
Cigarettes and alcohol taxes aren't sin taxes, they're healthcare cost reclaiming taxes. The entire article is based on an utter misunderstanding of how these were driven and is a blatant agenda driven op-ed masquerading as news.
...that's literally what a sin tax is--a tax on unhealthy or societally non-beneficial goods. you're quibbling with what they're called for basically no good reason.
The word "sin" implies morality. Morality is not the same as health care costs, at least not directly. So no, a sin tax is not literally a healthcare cost reclaiming tax.
Maybe you would like the term to change to imply something broader, as the arguments for sin taxes are not only grounded in morality, but that is certainly how the term is used.
If you search "sin tax," you'll see a whole lot about various kinds of harm to society, not necessarily only moral harm.
That's not what the article you linked literally says tho:
If that's what a sin tax is, that's quite different from healthcare cost reclaiming taxes, that's a tax on lifestyle and personal choices.
It's the or I am taking issue with here. It is specifically that they cost $x in publicly funded health care, and therefore that $x should be reclaimed. The fact they are non-beneficial is utterly irrelevant.
So, you're implying that meat is unhealthy and non-beneficial?
Attempting to make a comparison between the horrible impacts if the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry to a normal agricultural ware is a massive stretch., The impacts of drugs on humanity is very clear, sure meat production needs to be more sustainable (and in the US it actually is in many ways when compared to other markets) but to say that it is bad for society is a little absurd.
As far as fighting climate change goes I'd rather put the cost* directly on the production of greenhouse gases than have a patchwork of consumption taxes on whatever products catch the public's attention. I also worry that this trend of prominent consumer-facing environmental solutions (light bulbs, plastic bags and straws, meat) will reduce the public pressure on government to force corporations to take responsibility; if everyone is going vegetarian to save the environment it feels like a lot is being done because everyone personally is feeling the change in their lives.
There's also the political cost. Meat production is tied to rural (and usually conservative) areas and meat consumption is often strongly associated with identity. You could say that's stupid and immature and whatever else you want but it won't change people's minds or how they see themselves, and "liberals hate you and want to take your red meat!" could change the outcome of an election.
Here in Canada we're already seeing a dangerous level of political divide with Conservatives centred in Alberta and "they're coming for Alberta beef!" won't help anything. Dairy farmers in Quebec are also a political force and Conservatives doing well there could be on their way to a majority government which would be disastrous for the environment. Is all that worth a meat tax?
* Carbon taxes (including methane) are popular as a solution but they're not the only option. I don't know what's best between carbon taxes, cap and trade, or other solutions.
Totally. This would also allow the market to incentivize carbon neutral ranching, while penalizing the typical industrial meat producers. Meat isn't necessarily cheap and it shouldn't be subsidized (as it essentially indirectly is currently).
The trend of consumer facing "solutions" is also incredibly hypocritical when you are surrounded by a constant campaign to buy more, when even the current economy needs you to do so, and when you can't afford spending more on a "green" product and are led to feeling guilty about it.
In Spain it has become illegal for supermarkets (or any other shop) to give you plastic bags for free. That would make sense if they weren't selling styrofoam containers with four apples individually wrapped, and all kind of products buried under layers of unnecessary plastic wrapping. At least plastic bags serve a purpose!