Sorry about the lack of an update yesterday. I was feeling a little under the weather and I did not make it to work. I am feeling better today and I hope you all are well.
Lots of interesting goings on this week so far. This morning on the radio they talked about a move to tax soda-pop I believe a penny an ounce per serving. The reasoning they were using were the same as the reasons for the different tobacco taxes. Health reasons. Now I believe that I have had this conversation before when it comes to taxing tobacco. I do not smoke. Well, lets be clear I do not smoke cigarettes but I do have a pipe and I smoke that now and then usually a nice vanilla black Cavendish that smells oh so nice. But that isn't the point. The point is that I understand why there is a desire to tax tobacco and a large reason is the idea of second hand smoke and that a person who does not smoke can still get lung cancer. But soda-pop is different. I can go to a store and not have someone blow soda-pop into my face. I am not going to get cancer from drinking soda-pop and if my friend drinks it next to me I am not going to have to taste it against my desires.
I think we are all well aware that America has a obesity problem. But, where do we stop once we began to tax soda? Do we tax candy? Do we tax potato chips? Where do we separate the line from looking out and preventing known disease causing agents and from just controlling people so that they are unable to eat how they like? I realize that my questions are just opening up a can of worms. But I wonder is there an answer or should what one eats or drinks be a totally personal choice that other people should mind their own business about?
That being said I shall continue to sip my coffee that I am horribly addicted to and the government can have when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!!
2 comments:
My biggest problem with taxes like this (i.e. tobacco and alcohol) is that the tax base becomes dependent on these taxes and when they rise to the level of unsustainable taxation, where people stop using the product taxed, or go the more devious route of purchasing illegal product, that base loses the money they became dependent on. The selling point of it's for health, only makes sense if you then use all of the taxes collected to feed into prevention and care of people affected by the "unhealthy" product. I am a fiscal conservative and I a, against any kind of new taxation, it is my firm belief that there is enough funds that are currently available to pay for any program that is necessary. New taxes mean more administration which means a portion of the money raised is spent on the tax itself, not very efficient.
You make some good points Joel. I know Oregon is running into the dependency problem right now because the ban on smoking in buildings has lowered revenue from the Oregon Lottery. Which is pretty typical of the unforeseen consequences that can develop from depending on a sin tax for revenue.
Post a Comment