Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
Thanks Tree7Thanks

Thread: Phillys soda tax isnt the windfall some had hoped for

  1. #21
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,702
    Thanks
    1357

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    The op already defies your comments, and the op is what you were discussing as a hypothetical but in practise results.
    Again you offer nothing but grunt. You're replying to a comment that refers to standard modern economics. Everything stated is just basic knowledge. The sin tax is a Pigovian tax (i.e. its about internalising externalities). It is the case that any negative effects can be easily remedied (with progressivity elsewhere required, given equity and efficiency criteria must be both considered)

    Bottom line, this serves to tax the poor disproportionate, and the money is not earmarked as you recommended, it was intended as a fund raising of taxes...

    The biggest counter to your comment is how reality defies it.
    Certainly the case that these taxes should be earmarked. You're attacking me because it isn't? Golly gosh, have a word with yourself

  2. #22
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,461
    Thanks
    2128

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Again you offer nothing but grunt. You're replying to a comment that refers to standard modern economics. Everything stated is just basic knowledge. The sin tax is a Pigovian tax (i.e. its about internalising externalities). It is the case that any negative effects can be easily remedied (with progressivity elsewhere required, given equity and efficiency criteria must be both considered)


    Certainly the case that these taxes should be earmarked. You're attacking me because it isn't? Golly gosh, have a word with yourself
    Well, in theory you are right, in practice... It's hurting the poor AND not raising the money.

    What more is there to say?

  3. #23
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,702
    Thanks
    1357

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Well, in theory you are right, in practice...
    There is no theory or practice distinction. The Pigovian Tax, after all, just refers to a supply side shift. You'd have to deny the law of demand. Good luck!

    It's hurting the poor AND not raising the money.
    It of course is the case that sin taxes can be abused. However, that is a different issue. We see more abuse with indirect taxes, given politician delight in keeping direct taxes down (despite the increased regressivity)

    What more is there to say?
    Given you haven't said one relevant comment to my posts, I'd suggest: naff all!

  4. #24
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,461
    Thanks
    2128

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    There is no theory or practice distinction. The Pigovian Tax, after all, just refers to a supply side shift. You'd have to deny the law of demand. Good luck!


    It of course is the case that sin taxes can be abused. However, that is a different issue. We see more abuse with indirect taxes, given politician delight in keeping direct taxes down (despite the increased regressivity)


    Given you haven't said one relevant comment to my posts, I'd suggest: naff all!
    Oh, so you were having an irrelevant conversation with yourself, not about the thread topic.

  5. #25
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,702
    Thanks
    1357

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Oh, so you were having an irrelevant conversation with yourself, not about the thread topic.
    I was replying to an inaccurate comment. You've come in with complete fluff. Do one

  6. #26
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    59,939
    Thanks
    32174

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Seems to me that if the tax had it's intended effect, then no taxes would be collected, since people would have been persuaded to stop drinking soda.

    Isn't that how sin taxes are supposed to work?
    Yep. Anyone expecting a big windfall out of a sin tax isn't interested in the real motivation of the tax.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    59,939
    Thanks
    32174

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    It's hurting the poor
    Not sure how not drinking soda harms anyone. Subsidizing the cost of soda would harm people.

  8. #28
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,461
    Thanks
    2128

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Not sure how not drinking soda harms anyone. Subsidizing the cost of soda would harm people.
    Well, harms from soda:
    - sugar in the form of corn syrup
    - or aspartame
    - the acids aren't healthy

    Insert caveats.

    Corn is subsidized... Which makes corn syrup, which makes most soda syrups. Therefore soda is indirectly subsidized.

  9. #29
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    40,785
    Thanks
    25440

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    So... according to the article, the tax brought in 85% of the original expected revenue, which funds community schools, prekindergarten programs, recreation centers, libraries and parks.

    That's pretty damned successful IMO.

  10. #30
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,461
    Thanks
    2128

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    So... according to the article, the tax brought in 85% of the original expected revenue, which funds community schools, prekindergarten programs, recreation centers, libraries and parks.

    That's pretty damned successful IMO.
    Yes, you're right, the poor haven't paid their fair share and you managed to get at least 85% of what they should have paid.

    If only 15% more had opted for sin instead of things like rent / utilities then the schools would have their funding.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11th December 2014, 09:43 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 6th July 2012, 12:56 PM
  3. Tea Party Less Effective than they had Hoped
    By Burning Giraffe in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10th March 2010, 12:34 PM
  4. Windfall Tax this liberals:
    By Libre in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 18th May 2008, 09:42 AM
  5. Windfall Profits Tax on Oil
    By Stinger in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 6th May 2008, 02:16 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed