NationStates Jolt Archive

my husband and I butt heads quite a bit politically......mostly due to me being socially liberal, and him being, out of his fucking mind. (sorry, still sore from lunch convo)

anyway, at lunch we got into the discussion over "the war on drugs" and I said "lets just legalize everything" and he says "yeah, and tax the shit out of it"

well, I had to ask why......apparently he believes taxes are not only for revenue but can also be used to guide behavior, for instance he is all in favor of high tariffs on some imported stuff, to encourage people to buy locally and such. It's interesting to me because I would rather not have the government doing stuff like that.......most of the time.

What do you think? should taxes be used as a form of social control? in what instances?

would a "fat tax" be okay? what about cigarette taxes? should gas be taxed more so people will consume less?

answer the poll, share your thoughts.

im not fond of the idea of taxes as social engineering. at least not micromanaging people with taxes.

we're all used to the idea of progressive income tax rates, the deductions for mortgage interest and the child tax credit. im OK with that even if its not the way i would do things if i were the queen of tax policy.

but when it comes to cigarette taxes, grocery bag taxes, junk food taxes or whatever other social policy someone wants to push, i dont think that is a good way to deal with taxes.

taxes are for revenue and that revenue shouldnt come disproportionately from people with bad habits. that is making the other guy pay for what *I* should be paying for.

SOmetimes taxes don't only discourage behaviors, but are designed to pay for the consequeces of that behavior. A good example are cigarette taxes. Cigarettes have a trememndous effect on health care costs and as such, those taxes, on a state level are intended to recover some of that expense. Of course, that money usually ends up in the general fund so dipshit politicians can build a new professional sports stadium... but it's the thought that counts, right? :p

SOmetimes taxes don't only discourage behaviors, but are designed to pay for the consequeces of that behavior. A good example are cigarette taxes. Cigarettes have a trememndous effect on health care costs and as such, those taxes, on a state level are intended to recover some of that expense. Of course, that money usually ends up in the general fund so dipshit politicians can build a new professional sports stadium... but it's the thought that counts, right? :p
you've been following my local news? :P Seattle can keep their NBA team, basketball sucks. *is stuck paying taxes for something stupid*

People who really want the stuff thats being taxed will pay it regardless. Taxing as social engeneering does not work. It just hurts the commen person. Don't believe me? Look at gas. Almost 30 cents of the gas prices (Here in maryland at least) are taxes, maybe more. Are gas companys selling less? Looking at Exon's profits, I'd say no!:p

That whole thing about tariffs on foreign goods for just being foreign in lieu of it being for environmental or human rights causes is something I think your husband is in the wrong about - that's just a trade barrier, and we've seen what those do to the third world which cannot compete with wretched Western protectionism...

... but, in the other matters, I agree with him. The government here already does tonnes of that - on cigarettes, on alcohol, on petrol... basically a lot of goods that have negative societal consequences that need to be discouraged or have those effects countered financially, for instance punitive taxes on tobacco to offset the medical costs it ultimately leads to, or petrol and the environmental damage + road wear and so on.

That's why I am not fundamentally opposed to an "unhealth" tax on certain food items if properly devised (meaning not just raises but also lowered VAT on healthier foods). It makes sense (and would affect me only with lowered food prices, but who am I not to need encouragement to keep up the good work? ;)), if it gets people eating healthier and helps to offset the astronomic costs of "fatso" healthcare.

Sin taxes are a good thing.

Wage-slavery is a form of social control more like.

Taxes can be used as a form of social control.
Should they? Depends on the issue.

Taxes can be used as a form of social control.
Should they? Depends on the issue.

That's quite sound.

Care to elaborate?

well, I had to ask why......apparently he believes taxes are not only for revenue but can also be used to guide behavior, for instance he is all in favor of high tariffs on some imported stuff, to encourage people to buy locally and such. It's interesting to me because I would rather not have the government doing stuff like that.......most of the time.


This is actually another favorite conservative inconsistancy of mine. They bable on and on ad nausium about how the government should stay out of business and how the market should run free and be left to regulate itself etc.

Except they rant and rave about how no one buys American products and how everyone should buy American and we should put higher taxes on forgein stuff, ignoring the fact that the market has spoken, and America makes inferior fucking products. Especially on things like cars.

Whether intended or no, taxes do change people's behaviour. This is one reason some people favour a national sales tax, rather than income tax. The idea is it would encourage saving and discourage consumerism.

The problem I see with using taxes to discourage behavior is that not everyone agrees on what kinds of behaviors ought to discouraged.

What I mean is, I can understand taxing, say, potato chips on the grounds of being not healthy. But I would be worried that someone might try to take that concept further. Some vegetarians claim that meat isn't healthy, either.

Some vegetarians claim that meat isn't healthy, either.

And they are right, but an even better case for punitively taxing meat can be made on its grotesque production and huge resource impact when compared to vegetarian foods.

Taxes should be a flat percentage regardless of income. Taxes (barriers & tariffs) should be used to protect the domestic market [when required]. High taxes should be put on tabacco products as a way of curbing/punishing it's use. We should NOT lax laws on drugs to tax it, that's rediculous, immoral and corrupt.

And they are right, but an even better case for punitively taxing meat can be made on its grotesque production and huge resource impact when compared to vegetarian foods.

doesn't eating meat increase your carbon footprint too?

I think I'm going vegan again, veggies and fruits are gluten free. *eats chickpeas*

doesn't eating meat increase your carbon footprint too?

Exponentially.

I think I'm going vegan again, veggies and fruits are gluten free. *eats chickpeas*

I am addicted to chickpeas. I have them in salads, in sauces, in pasta dishes, in gratins... you name it. I love their consistency.

An interesting note:
In German, tax translates to 'Steuer'. Steuer also translates back into english as 'helm' or 'steering wheel'.

High taxes should be put on tabacco products as a way of curbing/punishing it's use.
A pack of 20 Marlboro Lights costs $11 and a bit in the UK. I still smoke that quite regularly, and it's ridiculous to punish us for smoking any more, no?
And they are right, but an even better case for punitively taxing meat can be made on its grotesque production and huge resource impact when compared to vegetarian foods.
Aye, on the other hand, 93% of the Danish economy is based around the bacon industry, so they might complain a bit.

Sin taxes are a good thing.

Nonsense.

