Taxation

[John Tempus]

Sin Tax are usually used to prevent activities that end up costing the State in medical care unlike investments that stimulate the economy.

Thats what they would love to have you believe.

Tell me again what sophisticated public healthcare do we get in South Africa ? none. So the question about medical reasons makes little sense.

Look at the list below, part of the fuel tax is actually sin tax. It is one big mess.

In South Africa Sin Tax is used as a scapegoat to simply steal more from people by delivering less.

The list below is just what they could find directly. There are many indirect sin taxes that did not even make this list.

The Citizen has decided to look at sin tax through the ages, starting in 2013, to see how much sin tax (alcohol, cigarettes and fuel) has set back the ordinary South African citizen over the past five years.

2013
In 2013, wine tax increased by 7.3c per litre. Beer and spirits went up by 7.5c and R3.60 respectively, and cigarettes increased by 60c per pack of 20.

Another sneaky sin tax was the extra 2c levy on each plastic bag used at the supermarket.

Fuel levies increased by 23c per litre, of which 8c went to the Road Accident Fund (RAF).

2014
Whiskey drinkers were penalised in 2014, with tax per bottle increasing by R4.80. A can of beer increased by 9c. Thankfully, the tax on African beer (umqomboti) remained unchanged.

A 20 pack of cigarettes increased by 68c in 2014.

Fuel levies increased by 20c, with the RAF contribution remaining at 8c.

2015
‘Sinners’ were set back a further 15c per litre of wine, 15.5c for beer and R3.77 for spirits.

Cigarettes increased by 82c per packet.

2015 saw no value added tax (VAT) increases, which meant that there were significant increases in social grants.

2016
A packet of cigarettes in 2016 rose by 81c. Tax on a can of beer increased by 11c, a litre of wine by 24c, and spirits increased by R3.94.

2017
Last year’s sin tax rates are probably still fresh in the minds of those it affects most.

Beer increased by 11c per can, wine increased by 30c per litre and spirits cost R4.43 more per bottle.

Cigarettes increased by R1.06.

The buzzword in last year’s budget speech was the idea of sugar tax implementation. The intention is to reduce obesity rates in South Africa. As such, sugar tax, as projected last year, would come at a cost of 2.1c per gram of sugar.

 

[Swa]

Most taxes have little or no justification. Interest and capital gains aren't income. It is nothing more than a tax on inflation as Dawie Roodt puts it. It's the government wanting you to not save your money and use it to support a capitalist system that favours the rich.

 

[koeksGHT]

Tax to the worker is theft. The problem is how many different taxes we have now?

Think you own your property? Don't pay your tax and see who really does. When basic living is taxed it's a problem.

 

[koeksGHT]

Here is a thought experiment.

We believe democracy is the best political system. If we had a true democratic vote for YES/NO on all taxes the majority would vote NO. Most would say but then Somalia, and most likely yes.

Why do we let the less intelligent(uninformed) as a "democracy" control who sits in power to make decisions for us all?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Tax to the worker is theft. The problem is how many different taxes we have now?

Think you own your property? Don't pay your tax and see who really does. When basic living is taxed it's a problem.

This doesn't make much sense. If you don't fulfill your financial obligations then yes, your property becomes potentially subject to sale to fulfill that obligation. I'm sure if you did work for someone and they didn't pay you, you'd also be upset, and (rightfully) would have recourse.

What do you mean by "basic living" being taxed?

Here is a thought experiment.

We believe democracy is the best political system. If we had a true democratic vote for YES/NO on all taxes the majority would vote NO. Most would say but then Somalia, and most likely yes.

Why do we let the less intelligent(uninformed) as a "democracy" control who sits in power to make decisions for us all?

Democracies operate on the principle that those affected by the decisions of a government have a right to have a say in who governs them.

It's quite easy to conjure up a scenario where you or I would also be disqualified from voting by some arbitrary variable.

 

[koeksGHT]

This doesn't make much sense. If you don't fulfill your financial obligations then yes, your property becomes potentially subject to sale to fulfill that obligation. I'm sure if you did work for someone and they didn't pay you, you'd also be upset, and (rightfully) would have recourse.

What do you mean by "basic living" being taxed?



Democracies operate on the principle that those affected by the decisions of a government have a right to have a say in who governs them.

