This thread was made before, but some idiot bumplocked it.
How does Holla Forums feel about sin taxes? Some say that they're regressive because the poor are more likely to smoke / drink / consume lots of sugar / etc, but until the revolution comes, taxing unhealthy and luxury items is one way that the state can encourage healthier living and draw in more money. Even in a state with appropriate corporate taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, etc, regulating and taxing "wicked" things is better than outright banning them or just allowing them to operate without checks and balances. It brings in steady revenue too. In the United States, Nevadan brothel owners aren't really taxed. They actually lobbied to BE taxed and state legislature declined. Cannabis dispensaries are taxed, and now they're celebrated, even by conservatives, because their revenue helps fund a lot of necessary programs.
Under capitalism they're regressive, but any future socialist state should try to push for a strong moral conduct among its populace, similar to the Mormons (who were originally communist BTW).
Gtfo spooked morons
Outside of banning substances (like the Progressives who banned alcohol to poor success) how do you suggest doing so, then? Education alone isn't enough. Cultural shifts are difficult unless there's a religious objection IMO (notice how most Buddhists and Muslims don't drink)
Regressive and ineffective. If we were to tax the most unhealthy thing in burgerland, fast food, it wouldn't stop many from eating cheap burgers and sugar water. The same applies with any sort of drug, inclusing booze, and possibly hookers though my knowledge of that is lacking.
Soviet Union basically financed itself with vodka taxes, they're okay by me.
It wouldn't stop it completely, but it may encourage people to eat less burgers, drink less sugar water, and offset the costs associated with overconsumption of fast food… If someone goes into debt or drops below the poverty line due to how much soda they drink, then they probably have mental health issues
Carbon tax and dividend makes sense.
Sin taxes on booze are evil.
t. british uni student.
How about a progressive tax instead. Then you wouldn't need this bullshit. Clearly you're just looking for a way to punish "degeneracy"
good tobacco should be taxed out of existence
the poor obviously
In a socialist society, if "tax" was necessary it would make the most sense to just put a tax on production, i.e. the organizing/coordinating body/ies automatically get a certain amount of useful resources. Since there's no money, this is finished products. I don't know what purpose a bureaucratic management organization would have for booze, weed, or prostitution services since its members could just get those things like everyone else. The "tax" you'd get more use out of is for things like vehicles and buildings.
Why is this a task of the state? Who decided we have a duty to be healthy?
I know many Muslims; not a single one of them doesn't drink.
Don't see any problem with them. It's a simple and effective way to intervene in both the economy and social indicators without being in direct control of the related industries. The power to tax is the power to destroy and all that jazz.
No, there should not be sin taxes. For one there is no moral reason for people not to drink that is even kind of based in reality. Two, there is no need for the state to be bigger or for the economy to be handled by the government so awkwardly. Do you even into accelerationism?