Sin taxes should be abolished.

Taxation for social control is just another method of legislating morality. And it is just as ineffective and stupid as every other "moral law", with the added downside of promoting the black market.

Taxation for social control is just another method of legislating morality. And it is just as ineffective and stupid as every other "moral law", with the added downside of promoting the black market.
I'd disagree that it's particularly ineffective, to be honest. If you go to the shops for booze and fags, you pay another few pence every year and suck it up, because that's how things are done, no?

Some vegetarians claim that meat isn't healthy, either.

And they are right, but an even better case for punitively taxing meat can be made on its grotesque production and huge resource impact when compared to vegetarian foods.

What the hell are you talking about?

Large amounts of meat is unhealthy, but meat in the right quantity is perfectly healthy. Humans evolved to be omnivores. Cutting out meat is stupid and dangerous.

Your argument for a tax on meat because of the environmental impact does have some merit, however. Though meat isn't exactly cheap right now.

Funny i always thought the purpose of government was to provide the infrastructure for the community's basic needs, so that the community had the cappacity to grow and develop as the community so desired.
Apparently we don't know what's good for us, or what we need, these things apparently need to be decided by Business and Private lobby groups, or developed by political parties in consensus, without too much input from the general public, after all we elected them because we liked what they stood for, didn't we, or did someone forget to tell the beaurocrats, that their personal opinions are their own, and that in fact they are there to act on our behalf, to find out what it is we want and act accordingly.
Tax rates should not be increased, decreased or otherwise dealt with,unless needed to provide or delete infrastructure, and then only after having studied whether or not current taxes are being wasted or mis-used by whomever is responsible for the divesting of said taxes at the current time.
Waste is the common thread in all government departments, i know because i sell to them and they always pay more, generally for things they don't need all on the whim of a minister that demands the facilities of a prissy pumped up, arrogant, ignorant, would be king, with no idea of how the rest of us have to live, or maybe he/she does know :rolleyes: how scary is that.
Demand responsibility from ministers and their departments, and taxes should no longer be an issue.
Better yet, act responsibly yourself the next time you vote, make sure your local member is known to you and by you, never, never ever vote on party lines,never, never cast a vote just because you have to without knowing what you are voting for.

Large amounts of meat is unhealthy, but meat in the right quantity is perfectly healthy. Humans evolved to be omnivores. Cutting out meat is stupid and dangerous.



That's why vegetarians live 4-10 stupid and dangerous years longer than meat eaters, right?

Hell no! It's morally disgusting.

Does this even work? Smokers continue smoking, they don't care how poor and skinny they are and how much cigarettes cost.


Large amounts of meat is unhealthy, but meat in the right quantity is perfectly healthy. Humans evolved to be omnivores. Cutting out meat is stupid and dangerous.Removing red meat is not stupid or dangerous, considering how much saturated fat and sodium it has. There is no scientifically proven benefit to eating red meat, at all. It can be argued that leaner meats are good for you, but there is still no risk with cutting them out from your diet when there are plenty of alternatives like beans.

I think taxes are to be used for revenue only, I don't agree with any kind of tax that is aimed to socially control someone's behavior. That is not the government's job.

There's no reason not to use taxes as a disincentive to account for the externalities of things like drug abuse.

There are very few truly "victimless" crimes.

Red meat, provided it's grass-fed, provides plenty of Omega 3's and no carbs. Eating an unnatural diet based on processed carbohydrates is a big reason for the exploding diabetes and obesity epidemic. Inuit people survive on an almost completely carnivorous diet and are quite healthy compared to most people.


Taxes are a way to make up for externalities that the market doesn't correct for.

That's why vegetarians live 4-10 stupid and dangerous years longer than meat eaters, right?

Proof?

Hell no! It's morally disgusting.

Does this even work? Smokers continue smoking, they don't care how poor and skinny they are and how much cigarettes cost.

Removing red meat is not stupid or dangerous, considering how much saturated fat and sodium it has. There is no scientifically proven benefit to eating red meat, at all. It can be argued that leaner meats are good for you, but there is still no risk with cutting them out from your diet when there are plenty of alternatives like beans.

I'm not skinny, and I smoke. (I'm not fat either)

...

You have to carefully regulate your diet if you don't have meat. Make sure you get the right foods with the right nutrients to replace meat. Meat contains all the amino acids you need. It contains a lot of energy, also. That's why meat is so important to many cultures around the world.

Sure, it can be replaced, but why? Meats tastes better than any vegetable anyway.

Legalizing drugs while taxing them at a high rate would still result in substantial reductions in prices. I think sin taxes are often a good thing when they tax things that have negative externalities. A gas tax should be implement in the US, libertarian economists such as Alan Greenspan and Gary Becker support a gas tax, but it won't happen as it is overwhelmingly politically unpopular.

Also, don't those libertarians realize that one of the arguments for its implementation is to encourage investment? Sounds like social control to me if sin taxes are example of it.

I'm not skinny, and I smoke. (I'm not fat either)You would be skinny if you spent all your money on cigarettes. Or if you smoked so much you killed your taste buds.

You have to carefully regulate your diet if you don't have meat. Make sure you get the right foods with the right nutrients to replace meat. Meat contains all the amino acids you need. It contains a lot of energy, also. That's why meat is so important to many cultures around the world.

Sure, it can be replaced, but why? Meats tastes better than any vegetable anyway.There's no accounting for good taste.

Vegetarians do not have to carefully regulate their diet. There is absolutely nothing in the meat diet that cannot be found in the vegetarian diet. There is no reason for anybody to keep track of their nutrients and amino acids unless they have some kind of deficiency. A while ago I was told I wasn't getting enough potassium. So I started drinking more gatorade. That has nothing to do with me being a vegetarian though. I could have also solved the problem by just taking a multivitamin like many people do.

Meat does not contain extra energy. Red meat takes hours to digest so it makes you sleepy.

You would be skinny if you spent all your money on cigarettes. Or if you smoked so much you killed your taste buds.

There's no accounting for good taste.

Vegetarians do not have to carefully regulate their diet. There is absolutely nothing in the meat diet that cannot be found in the vegetarian diet. There is no reason for anybody to keep track of their nutrients and amino acids unless they have some kind of deficiency. A while ago I was told I wasn't getting enough potassium. So I started drinking more gatorade. That has nothing to do with me being a vegetarian though. I could have also solved the problem by just taking a multivitamin like many people do.