It's not easy to conjure up a scenario where you or I would also be disqualified from voting by some arbitrary variable.

Guess I'm referring to living off the grid. House paid up. Why must we pay or have home taken?

 

[koeksGHT]

This doesn't make much sense. If you don't fulfill your financial obligations then yes, your property becomes potentially subject to sale to fulfill that obligation. I'm sure if you did work for someone and they didn't pay you, you'd also be upset, and (rightfully) would have recourse.

What do you mean by "basic living" being taxed?



Democracies operate on the principle that those affected by the decisions of a government have a right to have a say in who governs them.

It's not easy to conjure up a scenario where you or I would also be disqualified from voting by some arbitrary variable.

But those affected are uneducated and now have to choose best replacement?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Guess I'm referring to living off the grid. House paid up. Why must we pay or have home taken?

Depends on the circumstances of the scenario you're describing. Pay what and to who? If you owe someone money, then you need find a way to pay them, not so?

But those affected are uneducated and now have to choose best replacement?

Many 'educated' people are also downright morons, or comically ignorant. Where do you draw the line on something so vague?

 

[krycor]

Thats what they would love to have you believe.

Tell me again what sophisticated public healthcare do we get in South Africa ? none. So the question about medical reasons makes little sense.

Look at the list below, part of the fuel tax is actually sin tax. It is one big mess.

In South Africa Sin Tax is used as a scapegoat to simply steal more from people by delivering less.

The list below is just what they could find directly. There are many indirect sin taxes that did not even make this list.

The Citizen has decided to look at sin tax through the ages, starting in 2013, to see how much sin tax (alcohol, cigarettes and fuel) has set back the ordinary South African citizen over the past five years.

2013
In 2013, wine tax increased by 7.3c per litre. Beer and spirits went up by 7.5c and R3.60 respectively, and cigarettes increased by 60c per pack of 20.

Another sneaky sin tax was the extra 2c levy on each plastic bag used at the supermarket.

Fuel levies increased by 23c per litre, of which 8c went to the Road Accident Fund (RAF).

2014
Whiskey drinkers were penalised in 2014, with tax per bottle increasing by R4.80. A can of beer increased by 9c. Thankfully, the tax on African beer (umqomboti) remained unchanged.

A 20 pack of cigarettes increased by 68c in 2014.

Fuel levies increased by 20c, with the RAF contribution remaining at 8c.

2015
‘Sinners’ were set back a further 15c per litre of wine, 15.5c for beer and R3.77 for spirits.

Cigarettes increased by 82c per packet.

2015 saw no value added tax (VAT) increases, which meant that there were significant increases in social grants.

2016
A packet of cigarettes in 2016 rose by 81c. Tax on a can of beer increased by 11c, a litre of wine by 24c, and spirits increased by R3.94.

2017
Last year’s sin tax rates are probably still fresh in the minds of those it affects most.

Beer increased by 11c per can, wine increased by 30c per litre and spirits cost R4.43 more per bottle.

Cigarettes increased by R1.06.

The buzzword in last year’s budget speech was the idea of sugar tax implementation. The intention is to reduce obesity rates in South Africa. As such, sugar tax, as projected last year, would come at a cost of 2.1c per gram of sugar.

It’s been found in a study in the US that 80% of all heart disease & cardiovascular complications are in patients that were previously smokers. Nevertheless you started saying that sin taxes are abused for other products then listed basically what everyone expected:

1. Alcohol - Abused by many in this country and often on the road too.

2. Smoking products /Cigs - cause of many complications

3. Sugar - remember how people bitched about sugar abuse is not tax but smoking and drinking is.. well I guess gov listened

4. Fuel tax / RAF - if you drive around here in JHB you realize that 5-10% actually obey the law.. the rest do as they please. So I guess taxing everyone for not self enforcing/controlling is needed.

In all the above cases, self control would be the easy fix but that’s gotten us as a nation nowhere particularly in the last 15-20yrs where people aren’t brought up with self discipline it seems. And lately people claim they abuse things because everyone else is getting away with it .. wow such good values hey.

So if you can’t be a law abiding citizen and your life impacts others.. who shields other people from you? Who pays for that? When you use a private hospital.. do you really think gov is not paying indirectly? I can’t be the only person in this forum who can see costs involved.

