"Sin Tax" We've been there done that,
doing that, do we really want to go there?
With the latest in "Government Intervention" out of NY State and Governor Patterson wanting to impose an 18% "Fat Tax" to combat widespread obesity among children and others I found myself wasting yet another day doing some research.
A new poll from Quinnipiac University shows a majority of New Yorkers are balking at Gov. David Paterson's proposal to impose a "fat tax" on sugary sodas, but even more want millionaires to hand over a bigger share of their earnings to the tax collector, yes you read that right, I know, I know, I said the same thing......"Do what?".
Sin tax is not new to America , some of the first "Sin Taxes" go all the way back to 1773 and 1792 when the government imposed an excise tax on tea, the same tax that spurred the revolt that caused the Boston Tea Party and then the tax on Whiskey. Yes the "Whiskey Tax" was technically the very first American "Sin Tax" which ended up sparking a rebellion in Philadelphia, that was later to be known as the the "Whiskey Rebellion."
In Sadowsky's Article from 1994 "The economics of Sin" he outlines the downfalls of the "Sin Tax", and in one excerpt he states'
In other words "Sin Taxes" really end up being a "Catch 22". Sadowsky also goes on to talk about how Canada imposed an exhorbidant amount of "Sin Tax" on Ciggarettes back in the 80's and early 90's. Then in 1994 a New York Times article printed a story about how Canada was slashing taxes on cigarettes in an effort to try to stamp out widespread smuggling from the United States. In the States here our taxes were at that time about one-fifth as high. This is a prime example as to the limits to what people are willing to accept. A great quote at the end of Sadowsky's article goes on to say;
The use of sin taxes and controls on a "vice" can literally date back to before our founding fathers back to the Puritans. New England had many laws that "attemped" to control "Sin", and the means to do this varied from taxes to outright prohibition, and we all know how well Prohibition work. (hint of sarcasm) Just as with prohibition, Sin taxes have historically triggered rampant smuggling and made black markets thrive, especially when they create large price differences in neighboring jurisdictions.
In 2005 Connecticut voices for Children circulated a Flyer about "Sin Tax" and the Benefits and the harm. The best point that they made was in a question they asked about the revenue derived from the "Sin Tax";
They also went on to show how "Reliance on sin tax revenues to fund state services and programs can cause or exacerbate state fiscal problems." and that "Even if a sin tax fails to decrease consumption, it cannot keep pace with the rising costs of state services and programs."
Back in 1997 Hertitage.org wrote in an article entitled "Suing Elsie the cow" in this article they wrote about how Washington times had reported that two Yale law professors were suggesting a"fat tax" on food to discourage people from eating anything but organic bean sprouts and field-grown grass," an exageration of course. The Times article " blasted the food industry for promoting a diet "high in fat, high in calories, delicious, widely available and low in cost." Quick -- call the cops!"
You have to admit that to some degree this made sense , the article goes on to say "But to imply that our cravings for things we enjoy are simply a product of advertising and "marketing" is to place humans on the level of animals, helpless to act contrary to our physical appetites." and "So long as we pursue this nutty line of reasoning -- that everybody else is responsible for our actions and their consequences -- we will invite the government to intrude further and further into every detail of our daily lives."
Most people eat what they eat because they enjoy it, drink what they drink because they like it , smoke what they smoke because they want to and we as responsible adults should accept responsibility for the consequences as the price of living in a free country. But the more the Government regulates what we are capable of doing because of their endless "Taxation" than the more we will see our freedom slip away.
In closing I include an excerpt from the wonderful Larry Elder in an Article he wrote back in 1998 entitled "Burger Busters"
Hence, I digress to go get a cup of "Killer Java".
A new poll from Quinnipiac University shows a majority of New Yorkers are balking at Gov. David Paterson's proposal to impose a "fat tax" on sugary sodas, but even more want millionaires to hand over a bigger share of their earnings to the tax collector, yes you read that right, I know, I know, I said the same thing......"Do what?".
Sin tax is not new to America , some of the first "Sin Taxes" go all the way back to 1773 and 1792 when the government imposed an excise tax on tea, the same tax that spurred the revolt that caused the Boston Tea Party and then the tax on Whiskey. Yes the "Whiskey Tax" was technically the very first American "Sin Tax" which ended up sparking a rebellion in Philadelphia, that was later to be known as the the "Whiskey Rebellion."
In Sadowsky's Article from 1994 "The economics of Sin" he outlines the downfalls of the "Sin Tax", and in one excerpt he states'
On occasion, “sin taxes” are defended because supposedly they both raise revenue and discourage the use of the sinful product. As John Bloom, the American Cancer Society’s policy director said, “Canada has proven that tobacco taxes save lives and raise revenue.” But one might ask whether a collision course is imminent here. Sin taxes do not raise revenue unless people use the product, and they do not save lives unless people avoid the product. Will not many of those who want to raise the revenue want people to commit the sin of using the product?
