Using Federal Taxes to Manipulate Behavior

[Accountable]

The federal gov't uses tax incentives to persuade businesses to go here or there, or they reward chosen industries with subsidies or punish them with windfall taxes. They use federal tax revenue to "help" states, then use threats of withholding that help to force them to pass legislation Congress can't legally pass for themselves. They raise taxes on cigarettes not for revenue per se, but specifically to dissuade smoking. Now it looks like some want to do the same for ammunition.


Is using federal taxes to manipulate behavior right or wrong? Is it fair use of the power of taxation?


Let's try to stay focused on federal taxes. State and local are arguably different issues, and we can argue those in a different thread.

 

[Minor Axis]

Making it very expensive to smoke is a smart tactic, imo. However, the GOP answer is to give all rich people unconditional tax breaks and assuredly, they will do the right thing by the rest of us. :smiley24:

 

[The Man]

Its wrong IMO

 

[Alien Allen]

Making it very expensive to smoke is a smart tactic, imo. However, the GOP answer is to give all rich people unconditional tax breaks and assuredly, they will do the right thing by the rest of us. :smiley24:

good gawd this kind of crap is so lame. That is about as accurate as saying the Democrats want all fetuses aborted. Your inability to disseminate the bullshit out there in the political landscape is so blinded by your ideology it seems like you are a robot.

 

[Mercury]

It is a rather sneaky way to try to obtain more control ...

No, I have never been a fan of these tactics.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

It's all relative. Tax the hell out of the poor, and you'll barely affect the rich. If they taxed cigarettes to $30 a packet, there would still be a market for those who could afford it, and there would still be people willing to commit crime in order to afford it.

 

[Accountable]

It's all relative. Tax the hell out of the poor, and you'll barely affect the rich. If they taxed cigarettes to $30 a packet, there would still be a market for those who could afford it, and there would still be people willing to commit crime in order to afford it.

Great point. :thumbup

 

[Accountable]

Making it very expensive to smoke is a smart tactic, imo. []

Since you are clearly comfortable rationalizing the federal government manipulating individual behavior through use of federal taxes, does it have a line that shouldn't be crossed, in your view? Would you be as cavalier about having a federal prohibitively high tax on sodas or fast food?

 

[Tim]

In some examples I think it's alright...

Let's take the smoking example.

Citizen A smokes 2 packs a day and his health suffers greatly from it. Should the towns people who do not smoke be responsible for the medical bills that WILL be passed onto them?
It can be argued that the tax put onto cigarettes is not only a dissuasive but also a source of revenue to help offset the cost that will be passed on from one citizen to the rest. The people can, IMHO insist that a premium be placed on this behavior since they are paying a price for this persons freedom to smoke.
This goes right back to the argument that your freedoms should not infringe on the rights of others. Well it's proven that smoking does, so I believe that you can attach a price to that.

 

[Accountable]

Does your attitude extend to all unhealthy behaviors, or only to those you object to?

 

[Tim]

Does your attitude extend to all unhealthy behaviors, or only to those you object to?

It depends on what the cost is to society.

I thought you were a strong supporter of individual rights as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. And if that's the case, then shouldn't there be some sort of cost associated with a behavior you may have that costs me?

Please tell me where I'm wrong in this

 

[Accountable]

It depends on what the cost is to society.

I thought you were a strong supporter of individual rights as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. And if that's the case, then shouldn't there be some sort of cost associated with a behavior you may have that costs me?

Please tell me where I'm wrong in this

You're wrong because taxes are not to punish people for infringing on other people's rights. They are to raise revenue. Tobacco taxes are not charged only to people who smoke in public places and proven to infringe on nonsmokers. They are charged to anyone who buys tobacco products.

Even the stated purpose of the tax doesn't claim to protect anyone's rights. They are ostensibly designed to reduce the number of smokers by raising the prices prohibitively high. Of course they really don't want to do that, either, because actually reducing the number of smokers would reduce revenue, and we can't have that.

The actual result on society is to restrict the rights of poor smokers, making it artificially too expensive for them to exercise their right to smoke.

 

[Minor Axis]

good gawd this kind of crap is so lame. That is about as accurate as saying the Democrats want all fetuses aborted. Your inability to disseminate the bullshit out there in the political landscape is so blinded by your ideology it seems like you are a robot.

