Talk:Sin tax

message: This article needs to be expanded, however, first the issue of how some jurisdictions levy takes on illicit drug sales needs to be clarified. (Patrick 09:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I suggest that this article be merged with Pigovian tax, since sin tax is essentially a subset of it. Beno1000 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's not the case. Sin taxes need not involve any negative externality. See this economist article for an example of that usage of the phrase. I've restored the article for now so we can discuss this further. William Pietri (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The referred article to is unreadable for non-payers, but I can't see any differences in definition in this article except for the negative connotations that the term "sin tax" implies. The only question seems to be if things considered socially-proscribed goods imply a social cost or not. The examples cited (alcohol, tobacco and gambling) certainly does. In general this article seems to only serve the purpose of critizising sumptuary taxes without providing a definition or balanced views. I support merge. Joakimlundborg (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Why isn't the sin tax by Obama mentioned? The one on cigarettes and alcohol. I was watching it on CNN. I think it should be mentioned. 71.210.126.225 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent "Sin Tax"

message: Sin tax is not a euphemism for sumptuary tax (in fact it makes it sound worse) nor is it a tax against 'proscribed' goods.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.239.199 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Intro

message: An additional opposition I've heard is that proponents for sin taxes tend to double count the benefits. A tax on cigarettes, for example, would be described as both raising money and stopping the harmful behavior of smoking. However, it's impossible to do a good job of accomplishing both goals simultaneously, as you can only succeed at one by failing at the other. If the tax is raising a lot of money, it means that people are still consuming a lot of cigarettes. If lots of people are quitting smoking, they're no longer paying the tax. It's not technically untrue, but it's still dishonest to describe such a policy as accomplishing two separate goals when it will inevitably be ineffective at one of them. Could something like this be added to the article?
168.16.132.59 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It only makes sense to do so if someone can find a reputable and notable source that gives this conclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox; our job is to present the facts, not to draw our own conclusions from them (like Fox News does.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.101.34 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Obviously if the tax is high enough it could achieve both, if you raised taxes by 10% and cut smoking by 5% then it's plain to see that tax revenues are up and smoking is down, accomplishing both goals at the same time. Poor understanding of basic accounting and a handful of anti-tax rhetoric isn't a good basis for trying to score a point on wikipedia. Additionally, the fact that it's possible to double-count effects, doesn't mean that anyone is actually doing it. If you provided a reliable link showing that governments actually do this then you'd have a worthwhile point to make.--122.19.143.240 (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition

message: These are clearly written by someone in opposition to Sin taxes...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.132.156 (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: The things are not (necessarily) levied on sinful things. Recreational drinking and smoking is not sinful. A more fitting name would be "fun tax" (or, albeit the words are not usually used this way, "luxury tax"): they are levied on things that are done for fun and not necessary for in upkeep of natural functions. That's it. In addition, some of these consumptions are such that society might think they should be held within limits. That's it, but that doesn't make them sinful either. Unless, of course, you follow the Puritan teachings that fun be sin.
If the things really were sins and the fact that they are were the reason for this measure - well, states have been known to use two methods in that case. One is tolerance (is there an adultery tax, anywhere?) The other is seeking to eradicate them with the full force of penal law. Just levying a tax would be very unusual.
Now for the actual question: Where does the name "sin tax" come from? Is it actually used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A60:15B0:A601:A805:71F9:1E27:423E (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Substituted at 06:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment