14-08-2004 15:16									#151
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You want to solve the health problems of tobacco? Ban it.

And expand the Drug War? No thanks.

	14-08-2004 15:59									#152
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ramo People don't HAVE to have a taxable income to live. Come on Kuci, I've already refuted that argument.

I don't smoke, I earn an income. My quality of life is not impinged by the tax on smoking, it is impinged by income tax in a big way.

If all people in the US chose not to smoke* their quality of life would be effected in a positive way through reduced health problems. Comparatively, if all people in the world decided to earn to the threshold of income tax and not above they are drastically reducing their quality of life.

Your argument is not holding weight with me as the "they don't need to have X" is a benefit in the smokers example, a disadvantage in the income earners case.



* the problem I see with sin taxes is it is often a tax on an addictive substance

	14-08-2004 22:42									#153
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: No one cares about brand name recognition. All people care about is convenience. They go to the closest easiest store. Some people go to a cheaper one about a block away maybe, but only if they can save atleast $5 or so. Most people don't even care about saving 5 bucks.

actually they do, which is why when there is two gas stations on the same intersection with different prices, the one with the higher price still gets lots of business.

	14-08-2004 22:55									#154
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia actually they do, which is why when there is two gas stations on the same intersection with different prices, the one with the higher price still gets lots of business.

Some people do care. I would like to know whe these people are so that I can make some business deals with them. Actually, people pay the higher price usually because you never have to wait for a pump when you pay more.

	15-08-2004 00:42									#155
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Some people do care. I would like to know whe these people are so that I can make some business deals with them. Actually, people pay the higher price usually because you never have to wait for a pump when you pay more.

thats right, some people care, but most dont. they dont make decisions based soley on prices. brand differentiation, a difference of a few dollars per fillup, all factor into going to the more expensive place. 'chevron with techron' and its good advertising blitz have led people to believe that chevron gas is better for your engines and therefore they can charge more money for the gallon and will still get lots of business. instead of going to the cheaper shell, people went in near same numbers to the more expensive chevron.

and there was never a problem with not enough spots in each station.

	15-08-2004 01:06									#156
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia and there was never a problem with not enough spots in each station.

Holy Cow! Do you buy gas? There's always trouble getting a spot at the cheap stations.

	15-08-2004 23:23									#157
	Tired of ads?

quote: Holy Cow! Do you buy gas? There's always trouble getting a spot at the cheap stations.

yep, and i never have to wait, even though i drive all the way across town to get to the cheapest gas station.

	15-08-2004 23:31									#158
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia yep, and i never have to wait, even though i drive all the way across town to get to the cheapest gas station.

Well that's just strange.

	15-08-2004 23:56									#159
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

arco by 92 in san mateo is notorious for this.

	16-08-2004 00:05									#160
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

We have a place here in Fresno just on the outscirts. There's two stations. One is Arco, and the other is Chevron I think. The Arco is loaded to the hilt, but people still go tho the other one which is more expensive, because they don't want to wait for a spot.

	16-08-2004 01:23									#161
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I don't smoke, I earn an income. My quality of life is not impinged by the tax on smoking, it is impinged by income tax in a big way.

So do you never drink? Or are you an alcoholic?

quote: If all people in the US chose not to smoke* their quality of life would be effected in a positive way through reduced health problems.

As you pointed out, that's not going to happen. Even if the taxes were pushed high enough such that tobacco would become unaffordable, only a black market would be created, leading to a far more coercive situation (since workers', consumers', and competitors' rights wouldn't be protected).

Ultimately, the poor, who have less money to spend, are disproportionately hurt by sin taxes. Thus, they're more coercive than income taxes.

quote: Your argument is not holding weight with me as the "they don't need to have X" is a benefit in the smokers example, a disadvantage in the income earners case.

But we were discussing vital necessity. If something vital needs to be taxed for it qualify as coercion, neither tax is coercive.

	16-08-2004 02:04									#162
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't disagree with the fact that sin taxes penalise a poor person who smokes over the rich person who smokes, what I am saying is that I simply don't care that about the penalising nature of the tax - except if you want to consider that the vices are socially induced and addictive.

My point to you is that I consider personal incomes far far more important than smoke or drink, and so I don't think the comparison is really relevent between the two. You are trying to go for a quantised either/or consideration of coerciveness based on whether they are/are not vital. Its not like that, there are degrees of magnitude and the tax on income fundamentally effects your personal wealth, a tax on drinking or smoking does not. Quitting smoking or drinking merely means you quit smoking or drinking; quitting working for an income means you lose the ability to spend money on nearly all the things you want to do. If you want to save money, you quit smoking or drinking, you don't quit your job.