I'm sorry I must call bull shit on your assertion. This is exactly how tax breaks to the wealthy are viewed by conservatives or anyone who is currently pushing them. Unconditional tax breaks will result in trickle down as the people who receive them will ASSUREDLY spend this money to create lots of new jobs. Tell me I am wrong or you could look in the mirror and ask who the gullible one is.

Since you are clearly comfortable rationalizing the federal government manipulating individual behavior through use of federal taxes, does it have a line that shouldn't be crossed, in your view? Would you be as cavalier about having a federal prohibitively high tax on sodas or fast food?

At this rate, we might have to tax fattening food too- more tax revenue, slimmer people.

 

[Accountable]

Jokes ... as you piss away your liberty.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

The government here has announced its intention to eradicate smoking entirely by 2025. It's been working on a series of measures for the last 20 years or so, gradually changing perception so that smoking is no longer considered 'normal'. New legislation came into force this week that puts a blanket ban on the display of cigarettes for sale.
Is it an infringement of my liberty? Only if you consider the health and safety at work regulations designed to prevent cumulative illness an imposition.

 

[Tim]

Jokes ... as you piss away your liberty.

You still haven't addressed the point i made... Hell, you completely ignored it.

Smokers infringe on my liberty by passing on the cost of their healthcare onto me. Is that not a valid concern?

And your point that it will effect the poor, aren't they the ones most likely to pass their health care costs onto me?

 

[Accountable]

You still haven't addressed the point i made... Hell, you completely ignored it.

Smokers infringe on my liberty by passing on the cost of their healthcare onto me. Is that not a valid concern?

And your point that it will effect the poor, aren't they the ones most likely to pass their health care costs onto me?

It's not a valid concern when the subject is the federal gov't using taxes to manipulate behavior.

eta: and the smokers don't pass their costs to you. That's the insurance company, hospital, or gov't.

 

[Alien Allen]

I'm sorry I must call bull shit on your assertion. This is exactly how tax breaks to the wealthy are viewed by conservatives or anyone who is currently pushing them. Unconditional tax breaks will result in trickle down as the people who receive them will ASSUREDLY spend this money to create lots of new jobs. Tell me I am wrong or you could look in the mirror and ask who the gullible one is.

Your showing your socialist idealism quite well. You make it clear that you think what ever money people have is what the govt says we are allowed to have.

Taxes should not be to control behavior but to pay for govt necessities.

The irony in making excessive taxes on cigarettes is the poor are the ones who get affected most as they can least afford the taxes. And even richer is the govt really does not want to lose the money from cig taxes or it would be up shits creek without that revenue.

 

[Minor Axis]

Your showing your socialist idealism quite well. You make it clear that you think what ever money people have is what the govt says we are allowed to have.

Taxes should not be to control behavior but to pay for govt necessities.

The irony in making excessive taxes on cigarettes is the poor are the ones who get affected most as they can least afford the taxes. And even richer is the govt really does not want to lose the money from cig taxes or it would be up shits creek without that revenue.

So because you have nothing meaningful that you can counter my view of tax breaks for the wealthy/trickle down, you shift the discussion to my socialist idealism. BTW, poor people have no business smoking. Does government have a role to play altering the bad habits of addicted people or not?

Jokes ... as you piss away your liberty.

Regarding obesity, it is projected we are going to have huge medical/productivity issues in the near future as we are rapidly becoming a nation of bi-pedal blimps. I identify smoking, and obesity as two primary issues where we clearly do not know what is good for us. But in the name of liberty, you insist it's our right to become blimps if we want to and the government should not step in? And if for some reason you do think government could make a difference, what would it be?

 

[Accountable]

BTW, poor people have no business smoking.

Why on earth not?

Does government have a role to play altering the bad habits of addicted people or not?

No. The role of the gov't in the USA is not to provide services. The role of the gov't in the USA is to protect our freedoms so that we can succeed or fail on our own merits. This is something the Republocrats have completely abandoned, both your Asses and the Elephants.

But in the name of liberty, you insist it's our right to become blimps if we want to and the government should not step in?

Correct.

And if for some reason you do think government could make a difference, what would it be?

The federal government has no role whatsoever in individual citizens' day-to-day lives, including deciding what we are allowed to put in our own bodies. With damn few exceptions, Washington's constitutional role stops at the state line, despite what nationalist officials have deemed otherwise.