EdwinSm wrote:I may be behind the curve, but yesterday I saw, what was for me, a new addition to the list of "Sin Taxes" in a national news report.
After recent elections a coalition government is being formed and the programme proposal includes an increase in Sin Taxes, that is alcohol, tobacco products AND fuel for vehicles. [There has been a strong emphasis on ecological issues in the past election, with the Green Party the main gainer.]
Do you think that Vehicle taxes should be included in the list of "sin taxes"?
In light of the peak oil (dynamic) it might be a good move, and might help people accept it as an incentive to move away from fossil fuels.
1). As the world grows more secular, the whole "sin" moniker gets less sensible / relevant.
2). If they want to have a tax system based on punishing/discouraging what is "bad" for the planet or people in general instead of (some or all of the) progressive income taxes, that's a different thing. I think it could be a very good thing, but then they should be honest about it, and set that system up, and explain how the whole thing would work.
3). Until EV's are dominant everywhere, calling an ICE car "a sin", especially where the infrastructure doesn't provide good alternatives to get around (such as in remote / rural areas), lumping them with things like cigarette taxes seems just wrong to me. (Once they are everywhere and easy to charge, get fixed, etc., that changes, assuming 400+ mile ranges become commonly available in time).
I don't mind when politicians try to solve problems, including suggesting new methods. What I mind is the lying/misnaming/moralizing to try to sell their ideas under false pretenses. I think that today, to call ICE cars a "sin" is unreasonable. They're not even close to dominant in southern CA yet, for example.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.