	16-08-2004 02:16									#163
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I was using Kuci's defintion of coercion, not mine.

My definition of coercion has to do with how much the tax constrains the actions of people (with a reasonable ordering of freedoms, i.e. being able to eat as more important than being able to have a private jet, etc.). And when the tax levies are comparable, sin taxes certainly are more coercive than income taxes.

	16-08-2004 02:22									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

You consider smoking and drinking more important than earning income to do things that aren't covered by sin taxes?

	16-08-2004 02:24									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The simple fact is that taxes on tobacco and alcohol disproportionately hurt the people who can't afford to pay very much in taxes.

	16-08-2004 02:25									#166
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes, but do you consider being able to smoke and drink more important than other activities that also require you to have an income to take part in them?

	16-08-2004 02:27									#167
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

That's irrelevant.

	16-08-2004 02:37									#168
	Increase Your PM Length

Why? I think it very relevent if you are drawing a comparison between income taxes and sin taxes.

	16-08-2004 02:40									#169
	Suffering from ads?

It's irrelevant to my definition of coercion.

	16-08-2004 02:44									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

You are really confusing me now.

Sin taxes are coercive because they constrain people from smoking and drinking, right? But you say being constrained in buying or spending on non-sin tax items and activities is irrelevant, even though that constraint arises from the income tax?

	16-08-2004 02:49									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Sin taxes are coercive because they take away money from people who smoke and drink.

	16-08-2004 03:12									#172
	Got spare money?

But how does that lead to the conclusion that "sin taxes certainly are more coercive than income taxes".

Sorry to keep repeating myself here, but you really haven't answered the question that is central to your claim.

	16-08-2004 03:20									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Again, because they disproportionately take away money from the poor. Income taxes take away money from people who could more easily afford to be taxed.

	16-08-2004 03:37									#174
	Inflate your Upload Space

People working is something we consider a good thing, so we should want to tax it less, as opposed to people getting drunk or smoking, which is something we wish to discourage so we tax it more.

	16-08-2004 03:54									#175
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Barinthus And expand the Drug War? No thanks.

I seriously doubt that banning tobacco would have effects like those of meth now and alcohol in times past. More like pot maybe, but then I doubt people would be going out of their way to seek a substance that lacks a high.

Speaking only on my personal experience I would be able to quit easily were they not available so readily. As a smoker I say ban the stuff if it is so bad.

	16-08-2004 04:51									#176
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Ultimately, the poor, who have less money to spend, are disproportionately hurt by sin taxes. Thus, they're more coercive than income taxes.

Non sequiter, and it's NOT coercive, because the poor don't have to be hurt at all by the sin taxes if they don't want to.

	16-08-2004 04:58									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Ultimately, the poor, who have less money to spend, are disproportionately hurt by sin taxes. Thus, they're more coercive than income taxes. Non sequiter, and it's NOT coercive, because the poor don't have to be hurt at all by the sin taxes if they don't want to.

Wrong. The tax hurts the consumers of the goods no matter which decision they make. I've already explained that to you. Why don't you address my explaination?

	16-08-2004 05:12									#178
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Yes, it hurts the consumers of the goods. However, you aren't coerced into being a consumer of the good.

Anyway, taxes are all "coercive", the point is to collect them in the least damaging (to the economy and society as a whole; not least coercive) way possible.

	16-08-2004 05:18									#179
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Yes, it hurts the consumers of the goods. However, you aren't coerced into being a consumer of the good.

That depends on how much utility you get from the good and your income.

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Anyway, taxes are all "coercive", the point is to collect them in the least damaging (to the economy and society as a whole; not least coercive) way possible.

No. The point is to make them fair.

	16-08-2004 05:21									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: That depends on how much utility you get from the good and your income.

It's a sin tax. There is NO element of coercion in buying a luxury. At least SOME can be argued for buying necessities.

quote: No. The point is to make them fair.

That's impossible, because it's only fair to have a flat tax. It's not fair to tax some people at a greater proportion of their income than others.

However, a flat % tax would make it impossible for the government to collect the income it needs (at least, without causing enormous economic strain). Thus, a progressive tax is better, because it does less damage