We are finally through fighting the Spanish-American war!

[trumptman]

Feds give up (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:re uters.com:20060525:MTFH67040_2006-05-25_17-39-07_N25148972&symbol=T.N&rpc=44)

The telecommunications industry hailed the decision in the long-fought battle to kill a 1898 law, established as a luxury tax on wealthy Americans who owned telephones and to help finance costs of waging the Spanish-American war.

This is probably the most cited example of the fact that once the government starts taxing something, it never stops.

Obviously the Spanish-American war ended quite a while ago, but the real issue, the desire for the revenue, never did go away.

There are numerous current and future issues involving similar taxes. The one I most often encounter relates to states that levy higher gas taxes in an attempt to lower the use of gasoline and reduce the amount of pollution as well. When the programs prove effective, the amount of gas purchased is lowered, the types of vehicles purchased is altered, and hopefully there is less pollution as well, we hear about pilot programs involving GPS responders that track the where you drive and how many miles.

Some people obviously are outraged by the privacy issues regarding their driving and they have a good point. However the point I would like to bring up in this thread is taxation as behavior modification. We see played out in smoking, junk food, pollution, etc. Often we see the government achieves a certain result (or perhaps doesn't) and instead of being able to celebrate a result, we see an every increasing justification to intrude into our lives.

Is there a way to use taxation for behavior modification yet not have the government seek to become intrusive in either new or deeper ways later to somehow sustain the revenue? If there isn't a solution should we give up on taxation as behavior modification?

Nick

[curiousuburb]

The government (in terms of health care costs) would clearly benefit in the long term if smoking were banned.

The same government rakes in mucho cash from taxing cigarettes rather than banning them or taxing them to ridiculous extremes (which they argue - correctly - would lead to an increase in smuggling).

Welcome to the War on Drugs.

If you're not serious about stopping the problem, just tax it.

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by curiousuburb
The government (in terms of health care costs) would clearly benefit in the long term if smoking were banned.
That assumes that banning cigarettes will have a significant effect on their use. A reasonable looking assumption, but not always true. As you mention, it would likely result in illegal cigarette market; like how the illegalization of pot or cocaine has lead to an illegal drugs market.


In order to use law as a means of modifying behavior, there needs to be proof of the impact. We have seen, with certain taxes, an impact; with others we have not. The temperance movement didn't stop alcohol, because the majority of the nation didn't agree with it. A certain population disagrees with the premise of the war on drugs, and therefor continue to get high illegally. I think in order to have an impact, the public needs to acknowledge and agree with the premise of the law. The public basically needs to sign off on it. If as a nation, we consciously do not want to use as much oil, a tax might help in discouraging use. If we still want to guzzle gas by the barrel, we'll find the money to cover the taxes; or build some 11 foot ladders over the barriers.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by curiousuburb
The government (in terms of health care costs) would clearly benefit in the long term if smoking were banned.

Been there. Done that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
[BThis is probably the most cited example of the fact that once the government starts taxing something, it never stops.[/B] Except that right now we have exacty the opposite problem, as the Republicans continue to extend temporary tax cuts and raise the debt limit.

[addabox]

Sorry for the OT discourse, but:

I don't think the comparisons of cigarettes to drugs and alcohol are well founded.

Drugs and alcohol are intoxicants, and the history of humanity makes clear that people really, really like to get high. Attempting to prevent them from getting high doesn't work, because drugs and alcohol offer such a positive "cost/benefit" ratio-- that is, most people realize that these substances, used in moderation, have little in the way of negative effects, so the moral and legal arguments about the evils of intoxication don't get much traction, stacked up against the very obvious upside of intoxication itself.

Tobacco, on the other hand, doesn't offer much in the way of pleasurable psychotropic effects, is extraordinarily addictive, and has disastrous health effects. The only "payoff" it provides is the relief from the symptoms of withdrawal that consumption affords, once you are addicted.

Given what we know about the severe risks of smoking and the lack of a positive feedback loop in the early stages of use, the only real reason to start is ease of access and ubiquity of positive "cultural" cues (largely the doing of the tobacco companies themselves via advertising and various forms of "product placement" dating back to WWII).

The positive cultural cue stuff has been on the wain for a while as awareness of the medical realities have taken root, but ease of access remains.

If cigarettes were banned outright, there would no doubt spring up a black market to service people who are already addicted, but the rate of adoption would plummet-- leading to the general cessation of smoking within a generation.

Think about it-- how many people are going to go through all the trouble to circumnavigate prohibition of cigarettes to start smoking?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Explain, exactly, how alcohol is analogous to tobacco smoke. I'm particularly interested in where you feel the analogy breaks down. What are your thoughts on this?

Well, the analogy was about government prohibition of some particular activity and the results it created. It is a data point. A historical reference point with at least some relevance to the discussion of the government banning smoking.

As to the specifics of the two and how they compare...you'd probably start looking at affects on health (direct and indirect)...affects on behavior...etc.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
how many people are going to go through all the trouble to circumnavigate prohibition of cigarettes to start smoking?

Kids apparently do it.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Kids apparently do it.

Getting your hands on the cigarettes that are sold at every convenience and grocery store in the country is quite a different matter from getting your hands on cigarettes that are illegal and can only be obtained through a black market.

And before you say "Kids do that with marijuana", please read my previous post.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
Getting your hands on the cigarettes that are sold at every convenience and grocery store in the country is quite a different matter from getting your hands on cigarettes that are illegal and can only be obtained through a black market.

And before you say "Kids do that with marijuana", please read my previous post.

OK.

You're right.

Ban them.

Let's see what happens next.

[SpcMs]

I'm sorry, but I have the impression you try to link government intrusion into our privacy with taxes, and than argue that taxes are bad because government intrusion is bad. However somehow I didn't get the connection between taxes and governement intrusion, except for some vague GPS tracking system you mention and that I have never heard of...? :???:

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
OK.

You're right.

Ban them.

Let's see what happens next.

Ok, but when I start slapping them out of people's mouths, I'm going to tell them you gave me permission....

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
Ok, but when I start slapping them out of people's mouths, I'm going to tell them you gave me permission....

Not mine. You'll have to handle the consequences of that on your own. Sorry. ;)