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.
Do you think that Vehicle taxes should be included in the list of "sin taxes"?
Newfie wrote:Fuel is generally heavily taxed, but that is suppressing vehicle “use”, not simple ownership.
EdwinSm wrote:There has been a strong emphasis on ecological issues in the past election, with the Green Party the main gainer.
Subjectivist wrote:Who gets to pick which sins get taxed? In the past Alcohol and Tobacco and Gambling and in selected jurisdiction Prostitution have been popular choices but I think you could make a lot of money as a government with say an internet porn tax. All those 18 year old guys who can't get a date looking at something their parents tell them they should avoid would by a big source of income for Uncle Sam and State Government.
Subjectivist wrote:Who gets to pick which sins get taxed? In the past Alcohol and Tobacco and Gambling and in selected jurisdiction Prostitution have been popular choices but I think you could make a lot of money as a government with say an internet porn tax. All those 18 year old guys who can't get a date looking at something their parents tell them they should avoid would by a big source of income for Uncle Sam and State Government.
JuanP wrote:I have always thought that a system that discourages consumption and encourages production by taxing purchases instead of income makes a lot of sense.
JuanP wrote:I have always thought that a system that discourages consumption and encourages production by taxing purchases instead of income makes a lot of sense.
mousepad wrote:JuanP wrote:I have always thought that a system that discourages consumption and encourages production by taxing purchases instead of income makes a lot of sense.
If you have production, you have CONSUMPTION. Otherwise, why would you produce?
Taxing one man to discourage his consumption will simply transfer the consumption to another man.
When a state taxes, it's not going to hoard the money. It's going to spend it all, consuming (instead of the man it taxed).
JuanP wrote:The obvious answer is you produce to consume as needed and EXPORT the surplus, which makes the nation wealthier.
JuanP wrote: I have always thought that a system that discourages consumption and encourages production by taxing purchases instead of income makes a lot of sense.
JuanP wrote:mousepad wrote:JuanP wrote:I have always thought that a system that discourages consumption and encourages production by taxing purchases instead of income makes a lot of sense.
If you have production, you have CONSUMPTION. Otherwise, why would you produce?
Taxing one man to discourage his consumption will simply transfer the consumption to another man.
When a state taxes, it's not going to hoard the money. It's going to spend it all, consuming (instead of the man it taxed).
The obvious answer is that the nation produces to consume as needed and EXPORT the surplus, which makes the nation wealthier.
As an individual you produce more and consume less, increasing savings and reducing expenses and debt. I know this may sound counterintuitive to Americans, but it works.
mousepad wrote:The best way is to reduce production. An easy way would be 20h work week, but of course it comes with some reduction in standard of living, like return to 1950, or so? Apparently nobody want's that. They all want more travel, more gadgets, more car, bigger house, better AC, imported foods, etc.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:mousepad wrote:The best way is to reduce production. An easy way would be 20h work week, but of course it comes with some reduction in standard of living, like return to 1950, or so? Apparently nobody want's that. They all want more travel, more gadgets, more car, bigger house, better AC, imported foods, etc.
To be fair, you're talking about Americans. In places like Scandinavia, people overall are far more receptive to a better work-life balance, in exchange for earning less. Of course, they have a FAR bigger government safety net and far higher taxes and less income inequality -- so their economic reality is very different.
I agree completely that the best way to reduce production would be a smaller work week. If you could get people to universally use the time productively instead of getting bored and doing massively stupid things with the time, the result could be fantastic. Can that happen in the US? The jury is still out.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests