Taxes to Save Us From Sin : Soda Is Bad - Hallelujah

If there is no appreciable effect on outcomes from inflecting a sin tax on such items as cigarettes and sodas, and there seems to be some proof of this, why continue to tax the hell out it to change the behavior of those addicted to them?

And as the tax goes higher, many victims of these terrible sins decide to change their life style of crime of consumption of large sodas and smoking, and there by the tax revenues for special programs to help society in general goes down, this leaving taxpayers to make up the difference. After all, once a tax is instituted, it never goes away.

A good example, just think how much money is spent on the campaign to get people to stop smoking? How do you think this will effect the tax revenue collections to pay for all the grand social programs that depend on these taxes?

The nanny state is here for the foreseeable future, and will continue to find ways to prove to all of us just how ignorant we really are, as it imposes even more taxes on stuff that we enjoy to save us from self ruin. New York city - the mayor's war on salt and soda? 

It just can't get better then that, right? How lucky we are to have so many people that are in power to take the time and effort to make sure we are all doing what's best and right.

The Wages of Sin Taxes
February 20, 2013
 Source: Christopher Snowdon and Michelle Minton, "The Wages of Sin Taxes," Competitive Enterprise Institute, February 4, 2013.

"Sin" taxes, typically taxes on alcohol, tobacco, sugar, gambling and fat, aim to alter behaviors and internalize negative externalities. These taxes do not limit the use of such "bad" products and do nothing to reduce societal costs, says Chris Snowdon and Michelle Minton of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

• The federal government has always relied on selective excise taxes in one form or another to generate revenue from the use of "sinful" items.
• Politicians frequently cite the gargantuan costs of certain products, which include life years lost, earnings forgone and product expenditures, but all of these costs are borne by the individual, not the taxpayer.
• Despite claims that consumers of unhealthy products place an excessive burden on public services, the evidence shows that, on average, smokers and the obese are less of a drain on public services because they draw on pensions, prescriptions and nursing home benefits for a shorter period than the healthy.

Alcohol is different than cigarettes because there are externalities, such as violence, drunk driving and property damage, that result from drunkenness. Still, the tax revenues from alcohol taxes for each state make up for the costs of drinking with several billion dollars to spare.

• Behavioral change could be arrived at through much more effective methods than sin taxes, which bluntly create unintended consequences that damage health and stoke criminality.
• Many sin taxes are on goods with inelastic prices, meaning that as the price goes up, demand does not change.
• This disproportionately affects low-income consumers who are more likely to use sin goods than those with higher incomes.
• In addition, studies show that "fat taxes" and "soda taxes" have little or no effect on rates of obesity.

Sin taxes equate to the government's overreaching desire to interfere with an individual's mode of life. By regulating and restricting such small details, an individual's freedom becomes the victim of the will of the majority.

Even if the intention is to help improve the health of their fellow man, sin taxes result in greater harm to those they are meant to help.