The world changed way too damn fast over the past hundred or so years, and really ramped up within my lifetime (40).
I describe to my kids how we used to contact people, or watch TV when I was a kid, and they can’t believe it. I describe how my parents did it and it’s even more unbelievable. And my grandparents…well, they didn’t have phones, TVs, or cars when they were their age.
Meanwhile…psychology…particularly the understanding of addiction and manipulation, and how it relates to the modern media landscape, has only really been gaining steam the past, what, 10 years?
And how much of that knowledge is reflected in current law?
Cable news networks have a 30+ year head-start on science, and a financial incentive to abuse what they’ve learned for self-gain. And then lobby to keep the doctors from taking it all away.
Soda (pop) taxes are probably a good case study here. Everybody knows sugar/hfcs isn’t good for you. Everybody knows that there’s a lot of that in soda. Everybody knows that soda isn’t a necessary part of a healthy diet. Everybody knows that artificial sweeteners aren’t great for you.
Yet when people start talking about taxing soda to help curb the obesity epidemic, it’s an uproar, largely driven by fox news et al.
Don’t get me wrong, in theory I do somewhat disagree with the concepts of sin tax, and think that the bulk of taxes revenue should be taken from the billionaire leeches that are really running this country. But, if that sin has a measurable impact on public health? Then yeah, I’m okay with sin taxes.
I gladly pay 20% tax on recreational cannabis, because a.) it’s still cheaper than street, b.) it’s tested and regulated c.) the revenue goes towards social equality programs, public health, public transit, and schools, and d.) it is, for all intents and purposes, a luxury good. Medical, I don’t think, is taxed in this state.
And I still think the Ron Paul Red-Wave of Reddit circa 2008 was a trial run by the GOP in using social media to promote an unpopular candidate to a young and mostly blue and purple audience. By the time 2016 came around they applied it, bigly, and gave Trump the upper hand by letting the primary stage be so full, splitting the vote among all the establishment candidates and paving the way for Trump to easily outlast the rest.
But, if that sin has a measurable impact on public health? Then yeah, I’m okay with sin taxes.
Why would it be a sin if it didn’t cause objective harms? The whole point of taxing and regulating these things is that the harm they cause isn’t just personal or moral, they materially impact communities, just sometimes in ways you don’t typically think about. If someone is calling for a “Sin Tax” on truly victimless crimes, that’s not a sin tax, that’s just plain old social censorship.
Nobody has to be harmed for something to be a sin.
And I would say calling sugary soda a “sin” is a bit of a stretch, since a sin is just any action, thought, or omission that violates moral or religious law.
Tons of sins, especially in that second column, that doesn’t hurt anybody.
I think you’re getting hung up on the figurative language. A “sin tax” isn’t about a religious sin, it’s about taxing something that’s obviously bad, but not harmful enough to justify criminalizing it and often popular enough that people would be outraged if you just banned it. Like cigarette taxes, weed taxes, alcohol taxes and the like. Things that not only harm you, but the community that then has to deal with the consequences of your choices.
The idea is those taxes then go to fund mitigation programs. Rehab, or gym membership tax credits or things like that.
That second paragraph is really it.
The world changed way too damn fast over the past hundred or so years, and really ramped up within my lifetime (40).
I describe to my kids how we used to contact people, or watch TV when I was a kid, and they can’t believe it. I describe how my parents did it and it’s even more unbelievable. And my grandparents…well, they didn’t have phones, TVs, or cars when they were their age.
Meanwhile…psychology…particularly the understanding of addiction and manipulation, and how it relates to the modern media landscape, has only really been gaining steam the past, what, 10 years?
And how much of that knowledge is reflected in current law?
Cable news networks have a 30+ year head-start on science, and a financial incentive to abuse what they’ve learned for self-gain. And then lobby to keep the doctors from taking it all away.
Soda (pop) taxes are probably a good case study here. Everybody knows sugar/hfcs isn’t good for you. Everybody knows that there’s a lot of that in soda. Everybody knows that soda isn’t a necessary part of a healthy diet. Everybody knows that artificial sweeteners aren’t great for you.
Yet when people start talking about taxing soda to help curb the obesity epidemic, it’s an uproar, largely driven by fox news et al.
Don’t get me wrong, in theory I do somewhat disagree with the concepts of sin tax, and think that the bulk of taxes revenue should be taken from the billionaire leeches that are really running this country. But, if that sin has a measurable impact on public health? Then yeah, I’m okay with sin taxes.
I gladly pay 20% tax on recreational cannabis, because a.) it’s still cheaper than street, b.) it’s tested and regulated c.) the revenue goes towards social equality programs, public health, public transit, and schools, and d.) it is, for all intents and purposes, a luxury good. Medical, I don’t think, is taxed in this state.
And I still think the Ron Paul Red-Wave of Reddit circa 2008 was a trial run by the GOP in using social media to promote an unpopular candidate to a young and mostly blue and purple audience. By the time 2016 came around they applied it, bigly, and gave Trump the upper hand by letting the primary stage be so full, splitting the vote among all the establishment candidates and paving the way for Trump to easily outlast the rest.
Why would it be a sin if it didn’t cause objective harms? The whole point of taxing and regulating these things is that the harm they cause isn’t just personal or moral, they materially impact communities, just sometimes in ways you don’t typically think about. If someone is calling for a “Sin Tax” on truly victimless crimes, that’s not a sin tax, that’s just plain old social censorship.
Nobody has to be harmed for something to be a sin.
And I would say calling sugary soda a “sin” is a bit of a stretch, since a sin is just any action, thought, or omission that violates moral or religious law.
Tons of sins, especially in that second column, that doesn’t hurt anybody.
I think you’re getting hung up on the figurative language. A “sin tax” isn’t about a religious sin, it’s about taxing something that’s obviously bad, but not harmful enough to justify criminalizing it and often popular enough that people would be outraged if you just banned it. Like cigarette taxes, weed taxes, alcohol taxes and the like. Things that not only harm you, but the community that then has to deal with the consequences of your choices.
The idea is those taxes then go to fund mitigation programs. Rehab, or gym membership tax credits or things like that.