Lifestyle Taxation

[Reuben]

Taxation can follow a number of rationales. It can be based on the ability to pay - ie taxation on income. It can be used to balance out negative externalities - costs which are associated with the production and consumption of particular commodities but which accrue to society as a whole.


However what I find particularly objectionable is the way tax is used to penalise who make certain legitimate lifestyle choices and to force those people to subsidise the rest of society.

This is particularly the case with regard to the British smoking tax. In one sense, some level of taxation on smoking is entirely reasonable. In a system which provides public health care, certain costs associated with smoking do accrue to society as a whole and therefore it is reasonable to expect smokers to pay some kind of taxation. However the amount taken off smokers in tax is completely disproportionate to the costs of smoking to the health care system . Smoking is estimated to cost the public healthcare system £1.5 billion per year, and yet smoking tax raises $7 billion. In effect, the minority who smoke are expected to subsidise every man woman and child in Britain by nearly £100 each. What makes this worse is that the propensity to smoke tends to correlate negatively with income - and so the smoking tax is essentially a tax on the poor.

Some might argue that it is a good thing anyway since it discourages people from smoking. There are two problems with this argument. Firstly, tobacco has what economists call a very low price elasticity of demand . What this means is tht as prices rise the amount that people consume changes very little, and so a high smoking tax is a very poor means of gettign people to smoke ltss or stop. <pre importantly it is not a the business of government to force people to live healthy lifestyles. Everyday people make decisions about how far they wish to balance their long term health against the desire for pleasure. You might choose a choocolate bar instead of an apple. This is not a a wrong decision or a right decision, but simply a matter of preference.

In short the absurdly high tax on smoking represents a tazx on the poor and the economic scamming of the smoking minority by the non-smoking majority.

[praxis1966]

I can&#39;t say that I disagree with you, Rueb. Granted, I live in the U&#036; and don&#39;t think I&#39;ve actually researched the issue as much as you obviously have, but this has been my sentiment for quite some time. We sort of have the same situation here, though.

Smoking bans in pubs, bars, or resturaunts that do more than 5% of their business in food. Inordinant taxes on cigarettes as well. I kind of feel the same way about the alcohol situation here, as well. Only 200 hard liquor liscenses in the whole county, can&#39;t open an establisment that serves alcohol for on site consumption within 1000 feet of a church or school (nevermind that most people do their drinking at night when neither are in session), over-zealous enforcement of DUI laws with no readily available alternative forms of transport, special taxation above VAT, not to mention the guilt and stigma one suffers from the sober world that would never be present in any other country.

You&#39;re right, though. Seems like the landed elites are intent are punishing the poor for being poor, since smoking and drinking are only considered vices if you&#39;re too poor to afford the expensive stuff (like Johnny Walker Blue and Benson & Hedges).

[Vanguard1917]

The bottom line is that our political elites do not believe that grown men and women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not they want to smoke/go to a public place where people smoke/work in a public place where people smoke, etc.

In other words, people apparently can&#39;t decide for themselves how to run their everyday lives. This attitude is being extended with regard to activities other than smoking: e.g. drinking alcohol and eating so-called junk food.

It&#39;s worth noting that the liberal-left has played an instrumental role in encouraging such patronising attitudes - for example, by calling for greater taxes on tobacco and by demonising fast food outlets.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:50 pm
It&#39;s worth noting that the liberal-left has played an instrumental role in encouraging such patronising attitudes - for example, by calling for greater taxes on tobacco and by demonising fast food outlets.
Don&#39;t forget the most vocal opponents of "binge drinking culture" are liberals and of course the primary supporters of the public smoking ban.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Vanguard
and by demonising fast food outlets.

Haha, because fast-food outlets just have soooooo much going for them... right.

Demeaning low-paying service jobs for all&#33;

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+December 09, 2007 05:16 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta &#064; December 09, 2007 05:16 pm)
Vanguard
and by demonising fast food outlets.

Haha, because fast-food outlets just have soooooo much going for them... right.

Demeaning low-paying service jobs for all&#33;[/b]
That&#39;s a separate critique. Most people who demonise fast-food outlets focus on the nature of the product being sold (i.e. &#39;junk food&#39;), not workers&#39; exploitation. Indeed, when they do mention low wages and poor working conditions, they do so merely as a means to add more weight to their crusade against &#39;fast food corporayshuns&#39;, rather than standing up for workers&#39; struggle itself.

