Learn something new every day More Info... by email
One of the most potentially controversial issues, when it comes the a country's government, is that of taxation. Perhaps the most controversial taxes are those which some call confiscatory taxes. This type of taxation is somewhat difficult to define in a quantitative way, but in general they are those taxes which have as their primary aim, not revenue generation, but targeting a particular income group with high rates of taxation. High tax rates are fairly subjective, but it is often easy to see the intent of certain tax laws as being the confiscation of money, especially from the wealthy.
Throughout the history of taxation, taxes have been used at times by governments to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. This is by no means a new strategy, or an unfamiliar one. For instance, in the United States, in addition to sales taxes, some products that cause perceived harm to society, such as cigarettes, are taxed at high rates to discourage their purchase.
These excise taxes or "sin taxes," as they are sometimes called, can be levied at the federal level, or more locally, but are very common. On the other end of the spectrum, many types of charitable donations are tax deductible at the federal level. This tax deduction is meant to encourage donations to charitable organizations, which are viewed as providing a valuable service to society.
Confiscatory taxes go a step beyond simply behavioral incentives, and are usually an attempt to correct or punish perceived injustices, while at the same time using the tax code to make a powerful political statement. They can, in some cases, be implemented as a response to public outrage over certain events, or as a part of a larger plan by a political party for changing the manner in which taxation is pursued. Controversy and heated debate often surround the implementation of confiscatory taxes.
The disagreement over confiscatory taxes comes from the strong convictions of those across the political spectrum. For instance, some lawmakers see it as the duty of government to redress social injustice, and see confiscatory taxes as an effective way to accomplish this. On the other hand, some disagree with these taxes on the basis of ideology, and say that the proper role of taxation is not to punish or encourage certain behaviors, but to generate revenue for necessary government expenses. They may also point out that if a tax rate is high enough, it becomes essentially self-defeating. In other words, the income that is being taxed is no longer worth the effort to produce, since the taxpayer gets to keep so little of it anyway, and little to no government revenue is generated.
One of the more ironic things about sin taxes on items such as cigarettes is how often the revenue generated by them is spent on things like education. On one hand, we tax people who smoke, partially in hopes of making the habit so expensive they'll be encouraged to quit. On the other hand, we rely on smokers to generate the revenue that allows states to pay teachers more money, perhaps build scholarships fund and finance other things that we believe are good for society.
So, we're both encouraging people to quit smoking yet rely on smokers to pay for things that we value. If the objective of reducing smoking is reduced significantly, the revenue for a lot of things would drop. It's an odd system.
One of our editors will review your suggestion and make changes if warranted. Note that depending on the number of suggestions we receive, this can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days. Thank you for helping to improve wiseGEEK!