 

[konfab]

In all the above cases, self control would be the easy fix but that’s gotten us as a nation nowhere particularly in the last 15-20yrs where people aren’t brought up with self discipline it seems. And lately people claim they abuse things because everyone else is getting away with it .. wow such good values hey.

So if you can’t be a law abiding citizen and your life impacts others.. who shields other people from you? Who pays for that? When you use a private hospital.. do you really think gov is not paying indirectly? I can’t be the only person in this forum who can see costs involved.

Actually the problem is fantastically easy to fix with regards to Alcohol, Smoking and Sugar. Allow medical aids to charge higher premiums for people who abuse these things. Currently, a healthy person who looks after their health is forced by the government to pay the same rates as someone who is obese, smokes and drinks heavily.

 

[Bobbin]

It’s been found in a study in the US that 80% of all heart disease & cardiovascular complications are in patients that were previously smokers. Nevertheless you started saying that sin taxes are abused for other products then listed basically what everyone expected:

1. Alcohol - Abused by many in this country and often on the road too.

2. Smoking products /Cigs - cause of many complications

3. Sugar - remember how people bitched about sugar abuse is not tax but smoking and drinking is.. well I guess gov listened

4. Fuel tax / RAF - if you drive around here in JHB you realize that 5-10% actually obey the law.. the rest do as they please. So I guess taxing everyone for not self enforcing/controlling is needed.

In all the above cases, self control would be the easy fix but that’s gotten us as a nation nowhere particularly in the last 15-20yrs where people aren’t brought up with self discipline it seems. And lately people claim they abuse things because everyone else is getting away with it .. wow such good values hey.

So if you can’t be a law abiding citizen and your life impacts others.. who shields other people from you? Who pays for that? When you use a private hospital.. do you really think gov is not paying indirectly? I can’t be the only person in this forum who can see costs involved.

Explain or elaborate if I may ask?

 

[Bobbin]

Actually the problem is fantastically easy to fix with regards to Alcohol, Smoking and Sugar. Allow medical aids to charge higher premiums for people who abuse these things. Currently, a healthy person who looks after their health is forced by the government to pay the same rates as someone who is obese, smokes and drinks heavily.

I suppose it's all proportional. The people who buy more of those things get taxed more, as in by volume. I hardly buy any of those things, only beer on occasion. Not sure how you'd monitor every medical aid user on abuse of those things otherwise. On the other hand my car insurance (Dial Direct) has an app that monitors my driving and ensures no harsh braking, accelerating or speeding. I get paid back a little for good driving.

 

[ToxicBunny]

I suppose it's all proportional. The people who buy more of those things get taxed more, as in by volume. I hardly buy any of those things, only beer on occasion. Not sure how you'd monitor every medical aid user on abuse of those things otherwise. On the other hand my car insurance (Dial Direct) has an app that monitors my driving and ensures no harsh braking, accelerating or speeding. I get paid back a little for good driving.

I've buggered around with a few of those apps, and never once have they rewarded good driving.. they punish good driving along with harsh/fast driving, but they reward dangerously slow driving more than anything else, so in my opinion those apps are actually a negative in terms of what they are doing to some peoples driving habits.

 

[Foxhound5366]

I hardly think you can call taxation theft purely on the grounds that your money is taken from you without you having much choice in the matter ... show me a thief out there that robs you and then gives your money back to you in the form of public services (that WOULD be a community-spirited thief).

I think the interesting question is what proportion of state income comes from personal taxation vs corporate taxation vs other profit-bearing investments and State Owned Enterprises.

You might find that personal taxation contributes less than corporate taxation, but considering that corporates are pricing their taxation into the price of their products and services, isn't that arguably just personal taxation anyway?

 

[Alan]

I suppose it's all proportional. The people who buy more of those things get taxed more, as in by volume. I hardly buy any of those things, only beer on occasion. Not sure how you'd monitor every medical aid user on abuse of those things otherwise. On the other hand my car insurance (Dial Direct) has an app that monitors my driving and ensures no harsh braking, accelerating or speeding. I get paid back a little for good driving.

Medical aids will find a way. There is no lengths they won't go to if it gets them out of paying.....

 

[konfab]

I suppose it's all proportional. The people who buy more of those things get taxed more, as in by volume. I hardly buy any of those things, only beer on occasion. Not sure how you'd monitor every medical aid user on abuse of those things otherwise. On the other hand my car insurance (Dial Direct) has an app that monitors my driving and ensures no harsh braking, accelerating or speeding. I get paid back a little for good driving.

