Though I ultimately disagree with her conservative takeaway, I actually found myself agreeing with much of Katrina Trinko's argument that sin taxes -- taxes on everything from cigarettes to soda -- are politically cowardly and cheap:
That's because during this recession, politicians are increasingly resorting to sin taxes to help close budget gaps. Aware that Americans, facing high unemployment and underemployment, won't rush to support (or re-elect) those who raise income taxes, politicians are devising less obvious ways to boost revenue. Raising fees on government services is one such way; increasing or instituting sin taxes is another.
The idea that politicians who support these taxes but don't support income tax raises are protecting the working- and middle-classes from higher tax burdens is, as she points out, hypocritical. Sales taxes are inherently regressive, since lower-income families spend a higher proportion of their income on basic consumption. They're also, as Trinko points out, more likely to smoke and more likely to eat and drink sugary foods, the new favorite sin-tax target. In rural areas, the poor have few transportation alternatives and so gas tax raises hit them disproportionately as well.
What I dislike about all arguments against sin taxes -- from progressives as well as conservatives -- is the blanket assumption that as long as it's regressive, it means we shouldn't do it. The conversations tend to rob poorer people of their agency by assuming they won't adjust their consumption patterns when faced with higher prices. Soda taxes are only bad as long as we assume everyone needs soda, and at the levels of proposed taxation -- about a penny per ounce in many states -- the taxes would serve only to curb consumption. Everyone will still be able to enjoy the occasional Dr. Pepper if we raised the price of a can by about 12 cents, but what health officials hope it would do is stop the American habit of having two cans of soda a day. That's 300 calories of pure sugar in drink form that no one needs and does nothing to alleviate hunger. Likewise, cigarette consumption is highly elastic: increasing taxes reduces smoking at the same time it brings in more revenue. There are few transportation alternatives in rural areas, but there's no reason people can't carpool (in some cases), drive less, or start making their school-age children take the bus rather than driving them (trust me, it happens everywhere). No one is served by smoking too much, drinking too much soda, or contributing to global warming and air pollution; but again, this isn't the government trying to dictate choices. This is society trying to do something to make consumers internalize the costs of the health effects of consuming these goods.
Overall, though, I agree with Trinko that balancing state budgets on the backs of the poor is a mean political trick: no one wants to raise income taxes and face voters. Of course, I would have them do both: Keep sin taxes and raise income taxes on the wealthiest to fund programs that provide better services for the poor: more food stamps, better food options in food desserts, better public transportation, and better health care.
-- Monica Potts
