| ▲ | hippo22 2 days ago |
| Do you think that cigarette taxes should be repealed then? |
|
| ▲ | bryzaguy 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| If I were to pick a place to tax, the addictive, harmful substances seem like a good option. But that’s easy for me to say because I don’t smoke. I do like sugar though. Imagine the impact on our health if there were a sugar tax. |
| |
| ▲ | stouset 2 days ago | parent [-] | | There is in some places. California has a hefty sugary-beverage tax, for example. I'm intuitively "for" things like this, but I'm curious if it's been long enough that we've been able to collect data showing any effects. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | zymhan 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism |
| |
| ▲ | zahlman 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not whataboutism. The argument described in GGP would apply the same way to GP's case. Cigarette taxes are a sales/consumption tax (specifically one aimed at discouraging consumption, but cigarettes are addictive) and they are necessarily, inherently regressive, for the simple reason that people with orders of magnitude more income and wealth cannot feasibly spend proportionately more on cigarettes. | | |
| ▲ | zymhan a day ago | parent [-] | | It's bringing up an entirely unrelated topic as some sort of "gotcha". Cigarette taxes were not part of the GGP's comment. I.e. a red herring > The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. | | |
| ▲ | zahlman a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's bringing up an entirely unrelated topic as some sort of "gotcha" Expecting people to be consistent, and treat similar situations similarly, is not a "gotcha". Challenges like this are raised exactly to hold people to their own standards and question whether they are really okay with the consequences of what they just said. The topic described is not at all "entirely unrelated". There is a clear natural category which encompasses both tariffs and cigarette taxes. | |
| ▲ | hippo22 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, it’s not whataboutism. The original comment made a single argument: regressive taxes are bad. I provided a counter example: the cigarette tax is an example of a regressive tax that is good. This invalidates their argument. That doesn’t mean their position on tariffs is wrong, but they’ve provided an insufficient argument to support their viewpoint. There’s also an implicit corollary that they don’t fully understand tariffs if this is their position. Whataboutism would be something like someone from the US arguing that China’s treatment of Uyghurs is bad, and someone from China countering with “well, what about America’s treatment of Native Americans?” The Native American argument isn’t a counter example of the Uyghur argument. Both positions can be true. It’s unrelated. That’s not the case here. You can’t be anti-tariff purely because it’s a regressive tax and also be pro-cigarette tax. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Spooky23 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That’s not Whataboutism. Cigarette taxes are excise taxes, very similar to tariffs, and often implemented to encourage behavior by raising commodity cost. In the case of cigarettes and alcohol they are partially “sin taxes” to discourage negative behavior. In the case of the Trump emergency tariffs, they are seeking to pivot the entire economy. So there’s a nuance and multiple ways to look at it. If you’re GM, the ability to make better margins on shitty cars is a net positive. If you’re in the technology or medical field, well, you’re fucked. |
|