Discovery already does it with Vitality.

It is simple, you can apply to get a discount on your medical aid if you do the following:
Regular blood sugar tests and weigh ins.
Cotinine and/or nicotine testing for smoking.
Urine tests for alcohol + liver function tests.

I would go further and attach the quality of your driving to your medical aid payments as well .

I can understand the rationale of preventing medical aids from charging people extra with a pre-existing condition. But I think it is ridiculous to exclude lifestyle choices from these things.

 

[Bobbin]

I hardly think you can call taxation theft purely on the grounds that your money is taken from you without you having much choice in the matter ... show me a thief out there that robs you and then gives your money back to you in the form of public services (that WOULD be a community-spirited thief).

I think the interesting question is what proportion of state income comes from personal taxation vs corporate taxation vs other profit-bearing investments and State Owned Enterprises.

You might find that personal taxation contributes less than corporate taxation, but considering that corporates are pricing their taxation into the price of their products and services, isn't that arguably just personal taxation anyway?

Not sure if this is a strong argument. It is still coerced and who says I want monopolistic, corrupt and inefficient services in return (notwithstanding corruption and welfare state) that I have no say over? And while the idea of taxation may have some "noble" grounds if you dig for them, it surely doesn't have to be unethical. As I seem to recall alluding to earlier there surely must be a way to implement it ethically or to achieve the same ends without the coercion.

If there is no business model (Or economic sustainability) for something then two things are possible. Either society doesn't need/want it or the affordability concerning the target market is an issue. The former demonstrates the organic nature of the free market being open to rapidly solve problems as they arise. The latter reveals that the need/want is too low in the chain of priority in the given market (We don't care about medical aid when food is an issue). The idea that everyone can/should by default have access to all basic needs, infrastructure and services that taxation provides, while noble, is in a way an equality of outcome notion. My suspicion is that instead of enabling the market to improve organically over time and ultimately result in the state of basic affordability for all (irrespective of hierarchy), we throw and redistribute money at the problem thus staving off organic development inadvertently at our peril.

Of course I don't know if I'm right or wrong above, just a suspicion. Too many variables to consider.

 

[Foxhound5366]

Not sure if this is a strong argument. It is still coerced and who says I want monopolistic, corrupt and inefficient services in return (notwithstanding corruption and welfare state) that I have no say over? And while the idea of taxation may have some "noble" grounds if you dig for them, it surely doesn't have to be unethical. As I seem to recall alluding to earlier there surely must be a way to implement it ethically or to achieve the same ends without the coercion.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You want people to give you public services and not charge you for it? Where else do you get free ****? Even the church is gonna charge you in the long run.

The foundation of our modern society is built on the principle of the common good. We all have to abide by the same laws, even if some people should be murdered we keep alive so that the rest of us get a right to life. Same applies to tax: the public services you get might be terrible by your standards, but they're amazing for somebody living in a tin shack ... and just maybe the difference between life and death.

The bottom line is don't moan about something, propose a better solution at the very least. How would you provide free public services that are truly free? Somebody HAS to pay, and because nothing exists without people, it has to be people ultimately.

 

[Daruk]

Taxation is law like every other law. If you don't like the law, either live with the consequences of breaking it, live elsewhere or suck it up. There's no fourth option.

 

[Bobbin]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You want people to give you public services and not charge you for it? Where else do you get free ****? Even the church is gonna charge you in the long run.

The foundation of our modern society is built on the principle of the common good. We all have to abide by the same laws, even if some people should be murdered we keep alive so that the rest of us get a right to life. Same applies to tax: the public services you get might be terrible by your standards, but they're amazing for somebody living in a tin shack ... and just maybe the difference between life and death.

The bottom line is don't moan about something, propose a better solution at the very least. How would you provide free public services that are truly free? Somebody HAS to pay, and because nothing exists without people, it has to be people ultimately.

It is a discussion not a rant Why so offended lol. And check my edit.

And I have invited the idea of ethical alternative too (twice I believe). What the hell?

And your first paragraph isn't an argument. I never said anything for free. I'm not a communist And Church is charity and/or voluntary and not tax. Come on man :/