Meat does not contain extra energy. Red meat takes hours to digest so it makes you sleepy.

How much does one need to smoke to kill their taste buds? :confused:

Meat contains a lot of calories. Calories that were essential to human evolution. Today people eat too much meat, and don't exercise enough, thus the rise of obesity and heart disease. A balanced diet is needed.

About vegetarians regulating their diet or not...I might have been thinking of vegans. Its much easier to get everything you need as a vegetarian than a vegan.

But I don't really care. I'm not vegetarian or vegan. I eat meat, and love it.

How much does one need to smoke to kill their taste buds? :confused:

Meat contains a lot of calories. Calories that were essential to human evolution. Today people eat too much meat, and don't exercise enough, thus the rise of obesity and heart disease. A balanced diet is needed.

About vegetarians regulating their diet or not...I might have been thinking of vegans. Its much easier to get everything you need as a vegetarian than a vegan.

But I don't really care. I'm not vegetarian or vegan. I eat meat, and love it.I don't think taste buds literally die, but after a while your sense of taste will become dull. That's going to happen anyway due to aging, but having your taste buds coated with tar makes it worse.

I don't know much about vegans, but I imagine that veganism would be really difficult.

It's a shame that I don't know near enough to contribute to the 'meat' angle on this thread. Which is embarrassing, being the guy who brought it up and all.

But, this does seem to confirm the "people don't agree on stuff" point, at least.

By the way I'm not trying to say meat should be taxed or even that it's particularly unhealthy. I just dislike it when people act like the vegetarian diet is more dangerous.

By the way I'm not trying to say meat should be taxed or even that it's particularly unhealthy. I just dislike it when people act like the vegetarian diet is more dangerous.

It can be, though. Meat provides a broad range of nutrients. If someone decides to stop eating meat, they must be sure to eat other foods that will provide those nutrients.

It can be, though. Meat provides a broad range of nutrients. If someone decides to stop eating meat, they must be sure to eat other foods that will provide those nutrients.Everyone has to make sure their diet provides the right nutrients. Is there any reason why a vegetarian has to pay extra attention? The things people usually substitute for meat, tofu and other beans, have all of the same nutrients.

Everyone has to make sure their diet provides the right nutrients. Is there any reason why a vegetarian has to pay extra attention? The things people usually substitute for meat, tofu and other beans, have all of the same nutrients.

In my personal (anecdotal) experience, I find that alot of new vegetarians tend to neglect protein and iron. They seem to focus more on the vegetables and fruits and much less on the legumes. And, if I am not mistaken, there are a few Amino Acids commonly found in all meats, but only found in certain nonmeats.

In my personal (anecdotal) experience, I find that alot of new vegetarians tend to neglect protein and iron. They seem to focus more on the vegetables and fruits and much less on the legumes. And, if I am not mistaken, there are a few Amino Acids commonly found in all meats, but only found in certain nonmeats.I don't know about the amino acids. You are right that many vegetarians don't get enough protein and iron, but like I said tofu can solve this problem. Meat eaters still tend to be less healthy than vegetarians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition

Meat in moderation is probably a good thing. Personally, I'm not good at moderation and that's part of the reason I won't eat any meat. Most Americas are also terrible at moderation. The human body just isn't meant to consume the amount of meat that most people eat.

Taxes should be limited to tarriffs, duties, and excises, and a tax on corporate profit. Taxing to punish behavior is trying to use two wrongs to make a right, and it's not the way it should work. Personal income tax is repugnant.

Actually, I'd like to see the US become as close as possible to anarchy (the peaceful kind, not the molotov cocktail kind). The federal government has usurped powers it was never intended to have, and the states have become almost meaningless. Local government is pretty damn near irrelevant in our system. That's all bass-ackward. Either follow the Constitution (with particular attention to ammendments 9 and 10 in the bill of rights) or openly say you're scrapping the whole thing, congresscritters!

A gas tax should be implement in the US, libertarian economists such as Alan Greenspan and Gary Becker support a gas tax, but it won't happen as it is overwhelmingly politically unpopular.
The problem with those things is that they can get out of hand. Social engineering depends on doing the numbers and being very careful with what is being done, costs, benefits and effects. Taxes on the other hand are politicians' single best way of securing votes or being seen to have an effect on people's lives. So of course, from an economists' point of view the case for things like carbon taxes make good sense, and has done so for many decades. But that presumes a government that actually does the right thing.

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9370620
It is not just local government that has caught the green bug. Earlier in the month, the government wondered publicly about adding a “carbon cost” to the price of petrol by including motor fuel in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which limits the amount of carbon dioxide certain industries can produce.

[...]

Petrol taxes, in particular, are already eye-wateringly high at 50p per litre. Work by David Newbery, an economist at Cambridge University, suggests that existing levels of fuel tax more than cover the environmental damage that motoring does to local air quality or global carbon-dioxide levels. Forthcoming research from London's Imperial College argues that, on assumptions recommended by Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of a government study on climate change, the damage caused by carbon emissions amounts to less than 20p per litre.

I'd disagree that it's particularly ineffective, to be honest. If you go to the shops for booze and fags, you pay another few pence every year and suck it up, because that's how things are done, no?

But that's just my point. The end user will "pay another few pence every year and suck it up", when the actual point (supposedly) is to make them review their habit and not do it anymore. Which is the exact effect it doesn't have. Instead, they either pay the extra, or go to black market dealers (in which case the money goes to fund organized crime - a decidedly negative outcome).

what about cigarette taxes? should gas be taxed more so people will consume less?


we have that here in the UK. fiscal policy. demerit goods. yes.


unfortunately many demerit goods are price inelastic - people buy fags to feed their habit, whether the price is a fiver or five pound 10 (or whatever). petrol taxation increasing to discourage people from driving is ineffective as, with a privatised public transport system, there's no price incentive to use public transport, and no unified plan for integrated transportation. its still cheaper for me to drive to work every day than it is to take the train, and that doesn't account for my time to walk down to the train station (or catch the once-an-hour bus).

however, taxation of demerit goods can help prevent new users taking up that good (eg people not starting smoking because they see it as too expensive, etc)

unfortunately many demerit goods are price inelastic - people buy fags to feed their habit, whether the price is a fiver or five pound 10 (or whatever). petrol taxation increasing to discourage people from driving is ineffective

Leading to the inevitable conclusion that these 'social taxes' in fact have the opposite effect - the rich can afford to ignore them, while the poor are the ones who get hardest hit.

Take Ken's congestion charge; who do you think makes up the whatever % drop in car traffic; the city boys in their Mercs, or the teachers in their old bangers?

Leading to the inevitable conclusion that these 'social taxes' in fact have the opposite effect - the rich can afford to ignore them, while the poor are the ones who get hardest hit.

Take Ken's congestion charge; who do you think makes up the whatever % drop in car traffic; the city boys in their Mercs, or the teachers in their old bangers?

fair point. i'm surprised to hear you speaking out against regressive taxation ;)

not perfect, but discouraging use of demerit goods is worth it in the long run. discouraging potential smokers from starting can lead to great future health benefits and financial benefits for the country and economy, for example.
personally, i don't much like the congestion charge.

besides, this is the "stick." the 'carrot' is encouragement of merit goods though financial incentives; the biggest one of these is of course education, which, as a perfect example of a merit good, would be underprovided and underconsumed without public sector subsidies or provision (state schools). so this kind of social fiscal planning isn't all negative and punishing.

not perfect, but discouraging use of demerit goods is worth it in the long run. discouraging potential smokers from starting can lead to great future health benefits and financial benefits for the country and economy, for example.


I agree, but I'm a little bit more cynical about the government's motivations for raising taxes in this way; I think it's got nothing to do with the 'social' benefits, and everything to do with raising revenue. The proposed 'green' taxes are another good example of this - they know damn well that no one who is paying £500 for a holiday is going to stop because they have to pay an extra £5, or someone buying a £50,000 4x4 cares about an extra £100 car tax.

But it does raise some nice cash, while being politically supported. What more can a government ask for, than their voters saying "me! me! I want you to tax me more!" It's a politicians dream.

I'd rather they found a better way to discourage people from smoking, other than just smacking a tax on it. It's far too blunt an instrument, and completely unfair in who it hits.

besides, this is the "stick." the 'carrot' is encouragement of merit goods though financial incentives; the biggest one of these is of course education, which, as a perfect example of a merit good, would be underprovided and underconsumed without public sector subsidies or provision (state schools). so this kind of social fiscal planning isn't all negative and punishing.

Education is always a good thing, but if it's working, is the tax necessary? If you think smoking is wrong, but you're being pressured by your friends to start, will the fact that a packet costs 5p more really stop you?

That's quite sound.

Care to elaborate?Well, there are lots of things that taxes might be useful on, if done right. A tax on gasoline could be used to subsidize technological research in renewable fuels, or subsidize public transit to make it cheaper and more efficient. Also, it would be simpler and more effective than legally mandating fuel efficiency.

unfortunately many demerit goods are price inelastic - people buy fags to feed their habit, whether the price is a fiver or five pound 10 (or whatever).Perhaps cigarette taxes could be used to subsidize the price of nicotine patches or gum?

Taxing is a system for pooling and redistributing capital and a means to pay for that process. It is also used as a tool to deter or incite certain behaviors. Taxing is inherently unfair; a flat tax impacts more on the poor than on the rich, a graduated tax does the opposite. It is also a system that is ripe for abuse and corruption from the people who are trusted to administer it.

Is there a better system? Karl Marx thought there was!

Perhaps there are other systems that are fairer and less susceptible to manipulation?

my husband and I butt heads quite a bit politically......mostly due to me being socially liberal, and him being, out of his fucking mind. (sorry, still sore from lunch convo)

anyway, at lunch we got into the discussion over "the war on drugs" and I said "lets just legalize everything" and he says "yeah, and tax the shit out of it"

well, I had to ask why......apparently he believes taxes are not only for revenue but can also be used to guide behavior, for instance he is all in favor of high tariffs on some imported stuff, to encourage people to buy locally and such. It's interesting to me because I would rather not have the government doing stuff like that.......most of the time.

What do you think? should taxes be used as a form of social control? in what instances?

would a "fat tax" be okay? what about cigarette taxes? should gas be taxed more so people will consume less?

answer the poll, share your thoughts.

One thing is certain...yer hubby is a Eurocrat ;)

In Aus, our government gives out a fair bit of money. You can get a thing called family payment from Centrelink (basically, the department of welfare. Pays pensions, etc) if you've got childen, and you'll still get it even if you have over the median income. I've got issues about welfare for the rich, but that's a different thread.

I think if you are giving out cash, that changes everything. It's free money, thus you can put conditions on it. If you don't like the conditions, don't take the money. You can definately social condition with this.

As family payment is meant for the children, it should be paid in the form of not negotiable vouchers, that can't be used for alcohol or cigarettes.

One of the most important things about a sin tax is that you do not set the taxes so high that people will resort to illegal means to avoid those taxes. I also support drug legalisation as a means to combat organised crime - but to legalise then set enormous taxes in order to discourage people will do no good as the criminals will still have a market for their own drugs in people who won't pay the high taxes. Its a problem which occurs in the UK with alcohol and tobacco, with either dangerous home-made alcohol or cigarettes available or smuggled from other countries.

The problem with those things is that they can get out of hand. Social engineering depends on doing the numbers and being very careful with what is being done, costs, benefits and effects. Taxes on the other hand are politicians' single best way of securing votes or being seen to have an effect on people's lives. So of course, from an economists' point of view the case for things like carbon taxes make good sense, and has done so for many decades. But that presumes a government that actually does the right thing.

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9370620

True. The taxes on gas are high enough in Europe and much of the world. Its also political suicide to mention gas taxes and such in the US. What an odd world.

One thing is certain...yer hubby is a Eurocrat ;)

:p if I told him that, he would die. He bounces back and forth between calling me a "liberal" (which I am really socially liberal) and an anarchist. When he says liberal though, it's almost always followed by some BS about socialism or marxism or some other messed up economic theory (see where my bias lies....haha) I'm pretty economically conservative, I think the combo confuses him........greatly. I'm actually more conservative than he is when it comes to economics.......so while he's probably a text book Bush style republican.........I'm like a libertarian on crack......he's so......intimidated, I'm sure.

you've been following my local news? :P Seattle can keep their NBA team, basketball sucks. *is stuck paying taxes for something stupid*

[Sonic rant]

Sweetness, we tried to keep the team. The Supersonics have been in Seattle since 1967, and I've been a fan since moving here in 1979, when they won the NBA Championship, and have singularly failed to do so since then. I've been through Shawn Kemp, Patrick Ewing's awful swan song, and Wally Walker, but I've also been through Dale Ellis, Nate MacMillan, Gary Payton (who, in a typical Seattle trope, had to go somewhere else to get his ring). Howard Schultz (the former team owner who also owns Starbucks) wanted to soak the state and the city for a new arena, when Key Arena just needed remodeling. The governments tried to find other locations, but nobody wanted to shell out that money for a team so badly managed (again, thank you, Wally Walker), until OKC caught the bug after hosting the New Orleans Hornets after Katrina.

You may not want them, and you may hate basketball, but watching my home team for the last 30 years, through triumph and heartbreak (mostly the latter), brought my brother, father and I together. If people in your area will love the team no matter what, just because it's theirs, then overall, that'll be a good thing. Nevermind all the greedheaded shit the owners are pulling. I know it's just sentimentality talking, but I will miss my green giants. All I can say is they had better change the team name when they move. Supersonics (and Sonics) may have been a bit unwieldy, but it was OURS. We lose the WNBA's Seattle Storm, too, the only other pro sports team to win a championship for Seattle -- which says something about the city, that to get another title in a sport, the women stepped up where the men continually disappointed (Sonics were the first ever #1 seed to lose to a #8 in the first round -- the iconic picture of Dikembe Mutombo clutching the ball while lying in the green key of Seattle's home floor is burned into my memory...all because Shawn Kemp couldn't be bothered to learn to shoot from the charity stripe).

[/Sonic rant]

And now, back to the thread.

People who really want the stuff thats being taxed will pay it regardless. Taxing as social engeneering does not work. It just hurts the commen person. Don't believe me? Look at gas. Almost 30 cents of the gas prices (Here in maryland at least) are taxes, maybe more. Are gas companys selling less? Looking at Exon's profits, I'd say no!:p

More like 42 cents -- but that's ALL?!? In order for gas taxes to have the desired effect, it's gotta be MUCH higher than that. Look at the state-by-state figures:

State Total Taxes*
Alabama 39.6
Alaska 26.4
Arizona 37.4
Arkansas 39.9
California 50.8
Colorado 40.4
Connecticut 48.5
Delaware 41.4
Dist. of Columbia 38.4
Florida 48.8
Georgia 31.1
Hawaii 54.7
Idaho 43.4
Illinois 45.1
Indiana 41.7
Iowa 39.7
Kansas 43.4
Kentucky 34.8
Louisiana 38.4
Maine 44.5
Maryland 41.9
Massachusetts 41.9
Michigan 45.6
Minnesota 40.4
Mississippi 37.2
Missouri 35.4
Montana 46.2
Nebraska 44.1
Nevada 51.6
New Hampshire 39.0
New Jersey 32.9
New Mexico 36.4
New York 51.4
North Carolina 43.0
North Dakota 39.4
Ohio 44.4
Oklahoma 35.4
Oregon 42.4
Pennsylvania 45.7
Rhode Island 49.4
South Carolina 35.2
South Dakota 42.4
Tennessee 39.8
Texas 38.4
Utah 42.9
Vermont 38.4
Virginia 37.4
Washington 46.4
West Virginia 43.8
Wisconsin 49.9
Wyoming 32.4
Average 42.7

Source: American Petroleum Institute
*Includes federal taxes.

Removing red meat is not stupid or dangerous, considering how much saturated fat and sodium it has. There is no scientifically proven benefit to eating red meat, at all. It can be argued that leaner meats are good for you, but there is still no risk with cutting them out from your diet when there are plenty of alternatives like beans.

It isn't dangerous so long as those giving it up aren't stupid. However, in moderation, red meat is good for you. Witness (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/health-benefits-of-meat-poultry-and-fish-ga1.htm): iron, amino acids and heme iron, among others:

The iron in red meat, especially beef, carries a double bonus. About half the iron in beef is heme iron, a highly usable form found only in animal products. And the absorption of the nonheme iron in meat is enhanced by the fact that it's in meat. Eating meat also enhances the absorption of nonheme iron from plant foods. (That's also a good reason to use smaller portions of meat mixed with plant foods in your meals.) The zinc in meat is absorbed better than the zinc in grains and legumes, as well.

:p if I told him that, he would die. He bounces back and forth between calling me a "liberal" (which I am really socially liberal) and an anarchist. When he says liberal though, it's almost always followed by some BS about socialism or marxism or some other messed up economic theory (see where my bias lies....haha) I'm pretty economically conservative, I think the combo confuses him........greatly. I'm actually more conservative than he is when it comes to economics.......so while he's probably a text book Bush style republican.........I'm like a libertarian on crack......he's so......intimidated, I'm sure.

You must love the make-up sex after all the arguments! Some disagreement in a relationship is good, as far as I can tell.

True. The taxes on gas are high enough in Europe and much of the world. Its also political suicide to mention gas taxes and such in the US. What an odd world.

And yet, their economy as a whole is doing better than ours. Huh.

[Sonic rant]

Sweetness, we tried to keep the team. The Supersonics have been in Seattle since 1967, and I've been a fan since moving here in 1979, when they won the NBA Championship, and have singularly failed to do so since then. I've been through Shawn Kemp, Patrick Ewing's awful swan song, and Wally Walker, but I've also been through Dale Ellis, Nate MacMillan, Gary Payton (who, in a typical Seattle trope, had to go somewhere else to get his ring). Howard Schultz (the former team owner who also owns Starbucks) wanted to soak the state and the city for a new arena, when Key Arena just needed remodeling. The governments tried to find other locations, but nobody wanted to shell out that money for a team so badly managed (again, thank you, Wally Walker), until OKC caught the bug after hosting the New Orleans Hornets after Katrina.

