This week, there’s been a considerable focus on a number of proposed “sin taxes” including those on soda, cosmetic surgery and plastic bags. In theory, sin taxes are meant to prevent certain kinds of behavior – whether or not they accomplish it is a whole other story.
I realize that nobody wants to pay extra taxes. So, putting aside for a moment the question of whether you want to pay extra taxes, let’s focus on policy. Assuming that we’re going to continue to have sin taxes (which is a pretty good assumption), think for a moment about the policy behind the taxes. With that in mind, today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question is:
When it comes to sin taxes, is it more fair to tax behaviors that affect only yourself (like cosmetic surgery) or behaviors that affect others (like using plastic bags)?
First of all, I am absolutely against the use of taxes specifically to influence behavior. That’s ok in Germany I suppose, but not here. Social engineering is simply an appalling concept.
I much prefer user fees to taxes. Assuming that the goal is to keep plastics out of the public landfills, then let the community slap a fee-per-bag plan in place. People can either find alternatives to plastic bags, or suck up and pay for the costs associated with the disposal.
Funny thing is that I seem to recall the drive to move to plastic bags was initiated by concern over sustainable foresting. I wonder what will happen to the trees if we swing back to paper?
“Sin taxes” have been around for a long time and they’ll never go away. Indeed, one reason usually given for legalizing marijuana is that if it were legit we could tax it.
I suppose it’s more “sociable” to tax behaviors that affect others, although some, like smoking and drinking, affect the user as well as others.
On the other hand, taxing cosmetic surgery may prevent a few people from ending up looking like Joan Rivers, that would be a mercy. (Or Michael Jackson.) Also, I don’t like fake boobs, so the tax also would positively affect at least one “other” — me.
Sin taxes are nothing more than a pain-free means for increasing federal revenues at a time when the coffers are low and spending initiatives are at historic levels. To suggest these taxes are designed to encourage/discourage particular behaviors is naive at best.
About plastic bags:
1. I have tried those recyclable bags, but despite my good intentions I usually forget them until I am standing in line with my impatient husband, who would NOT go back out to the car.
2. And we use those bags for a lot of things – doggie messes one our walks, messy stuff in the kitchen, carrying a variety of stuff.
3. Our grocery store has a bin for recycling plastic bags. If they can be recycled, what’s the big deal?
I realize this isn’t about “sin taxes,” just wanted to voice my opinion.
I agree with Nate. Saying that sin taxes are used to “correct” bad behavior is just how the politicians sell all of us on a new tax. If not, then they’d be taxing things like child neglect, teen pregnancy, & cheating on your spouse. Instead, the “sins” being taxed are things most people would NEVER give up, even with high taxes – smoking, drinking, etc. The fact that smokers and drinkers won’t quit or engage less simply because of a tax guarantees that the tax is an ongoing revenue source. And then the politicians can brag that they’re doing it for the public good and that they’re not raising the general tax on all of the “good” citizens. That’s all it is.