(June 30, 2014 at 11:39 am)Rhythm Wrote: Right, so perhaps instead of saying that human life is "sacred" - your constitution ought to say that? Eh?
I appreciate that you are attempting to explain tax to me, but I'm trying to express to you that these are a subset of taxes for which the term sin-tax is used - to denote the justifications for the tax (and public apathy towards the tax), historically and in the present. If the goal is to modify our behavior, we are being herded into a decidedly puritanical pen. The same justifications that you feel ought to bump up the price of gas does not, in fact, occur here - and there is great public antipathy towards any such proposal. It's a moment of pure, unabashed and naked cribbing of religious busy-bodyism, written into law.
"Tax the blackjack table- that stuff is "bad" and those people can't complain, we're doing it for their own good - don't touch my gasoline tank!"
Why don;t we see proposals to tax gasoline at an immense rate while subsidizing tobacco as a means of carbon sequestration?
Here we don't use the words 'Sin tax', only as a metaphor. These taxes are officially called Special Consumption Taxes (IEC's in my language, they all over the european union), even countries like sweden where a vast majority are atheists have these taxes. I do agree with you that some taxes denote a high level of puritanism and there are contradictions, the example you gave comparing blackjack and gasoline was good. This doesn't mean this kind of tax needs to go, when there is cons of an activity, taxes will be higher, this is the way it works. One of the main reasons for smoking tax is increased medical costs, specially here that healthcare is 'free' most people dislike the fact they are paying for smokers' healthcare.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you