THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, July 16, 1994 TAG: 9407160014
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A15 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: George Hebert
LENGTH: Medium: 57 lines
The idea of a whopping federal cigarette tax to pay some of the costs of a revised government health program must be something of a puzzler to a lot of people. I feel sure this even includes many who, like me, see tobacco as an addictive blight, a poisoner of the air and a candidate for as tough restraints as we can manage.
Part of the reasoning behind this plan goes back some years. I'm talking about that logic by which governments have turned to taxes as one way to curb various kinds of activities deemed harmful.
We used to hear these excise levies called ``sin taxes.'' For a more formal descriptive, we had ``sumptuary taxes.'' Tobacco became a target even before many of its risks were understood. And it has usually been paired with alcohol for tax punishment.
The thinking has gone this way: If people wanted certain things that were bad for them, and it was hard to deal with the problem by prohibitions and the like - well, let them have the nominal right to follow their hazardous appetites. But put such a heavy tax on the exercise that they would stop or cut down. Ergo, they would be better off and society less tainted.
However, while the original moralistic intent of the sin taxes was to control consumption, the results on that score have been underwhelming. In fact, one expert observer has written that the weight of the taxes (most particularly those imposed by Washington) hasn't been enough to really discourage even the poorest users, and that the levies have endured chiefly because of the revenue they provide.
This points up the strange contradiction that has characterized ``sin taxes'' all along:
The more tax, the less so-called sin. Theoretically.
But if sin resists and persists, the tax collectors can rejoice, albeit quietly. And beyond this - even more sin can mean even more revenue.
So does the taxing body truly want less so-called sin (with fewer dollars coming in) or more sin, to bring in more?
It all somehow recalls the wry old theological question about heavenly forgiveness: Shall we sin more that grace may abound?
In the case of the hefty tobacco tax which has been part of the health reform debate, the sin-tax conflict re-emerged, with the built-in dilemma underscored and dramatized. On the one hand, the producers and users of tobacco would confront some of the stiffest financial discouragements ever. On the other hand, the health plan would depend heavily on a continuation of the tobacco habit at a pretty high level.
More to the quirky point, the program would benefit handsomely if usage increased.
And that would really be sinful. MEMO: Mr. Hebert is a former editor of The Ledger-Star. by CNB