You are are able to consume both tobacco and alcohol (let's not tangent into a drug legalization discussion). Tobacco and alcohol cause measurable societal harm and measurable costs to the state - are you implying it's unreasonable for states to tax these goods for those reasons?
Generally speaking I'd rather reduce taxes but I fail to see what's wrong with e.g. an alcohol excise tax going towards rehabilitation and/or highway safety programs. "Sin tax" is just a colloquial name for an excise tax, which a state has every right to enact.
> Tobacco and alcohol cause measurable societal harm
And if I choose to smoke in the privacy of my own home (or yard)? What societal harm am I causing?
As for alcohol, the societal harm caused is a laundry list of already illegal behaviors that are illegal regardless of alcohol's involvement with the exception of sin tax avoidance.
Why not outlaw the societal harm instead?
> e.g. an alcohol excise tax going towards rehabilitation and/or highway safety programs
Both of those seem like good things regardless don't they? Why do we need a special tax on alcohol for things that are generally good? It's not like only people who consume alcohol are the only ones who need rehab or they're the only problem with highway safety.
Does the tobacco tax go toward lung cancer patients? It actually goes towards funding campaigns that overstate (ie, lie) about the dangers of smoking to the point that people vastly overestimate the dangers of smoking [1].
> Sin tax" is just a colloquial name for an excise tax, which a state has every right to enact.
Of course it's legal, it's just garbage policy. Sin taxes come from the pairing politicians wanting more money and pearl clutching interest groups pleading to think about the children.
Unfortunately it's not so simple. An individual's smoking and alcohol use can and does harm others, and the state levies excise taxes for that reason.
Another example is driving a car, which results in thousands of fatalities and many more injuries daily. Not to mention environmental impacts which affect others. The state chooses to require drivers to have insurance and their cars to pass smog tests, rather than outlawing driving.
> An individual's smoking and alcohol use can and does harm others, and the state levies excise taxes for that reason.
Smoking and alcohol use can also not harm others. Should those who smoke and drink responsibly be held responsible for those who don't? How does the tax ameliorate those harms?
For everyone responding that smokers cost the government money, it is actually the opposite in that they save the government money because on average they die sooner. From the manning study: "In this analysis, the federal government saves about $29 billion per year in net health and retirement costs (accounting for effects on tax payments). These include a saving in retirement (largely social security benefits) of about $40 billion and in nursing home costs (largely medicaid) of about $8 billion. Costs include about $7 billion for medical care under 65 and about $2 billion for medical care over 65; the remaining $10 billion cost is the loss in contributions to social security and general revenues that fund medicaid. "
Presumably COVID also saves the government money, then? It mostly kills the old who have already paid into the tax system their whole working lives and are now drawing from it. And it mostly kills the chronically ill who need more tax support than they contribute. It seems terribly cold and callous to look at it this way though, e.g. when a son is holding his mom's hand in the hospital who is dying of lung cancer, to go up to the son and tap his shoulder and whisper, "Hey kid, cheer up, uncle Sam saved $8 bil on medicaid nursing home costs 'cus mommy here couldn't stop sucking nicotine sticks."
> Presumably COVID also saves the government money, then?
It most certainly does. The retort your parent made is for those who make the argument that a tax is necessary because X (smoking, in this case) costs the country economically.
If you want to make the purely _economic_ argument, it's a benefit to the bottom line.
That's not what a sin tax does. You are still free to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and were we to tax social media usage, you would still be free to use or not use that.
But a sin tax ostensibly accounts for the economic externality*. We know that cigarettes impose a cost on society beyond the individual smoker. I'm all in favor of making people pay for things that we know cause damage to society more broadly. And I hardly think it's controversial that social media is in many aspects harmful to society.
*Sin taxes are technically different than pigovian taxes, but I and I think most people tend to use the terms interchangeably.
> We know that cigarettes impose a cost on society beyond the individual smoker
What's that cost?
From what I've read, all economic costs smokers impose on society are more than made up for in their dying early, they actually cost less [1]. I guess everyone should smoke to save the state money!
Neither you or the government/state decides what you get to do with your mind. An advertising company decides what to do with it and can manipulate it however it decides best benefits itself. Not you, not society, Facebook, what makes Facebook the most money.
It’s not the state “deciding” it’s the state requiring compensation for the negative externalities created by the product. You’re more than welcome to smoke cigarettes if you so chose. But that decision isn’t made in a vacuum and it impacts the rest of us in the form of increased public health burden, insurance costs, secondhand smoke, etc. A “sin tax” serves not only to discourage the asocial behavior (we’d have a big problem if everyone made the same choice) but also to pay your fair share of the costs of your decision.
Curious, do you not wear seatbelts too? Opt for asbestos insulation since its better than anything on the market today? Plumb your home with lead since its more durable and flexible? Use leaded gas because its better for your older engine?
The state acts on the collective when the public is not making good decisions for themselves and causing net harm onto themselves, usually with the public paying the price. Sometimes thats overt like with death rates from accidents without seatbelts, or cancer from asbestos exposure. Sometimes its less overt like the behavioral issues, increased incidents of mental illness, and crime rate increases from leaded pipes and gasoline.
I'm willing to bet social media causes net harm. It hasn't enabled communication that wasn't possible before; if you can get access to a facebook account you therefore have email and access to irc. But it has cost probably trillions in productivity from people staring at it so much during all their idle time, and the cost to treat mental health issues that wouldn't have cropped up without toxic social media culture.
I say we have these companies pay for these externalities if they are forcing us to pay for them otherwise. By not passing a tax on externalities like this, the state is deciding that I need to pay for facebook's ills on society whether I use the service or not, which should anger you as a libertarian as much as it angers me as someone on the left.
Not only the age restriction but there are restrictions meant to curb some abuse at least. Drunk in public is a crime, establishments technically aren't allowed to overserve patrons who are very drunk, you can get tried for manslaughter worst case if you force someone to overconsume and they die, etc.
I wear my seatbelt, I don't smoke, I don't drink and I'm vaccinated.
Everyone keeps talking about these "negative externalities" without being specific. Why not just make the societal harm illegal and let people hurt themselves without buying permission from the government?
We require driving licenses, age restrict operation of vehicles, require vehicles to operate within parameters (speed limits, gross vehicle weights) and according to standards (traffic signals and markings), and prohibit operation while under the influence of decision or reaction-impairing substances.
Because these are all statistical precursors to accidentally killing someone with a car.
Texting while driving, while illegal (everywhere by now, I assume), causes more accidents than driving under the influence (both in total numbers and, apparently, per capita). Should we tax text messages?
So you get to ignore all the responsibilities that come with your rights so you get to clog up our hospitals with your bad decisions?
How about you take full responsibility: you get to not put whatever in your body, and you agree never to take an ambulance ride or be treated by a hospital.
Don't want the vaccine? That's fine, it's your right. But now when you can't breathe, nobody coming to help.
> So you get to ignore all the responsibilities that come with your rights so
Absolutely not. I know lots of people that manage to drink alcohol responsibly. They never drink and drive, don't regularly over indulge and it makes their and their peers lives _better_.
What negative externality are they paying for with alcohol taxes?
> How about you take full responsibility: you get to not put whatever in your body, and you agree never to take an ambulance ride or be treated by a hospital.
> Don't want the vaccine? That's fine, it's your right. But now when you can't breathe, nobody coming to help.
If I pay for health insurance, I'm already taxing myself in this instance. It would be perfectly reasonable for a health insurance company to offer incentives for people to be vaccinated just like they offer incentives to non-smokers.
If the government wants to start providing that healthcare, then they can have a say in the cost of poor health decisions.
How about we don't let the state decide what I get to do with my body (and mind)?