Taxes must rise to pay for climate change, MPs warn[UK]

“The alternative is to reduce the size of government and its insatiable appetite for revenue. If the majority of the American people want to eliminate alcohol, cigarettes, etc. because they are deemed harmful to one’s health. Then abolish it legally.”

Reducing the size of government is a good objective in and of itself, but it doesnt have relevance to this particular argument.

“The truth is that the government could care less about the health and social consequences. They want the revenue from the so-called sin tax. And it is a regressive tax affecting those at the lower end of the economic ladder.”

Remember that in Britain the government funds the health care system, so pro-actively improving the health of the nation is a very attractive option (one of the plus points of the NHS). Sure the government gets a lot in tax on alcohol and nicotine, but its dwarfed by the cost of treating the extra lung cancer, heart disease, liver failure etc cases. Besides, government can always think of some other way to tax people. The government taxes according to its need. The way to reduce taxes is to reduce that need, not target specific taxes.

“We had a revolution when the Brits decided to tax our tea, among other things.”

Actually it was British Tea and the revolution occured when they REDUCED the tax, a nicety that the US education system carefully ignores.

Reducing the size of government is a good objective in and of itself, but it doesnt have relevance to this particular argument.

Of course it does. Governments are hurting for revenue. The CHIPS program was recently expanded. Included in the bill was a 61 cents a pack increased tax on cigarettes bringing the federal tax to about $1 a pack. The rationale was that the increased program costs would be funded by this new tax increase. The legislators knew that they just couldn't increase taxes across the board to pay for the program, they had to sell it by using a "sin tax."

The government funds nothing without taxes from the people. It is their money. If they want to improve the health of the nation abolish alcohol and nicotine thru the legislative process. And what else are they going to tax to pay for illnesses? Transfats? Chocolate? It is a slippery slope. And these taxes are regressive hurting the poor more than the rich. Statism is alive and well in the UK, which is why it is a country in decline.

Besides, government can always think of some other way to tax people. The government taxes according to its need. The way to reduce taxes is to reduce that need, not target specific taxes.

In America we believe that the government exists at the consent of the governed. The idea that they can always think up some other way to tax people is not a given.

Actually it was British Tea and the revolution occured when they REDUCED the tax, a nicety that the US education system carefully ignores.

From our Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I suggest you read the rest of it for the list of particulars as to why we revolted against the Crown.

You are correct that the 1773 Tea Act removed the British taxes on tea sold in the colonies thru the East Inida Company, but this had the effect of the company being able to undercut prices of American merchants and smugglers giving them a monopoly. The colonists viewed this a just another attempt at squashing their autonomy. But there were many more reasons why we revolted beyond tea.

“In America we believe that the government exists at the consent of the governed. The idea that they can always think up some other way to tax people is not a given.”

All governments exist at the consent of the governed, active or passive. The US is not unique in that regard. As for the government not thinking up new taxes - come on, are you saying that the US government is not capable of doing that? Obviously they can - you said yourself they attempted to sneak in this extra tax with CHIPS - counting that people would object less than a tax hike across the board (they are probably right too)

“If they want to improve the health of the nation abolish alcohol and nicotine thru the legislative process.”

The problem is that legislating against recreational drugs does not work. Remember prohibition? The US is still recovering from that well-intentioned disaster.

“You are correct that the 1773 Tea Act removed the British taxes on tea sold in the colonies thru the East Inida Company, but this had the effect of the company being able to undercut prices of American merchants and smugglers giving them a monopoly. The colonists viewed this a just another attempt at squashing their autonomy.”

LOL I cannot believe a conservative swallows this bilge! Are you saying that smuggling, a criminal activity, is a “good thing” that its worth fighting a revolution over? Are you saying that the revolutionaries were fighting over money rather than high minded principles? (actually of course they were. Forget this nonsense about all wars being caused by religion. Wars are fought over economics). As for the honest traders - basically you are saying that they were justifed in destroying the competition’s product because they couldn’t take the competition? Are you really saying that they were right to demand protectionism? What kind of conservative believes in government protectionism, criminal smuggling rings, and an absence of economic competition???

All governments exist at the consent of the governed, active or passive. The US is not unique in that regard.

I guess it is how you define "passive." I guess Saddam Hussein had the passive support of the people as did Stalin and Chairman Mao and Pol Pot. America had the first written Constitution acknowledging that government existed at the consent of the governed and provided a formal means to hold it accountable.

As for the government not thinking up new taxes - come on, are you saying that the US government is not capable of doing that?

As someone who worked for the USG for 36 years, I know that they are quite capable of thinking up ways to spend money and to have the people pay for it. My skepticsim about government is based on experience.

The problem is that legislating against recreational drugs does not work. Remember prohibition? The US is still recovering from that well-intentioned disaster.

They are perfect examples of government trying to change human nature. Communism and socialism share that kind of utopian view of man. "Government knows best" doesn't work. I would be interested to learn what you consider to be "recreational drugs."

This referred to the Tea Act of 1773. I provided you a list of reasons why the revolution occurred, which are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. People are motivated to join a Revolution for all kinds of reasons and some rather odd coalitions are formed, e.g., the Russian Revolution and the Iranian Revolution, which I witnessed firsthand in Tehran.

Forget this nonsense about all wars being caused by religion. Wars are fought over economics).

Crusades? THe formation of the state of Israel? Northern Ireland? Al Qaeda? French Wars of Religion? I am sure there are economic causes affecting all revolutions and wars, but they may not be the most important or driving one, unless you subscribe to the views of Marxist historians like Howard Zinn.

As for the honest traders - basically you are saying that they were justifed in destroying the competition’s product because they couldn’t take the competition? Are you really saying that they were right to demand protectionism? What kind of conservative believes in government protectionism, criminal smuggling rings, and an absence of economic competition???

Now you are making up a phony strawman. The defense of criminal smuggling was not the reason why our founders pledged "to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" and signed a document that could cost them their lives. Read the Declaration of Independence and you will understand the reasons why we formed a new nation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.