In other words "Sin Taxes" really end up being a "Catch 22". Sadowsky also goes on to talk about how Canada imposed an exhorbidant amount of "Sin Tax" on Ciggarettes back in the 80's and early 90's. Then in 1994 a New York Times article printed a story about how Canada was slashing taxes on cigarettes in an effort to try to stamp out widespread smuggling from the United States. In the States here our taxes were at that time about one-fifth as high. This is a prime example as to the limits to what people are willing to accept. A great quote at the end of Sadowsky's article goes on to say;
I have learned as I grow older to look at "proposals" from any Government with a keen eye, because there is never a truly "New" proposal, it has always been done before somewhere, somehow. The Heartland institute published an article in the Budget and tax News back in 2004 about "Sin Taxes: Inferior Revenue Sources" The article starts out by saying';"Perhaps the great achievements of Thatcher-Reagan is not their legislative successes, but their shifting of the burden of proof from the private sector to the government. "
"The consequences of the sin tax are often the very opposite of those intended by its designers. Rather than increasing revenue, the sin tax can reduce it."
The use of sin taxes and controls on a "vice" can literally date back to before our founding fathers back to the Puritans. New England had many laws that "attemped" to control "Sin", and the means to do this varied from taxes to outright prohibition, and we all know how well Prohibition work. (hint of sarcasm) Just as with prohibition, Sin taxes have historically triggered rampant smuggling and made black markets thrive, especially when they create large price differences in neighboring jurisdictions.
In 2005 Connecticut voices for Children circulated a Flyer about "Sin Tax" and the Benefits and the harm. The best point that they made was in a question they asked about the revenue derived from the "Sin Tax";
Q. How can sin taxes generate a steady stream of revenue while simultaneously reducing the public’sconsumption of the product?
A. Simply stated, they cannot. If a sin tax succeeds in decreasing the public’s consumption of the productupon which the tax has been imposed, then revenue enerated by that tax will necessarily decline over time.
They also went on to show how "Reliance on sin tax revenues to fund state services and programs can cause or exacerbate state fiscal problems." and that "Even if a sin tax fails to decrease consumption, it cannot keep pace with the rising costs of state services and programs."
Back in 1997 Hertitage.org wrote in an article entitled "Suing Elsie the cow" in this article they wrote about how Washington times had reported that two Yale law professors were suggesting a"fat tax" on food to discourage people from eating anything but organic bean sprouts and field-grown grass," an exageration of course. The Times article " blasted the food industry for promoting a diet "high in fat, high in calories, delicious, widely available and low in cost." Quick -- call the cops!"
You have to admit that to some degree this made sense , the article goes on to say "But to imply that our cravings for things we enjoy are simply a product of advertising and "marketing" is to place humans on the level of animals, helpless to act contrary to our physical appetites." and "So long as we pursue this nutty line of reasoning -- that everybody else is responsible for our actions and their consequences -- we will invite the government to intrude further and further into every detail of our daily lives."
Most people eat what they eat because they enjoy it, drink what they drink because they like it , smoke what they smoke because they want to and we as responsible adults should accept responsibility for the consequences as the price of living in a free country. But the more the Government regulates what we are capable of doing because of their endless "Taxation" than the more we will see our freedom slip away.
In closing I include an excerpt from the wonderful Larry Elder in an Article he wrote back in 1998 entitled "Burger Busters"
......And, finally, what's next? Certainly, that double cheeseburger with grilled onions from Mickey D's compares unfavorably with a cucumber sandwich and a side of tofu. Dr. Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University Center for Eating and Weight Disorders, says, "To me, there is no difference between Ronald MacDonald and Joe Camel." Brownell places bad-diet deaths at 300,000, close to the nearly 400,000 cigarette-smoking related deaths per year. His proposal? A fat tax. Ding Dongs and Chicken McNuggets would get taxed at a higher rate than, say, a side of steamed carrots. Call it Operation Dessert Storm. Drop that candy bar -- or else!
And how about the recent article in the liberal magazine The Nation: "Generation Wired -- Caffeine Is the New Drug of Choice for Kids." Here we learn that according to the Department of Agriculture, children and teens drink 64 gallons of soda a year, triple the 1978 rate for teens. Well, call the drug czar!
And let's not forget coffee. The Nation says, "As for kids' rising attraction to coffee, that may be fueled by the proliferation of coffee shops -- Starbucks opens another one every business day -- and the perennial desire of kids to ape grown-up behavior."
Firebomb Starbucks! Dr Pepper kills! Hog-tie the CEOs of Pepsi and Coke!
Hence, I digress to go get a cup of "Killer Java".
Comments