You may not want them, and you may hate basketball, but watching my home team for the last 30 years, through triumph and heartbreak (mostly the latter), brought my brother, father and I together. If people in your area will love the team no matter what, just because it's theirs, then overall, that'll be a good thing. Nevermind all the greedheaded shit the owners are pulling. I know it's just sentimentality talking, but I will miss my green giants. All I can say is they had better change the team name when they move. Supersonics (and Sonics) may have been a bit unwieldy, but it was OURS. We lose the WNBA's Seattle Storm, too, the only other pro sports team to win a championship for Seattle -- which says something about the city, that to get another title in a sport, the women stepped up where the men continually disappointed (Sonics were the first ever #1 seed to lose to a #8 in the first round -- the iconic picture of Dikembe Mutombo clutching the ball while lying in the green key of Seattle's home floor is burned into my memory...all because Shawn Kemp couldn't be bothered to learn to shoot from the charity stripe).

[/Sonic rant]
sorry. :( the whole thing was a mess. I actively campaigned against the move......if that helps any. They are changing the name, probably to something stupid. They had a contest for our minor league baseball team, they named them the Redhawks......like Memphis isn't already the Redbirds?! stupidity. Our state bird is the Scissor tail flycatcher (that's the ugly bird on our ugly quarters) but how cool would it have been to have a baseball team called the flycatchers?! it's double purpose! nobody liked my suggestion.


You must love the make-up sex after all the arguments! Some disagreement in a relationship is good, as far as I can tell.
I'm pretty sure half the time he doesn't espouse the beliefs he claims he does........he just likes debating with me. :D

sorry. :( the whole thing was a mess. I actively campaigned against the move......if that helps any. They are changing the name, probably to something stupid. They had a contest for our minor league baseball team, they named them the Redhawks......like Memphis isn't already the Redbirds?! stupidity. Our state bird is the Scissor tail flycatcher (that's the ugly bird on our ugly quarters) but how cool would it have been to have a baseball team called the flycatchers?! it's double purpose! nobody liked my suggestion.

Well, the greed of owners is legendary, so it was inevitable. I appreciate your campaigning, though.

Yeah, in Everett, WA, the minor league basketball team is the AquaSox. Both for the color of said sox and the maritime heritage of the city. My suggestion would have honored the local flora and the bats themselves, the Everett Evergreens. But the thought of a tree holding a bat must have seemed somehow wrong to people. The mascot is the Pacific Tree Frog, so "catching flies" becomes part of the schtick. Odd names and odder mascots are how minor league teams attract attention, and for the most part, it works. But I agree, "Redhawks" is pretty lame.

I'm pretty sure half the time he doesn't espouse the beliefs he claims he does........he just likes debating with me. :D

Well, with what such banter can lead to, I can't say as I blame him. He's a lucky man.

Heres the problem with taxes as "social engineering": They don't hurt anyone except for the already addicted. The health risks and such for things like cigarettes and drugs are already well documented, and thats going to do a much better job of scaring away people than high prices ever will. Now, if the profits from those tax increases go towards, i dont know, rehabilitation, then I might support it. But once people are already addicted, they're going to keep spending money on it no matter what. Those taxes just make them go bankrupt faster, thus neccesitating a life of crime all that sooner.

Heres the problem with taxes as "social engineering": They don't hurt anyone except for the already addicted. The health risks and such for things like cigarettes and drugs are already well documented, and thats going to do a much better job of scaring away rational people than high prices ever will. Now, if the profits from those tax increases go towards, i dont know, rehabilitation, then I might support it. But once people are already addicted, they're going to keep spending money on it no matter what. Those taxes just make them go bankrupt faster, thus neccesitating a life of crime all that sooner.

Fixed. The warnings have been on packs for decades. Exactly how much more documentation do people need?

Fixed. The warnings have been on packs for decades. Exactly how much more documentation do people need?

So what are you saying? That we should punish ppl because they aren't always completley rational?

I think taxes, besides bringing in revenue, might be good to bring out hidden costs. So, you might tax unhealthy food and cigarettes to offset higher (public) health care costs; tax waste/pollution to offset environmental costs; etc.

The very first tax deduction, or instance of encouraging a particular behavior, was to encourage marriage. Now it covers everything from marriage to energy conservation. This is the mess we have now. When it takes over $3 billion to comply with the US tax code, that's too much social engineering through taxes.

Drop the deductions, cut the tax rates, and limit federal spending.

Since I do not support taxation to begin with, I am thus precluded from supporting taxing as a tool of supporting or discouraging social activities. People should be able to exchange goods and services as they wish at the prices they agree to bilaterally without a third party demanding that they give him a certain portion, and neither should activities that the third party deem beneficial be supported at the expense of others.

So what are you saying? That we should punish ppl because they aren't always completley rational?

Of course not. I'm saying, and you should be ashamed at trying to spin this so poorly, that the warnings clearly don't work on some people -- enough to keep lining the pockets of tobacco corporate executives. If what is desired is weaning people off the smoky teat, is there any other way besides raising the tax on them?

If they can't read and understand the "THESE THINGS WILL HASTEN YOUR DEATH" warnings, you have to speak to them in terms they WILL understand. $$$$$.

All taxes are odious, and all that raising them will bring about is a burgeoning black market. However, I am in favor of legalizing marijuana to bring that tax base in-I'd rather the thieves and exploiters be within the Federal government and thus subject to SOME sort of constraint.

Of course not. I'm saying, and you should be ashamed at trying to spin this so poorly, that the warnings clearly don't work on some people -- enough to keep lining the pockets of tobacco corporate executives. If what is desired is weaning people off the smoky teat, is there any other way besides raising the tax on them?

If they can't read and understand the "THESE THINGS WILL HASTEN YOUR DEATH" warnings, you have to speak to them in terms they WILL understand. $$$$$.

#1: A misunderstanding does not spin make
#2: I'm beginging to find myself agreeing with you now, after thinking about it.

my husband and I butt heads quite a bit politically......mostly due to me being socially liberal, and him being, out of his fucking mind. (sorry, still sore from lunch convo)

anyway, at lunch we got into the discussion over "the war on drugs" and I said "lets just legalize everything" and he says "yeah, and tax the shit out of it"

well, I had to ask why......apparently he believes taxes are not only for revenue but can also be used to guide behavior, for instance he is all in favor of high tariffs on some imported stuff, to encourage people to buy locally and such. It's interesting to me because I would rather not have the government doing stuff like that.......most of the time.

What do you think? should taxes be used as a form of social control? in what instances?

would a "fat tax" be okay? what about cigarette taxes? should gas be taxed more so people will consume less?

answer the poll, share your thoughts.