In reality, anti-McDonald&#39;s food snobs have much more in common with anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigners than anything else. They want to shut down fast food stores in the same way that the anti-smoking brigade wants to shut down tobacco production and the anti-drinking brigade wants greater restrictions on bars and clubs. In the end, their &#39;activism&#39; is really just a stick with which to beat the unrefined masses for their irresponsible lifestyles, and a moral crusade to save the masses from themselves.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:50 pm
It&#39;s worth noting that the liberal-left has played an instrumental role in encouraging such patronising attitudes - for example, by calling for greater taxes on tobacco and by demonising fast food outlets.
I couldn&#39;t agree with you more Vanguard. In fact I have found a sharp starin of purtianism existing not only on the liberal left but on the proper left.

And you are right in your more recent post. Many left-liberal attacks on fast food do not simply focus upon the relations of production but on the provision of a product which allows consumers to legitimately prioritise enjoyment and low cost over nutritional value.


And I am speaking as somebody who has worked in low paid fast food jobs.

[Vanguard1917]

I couldn&#39;t agree with you more Vanguard. In fact I have found a sharp starin of purtianism existing not only on the liberal left but on the proper left.

Absolutely. And this has given the green light to our political rulers to intervene in our lives in ways that they would never have imagined possible in the past. Western governments have in recent years taken upon themselves the task of micro-managing almost every aspect of people&#39;s daily lives - with next to no opposition from the left.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The bottom line is that our political elites do not believe that grown men and women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not they want to smoke/go to a public place where people smoke/work in a public place where people smoke, etc.
This particular point is bullshit. It&#39;s like the stance adopted by the employers (and regrettably, by the government and courts too in the 19th century) that employment is a completely voluntary social agreement based on mutual consent. It completely neglects the fact that, under capitalism, people are coerced into working wherever they can get a job by the threat of poverty and starvation. The popularity of this view (the view that work is an agreement based on mutual consent) among judges in the 19th century resulted in an extremely anti-plaintiff stance regarding employer&#39;s liability cases; whenever a worker tried to claim compensation for injuries he or she had suffered due to an unsafe workplace or system of work, the judges simply concluded that the worker had voluntarily assumed the risk and therefore had no legitimate claim. It is basically the same point you are making; that workers are completely free to choose where they do and do not work, and thus if workers are working in a dangerous (eg smoke-filled) environment, they must have considered and voluntarily accepted that risk. It is a view that is disregarded by even the most bourgeois judges today.

[Lynx]

Opposed to tax grab, support smoking ban.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:20 am

The bottom line is that our political elites do not believe that grown men and women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not they want to smoke/go to a public place where people smoke/work in a public place where people smoke, etc.
This particular point is bullshit. It&#39;s like the stance adopted by the employers (and regrettably, by the government and courts too in the 19th century) that employment is a completely voluntary social agreement based on mutual consent. It completely neglects the fact that, under capitalism, people are coerced into working wherever they can get a job by the threat of poverty and starvation. The popularity of this view (the view that work is an agreement based on mutual consent) among judges in the 19th century resulted in an extremely anti-plaintiff stance regarding employer&#39;s liability cases; whenever a worker tried to claim compensation for injuries he or she had suffered due to an unsafe workplace or system of work, the judges simply concluded that the worker had voluntarily assumed the risk and therefore had no legitimate claim.
My point is that bar/restaurant workers should be free to decide for themselves whether or not they can work in an environment where people smoke.

These workers did not exactly take to the streets calling for a ban on smoking. The ban came directly from above: the state.


It is basically the same point you are making; that workers are completely free to choose where they do and do not work, and thus if workers are working in a dangerous (eg smoke-filled) environment, they must have considered and voluntarily accepted that risk. It is a view that is disregarded by even the most bourgeois judges today.

A &#39;smoke-filled&#39; bar is not a &#39;dangerous environment&#39;. The health risks associated with passive smoking are small. There is no evidence that bar workers&#39; health is affected (in any significant way) as a result of second-hand smoke.

Of course, many non-smokers may find cigarette smoke irritating. But if you&#39;re easily irritated by a bit of cigarette smoke (or by the other things which grown-ups like to do when they drink - shout, swear, etc.), then you&#39;re probably not fit to work in a bar.