Sin tax

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

(*GROAN*... i kinda find displays like this a little embarrassing, but anyway)

Am I the only one who doesn't see the immediate harm in "sin taxes"? (i.e. taxing certain "unessential" leisure/luxury products to help out with funding for state or federal programs). Obviously, i feel the tax should be tiny in comparison to the mean value of the product that's the subject of the tax, granted. But are there any ethical issues with such taxes that I'm missing? (I don't know if I completely buy the whole "they're taxing things that only poor people buy!" argument that I've heard before)

Anyway, in regards to the link above, as someone who appreciates coffee, there's nothing more unessential than paying over $3 for a preened gourmet coffee beverage, and I can't see how an extra dime tax on that is going to cause massive turmoil.

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 8 September 2003 19:05 (twenty-one years ago)

(what's ironic about this is that Starbucks actually donates a lot of money to local charities anyway -- granted, for tax reasons. Is this just an issue that they don't want to be forced to support a cause that's not their choosing?)

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 8 September 2003 19:07 (twenty-one years ago)

See, this is the sort of silliness that happens when you don't have an income tax.

― Chris P (Chris P), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 02:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, you know, it's fun and keeps us in the news, I guess.

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 02:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I have to say, it's pretty weak compared to the fun happening in the state below us.

― Chris P (Chris P), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 03:24 (twenty-one years ago)

well, i don't want to get a heart attack from TOO much fun at my tender old age.

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 03:29 (twenty-one years ago)

fourteen years pass...

Lawmakers in Virginia want to charge people $20 in order to watch online porn and other content the state deems obscene. Lawmakers say the $20 will be used to help combat human trafficking.

Virginia House Bill No. 1592, known as “The Human Trafficking Prevention Act” was introduced Jan. 19 and proposes making it, “unlawful for any person to distribute or sell any product that makes content accessible on the Internet unless the product possesses an operating digital content blocking capability that renders obscene content, including obscene items, obscene performances, or obscene exhibitions, inaccessible.”

In order to get “obscene content” unlocked, people in Virginia would have to pay $20 to the Virginia Prevention of Human Trafficking Victim Fund. The bill does not identify if the $20 would be a one-time fee or an annual fee. The bill has not been voted on yet. The bill also does not explain how the funds will be used to battle human trafficking.

http://www.chron.com/national/article/Virginia-proposes-charging-20-to-watch-porn-12536077.php

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 30 January 2018 18:45 (seven years ago)

One time, annual or each time.

― Alderweireld Horses (darraghmac), Tuesday, 30 January 2018 19:29 (seven years ago)

I don't see how technologically this would work

― sarahell, Tuesday, 30 January 2018 19:47 (seven years ago)

good luck w that, Virginia

― johnny crunch, Tuesday, 30 January 2018 20:05 (seven years ago)

it's clearly PR bullshit by the puritans

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 30 January 2018 22:28 (seven years ago)

well now virginia's got a mess on their hands

― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 30 January 2018 22:48 (seven years ago)

if they don't look out, they might end up with egg in their face

― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 30 January 2018 22:48 (seven years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.