All taxation is social control. Every government meddling in the economic concerns of individual actors is ultimately violent imposition against that actor's will and value.

Proof?


The books sourced in this article

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_1999_April/ai_54232138

It's generally common knowledge that not eating what gives you heart disease and is linked to cancer will mean that you won't get heart disease or cancer. Beyond that, the debate as to why we live longer centers around whether its the absence of meat itself, or if its because we're generally more health conscious anyway.

All taxation is social control. Every government meddling in the economic concerns of individual actors is ultimately violent imposition against that actor's will and value.
Not all. Only when you give a credit for some "desirable" behavior does it become social control. Initially, the income tax was just an income tax. It took a few years for the social control aspect to set in. Sales taxes aren't especially controlling, either. Except for tax-exempts, there aren't many deductions or credits that I can think of that apply to sales taxes.

Incidentally, did anyone know that sales taxes are deductible on your federal income tax?

That's why vegetarians live 4-10 stupid and dangerous years longer than meat eaters, right?

Assuming you are right in your statement there, it probably has more to do with vegetarians being more 'health conscious' in general than the fact that they stopped eating meat. People who choose to be vegetarian generally watch what they are eating more carefully, read the ingredients in foods, and overall pay closer attention to what they consume. As far as I know, meat alone isn't bad for you, an unhealthy lifestyle is bad for you.

Legalizing drugs and then putting substantial taxes on them would be a good source of revenue for the government.

Actually, I'd like to see the US become as close as possible to anarchy (the peaceful kind, not the molotov cocktail kind). The federal government has usurped powers it was never intended to have

Thats a rather foolish thing to say. The framers did not agree on how much power it was supposed to have. Some wanted more, some wanted less. For example, the Executive branch of the Federal Government is still probably weaker than Hamilton wanted it to be.

The Constitution intentionally is vauge.

Fixed. The warnings have been on packs for decades. Exactly how much more documentation do people need?
Being the rational chap I am, I know that living like a monk is no fun. Smoking 3 or 4 cigarettes in a normal day chills me out immensely, doesn't cost that much, and probably does less damage to my lungs than the cycle up the busy road to college does.

Being the rational chap I am, I know that living like a monk is no fun. Smoking 3 or 4 cigarettes in a normal day chills me out immensely, doesn't cost that much, and probably does less damage to my lungs than the cycle up the busy road to college does.
Hmm. If forced to choose between the two, I'd still take the cycling. I prefer the smell of petrol to cigarettes, anyway.

The books sourced in this article


Vegetarian Times, April, 1999 by Norine Dworkin

I call biased propaganda. Eating generally less, getting less energy from food, usually leads to a longer lifespan (this has been independently studied with animals).

Besides, pure vegetarian diet isn't necessarily any more environmentally friendly - depending on where you live though. Where you might need extensive irrigation/greenhouse to grow human food (eg. soybeans) an animal can thrive off the land. Also, ruminating animals are able to survive on fodder that's too energy and nutrient poor for humans.

Generally we westerners do eat way too much meat, for our health and the health of the planet.

Albeit attributing obesity solely to meat is in my opinion misleading with all the video games, potato chips, soft drinks, beer and chocolate (assuming we're not talking veganism here) around :)

What do you think? should taxes be used as a form of social control? in what instances?

would a "fat tax" be okay? what about cigarette taxes? should gas be taxed more so people will consume less?


I think taxes should both be for revenue generation and also for social ends. ALso I dont agree wiht the obesession in the UK of "behaviour" taxes being revenue neutral (i.e. offset by cuts elsewhere). I see no reason why you can't kill two birds with one stone and have a tax that both aims to change behaviour and also generate revenue. Why not? If you can aim for a social goal and bolster national income in one go, that is just plain common sence.

As for the instances, that should be flexible to allow for changing situations. Right now, I think it should be to guide the way alcohol is consumed in our culture, but in the future it might be petrol that needs the same regulation. You need to have the scope and reach to be able to respond efficiently to social issues as they develop and shape taxation policy accordingly as a "velvet glove" method of managing both social and economic issues.

I daresay, that, in my opinion, taxes serve as a far more effective means of social control than open and regular restrictive policies. Things which have increasing costs to society should also carry a higher cost to the individual. You want to do crack? Fine by me, just make sure the consequences of your actions are paid for ahead of time.

Not only that, but decreased tax rates on goods that serve a uniquely positive role (education, healthcare, garden vegetables, new trees, stuff that is eco-friendly) should have lower taxes, or tax rebates.

In a civilized society, we cannot expect people to not be responsible for their actions, and by the same token, we should reward those who seek to be responsible for their own actions.

And I'd also encourage efforts to cut out high social cost behaviors, so, for example, I'd have low-to-no taxes on stuff to help people quit smoking. By the same token, healthy foods at the grocery store would have a far lower tax rate than McDonalds. It allows the market to operate, but with special, indirect incentives.

Not all. Only when you give a credit for some "desirable" behavior does it become social control. Initially, the income tax was just an income tax. It took a few years for the social control aspect to set in. Sales taxes aren't especially controlling, either. Except for tax-exempts, there aren't many deductions or credits that I can think of that apply to sales taxes.

Consumption taxes reward savings and investments relative to a flat income tax. All economic arguments for any type of consumption tax that I have seen lauds this fact and how it will alter people's behaviors.

.

#1: A misunderstanding does not spin make
#2: I'm beginging to find myself agreeing with you now, after thinking about it.

Fair enough. Apologies if I offended.

Being the rational chap I am, I know that living like a monk is no fun. Smoking 3 or 4 cigarettes in a normal day chills me out immensely, doesn't cost that much, and probably does less damage to my lungs than the cycle up the busy road to college does.

At first I thought, "he's saying that exercise hurts your lungs more than smoking does?" and my head almost exploded, until I re-read and actually SAW the word "busy" in your post. I missed it on the first read. I assume that means automobile pollution.

I don't see how not smoking means you live like a monk, but we all have our vices. As a singer, smoking would be like a sprinter playing mumbeldypeg on his thighs instead of a table, so I don't understand those who smoke. Never have. Even after trying it in college.

The biggest problem with taxes here in the US is that the politicians use them to support their pet project, or to punish those that they disagree with. For example, the people running for president at this time keep saying that the rich must pay their share of the taxes. The problem is, that every senator in the US is a millionaire, so everytime that they pass a law to make sure that the "rich" pay their share of the taxes will not affect them. Also remember, that the rich are the ones that contribute most of the money to the political machine, so who do you think they are going to protect once they get in office?

And using taxes in order to change behavior leads to nothing but trouble. Look at what happened during the prohibition days, it brought the mafia into controlling the liquor trade. The end result is that the mafia became entrenched into our society and in our political system. The same has been happening with the drug war. There is a demand, and someone will provide what people want. I have been invovled emergency services for 31 years, and have yet to see us winning the so called "war on drugs". Just make it legal and tax it. It is the same way that the government at the state and federal level control the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. People are going to smoke, drink and do drugs, so legalize them and tax them and make something from them. It will be more profitable for the government than what they are spending on fighting drugs at all levels.

Issues such as a flat tax and a national sales tax (VAT for our friends across the pond) have been brought up, never to be taken seriously by the politicians. Because part of that means that they cannot tinker with the tax code to make sure that the "rich" pay their share of the taxes.

Besides, pure vegetarian diet isn't necessarily any more environmentally friendly - depending on where you live though. Indeed, for example there's this research from cornell university (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html ) that show that for the New York area, it's better if people had 2 oz of meat per day in their diet, if they want to achieve minimum environmental impact. (Which is less than the current 5.8 oz, but more than none.)

And using taxes in order to change behavior leads to nothing but trouble. Look at what happened during the prohibition days, it brought the mafia into controlling the liquor trade. The end result is that the mafia became entrenched into our society and in our political system. The same has been happening with the drug war. And yet, neither has anything to do with taxes.
Taxing something isn't forbidding it, nor vice versa.

I don't see how not smoking means you live like a monk, but we all have our vices. As a singer, smoking would be like a sprinter playing mumbeldypeg on his thighs instead of a table, so I don't understand those who smoke. Never have. Even after trying it in college.
I sing too, depends what kind of voice you want, I guess.

Anyway, it's not for everyone, so fair enough.

Assuming you are right in your statement there, it probably has more to do with vegetarians being more 'health conscious' in general than the fact that they stopped eating meat. People who choose to be vegetarian generally watch what they are eating more carefully, read the ingredients in foods, and overall pay closer attention to what they consume. As far as I know, meat alone isn't bad for you, an unhealthy lifestyle is bad for you.

Health consciousness is definitely part of the equation, however the human body doesn't digest meat as efficiently as it does plants, so meat eaters don't get the full use of the nutrients they take in. Plus, cutting out meat usuallycuts out a lot of fat from one's diet(assuming the vegetarian doesn't become a 'potato chip vegetarian'), and a low-fat diet is a good idea. Finally, if you aren't eating organic meat, you're getting a whole lot of chemicals (bovine growth hormone, meat preservatives, etc.) that just aren't good for you.

Vegetarian Times, April, 1999 by Norine Dworkin

I call biased propaganda. Eating generally less, getting less energy from food, usually leads to a longer lifespan (this has been independently studied with animals).

Besides, pure vegetarian diet isn't necessarily any more environmentally friendly - depending on where you live though. Where you might need extensive irrigation/greenhouse to grow human food (eg. soybeans) an animal can thrive off the land. Also, ruminating animals are able to survive on fodder that's too energy and nutrient poor for humans.

Generally we westerners do eat way too much meat, for our health and the health of the planet.

Albeit attributing obesity solely to meat is in my opinion misleading with all the video games, potato chips, soft drinks, beer and chocolate (assuming we're not talking veganism here) around :)

You aren't unreasonable with most of your assertions, although its a bit much to call a researched article propaganda. but I digress, please look to the part that I have bolded.

I call bullshit on this. Animals, depending on species, take in 5-9 times their own body weight in energy before becoming edible. That means that every time you eat meat, you're only getting 1/9th to 1/5th the energy that the earth produced. That's just wasteful.

Additionally, something like 80% of food grown in the US goes to feeding meat-industry products. So even when agriculture is environmentally harmful, the meat industry makes the problem worse, not better.

You aren't unreasonable with most of your assertions, although its a bit much to call a researched article propaganda. but I digress, please look to the part that I have bolded.

I call bullshit on this. Animals, depending on species, take in 5-9 times their own body weight in energy before becoming edible. That means that every time you eat meat, you're only getting 1/9th to 1/5th the energy that the earth produced. That's just wasteful.Yes, but let's see you try to digest grass and twigs and all other lowgrade vegetation that can grow in places where you can't grow food-crops. But we can still eat the animals that can eat that stuff, and so make maximal use of area. (And even in the case of food crops, you're left with straw and other waste that can still be used by edible animals.)

Since I love to repeat myself, http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html

Taxes are a great tool to capture externalities of certain goods. In the case of drugs, taxes on recreational drugs can pay for the negative externalities of drug abuse. Taxing for the purpose of discouraging something which you personally dislike, is very wrong.

Obviously this calls into question just how you would price the negative externalities of any good or behavior, which is a very tricky subject filled with basic assumptions and sufficient scope for wildly different estimates based on political ideology, religious fervor, or favorite color.

Taxation of certain goods is equivalent to subsidizing goods which are not subject to those same taxes, not to mention those goods that are directly subsidized themselves (through wealth transfers or tax deductions).

The mortgage deduction is my favorite example of something the government should be keeping out of - homeownership does not carry positive externalities and can have substantial negative effects (a less mobile workforce, encouraging higher levels of financial leveraging, etc). The choice of an individual between renting and owning is not one the government should be influencing.

Capturing negative externalities is the only purpose for taxation of selected goods and services that is morally acceptable. Taxing a good because you just don't like it, or think it would be a way to squeeze money out of a certain demographic without raising substantial outcry from the general public, is morally and ethically reprehensible.

Why should single people pay for other people to be married? Why should everyone pay so Georgia can have a new high tech peanut warehouse? Taxing 'luxuries' because most voters do not own a boat, so if we make everyone with a boat pay 5% of its value, we can use that money to buy more votes from other people, what a great idea!

Whatever way you look at it, you are relying on a bunch of bureaucrats deciding how to spend your money to win a popularity contest. As the old quote goes "a government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul".