SIN TAX IN THE PHPROS CONS

Sin tax is also health tax.An increase in the price of sin products would mean lesser people would be able to afford such items. Since the price of cigarettes individually is so affordable (around 3-4php per stick), underprivileged citizens such as the poor are still able to afford it and they still do purchase it, while neglecting their health priority. By the time that they do get sick, they turn to the government and demand for free medical treatment. Such individual irresponsibility is regretted therefore, by increasing the taxes (thereby increasing the price on cigarettes and alcohol), fewer people would opt to buy them instead of basic necessities. Aside from that, an individual coming from the poor sectors of society would be forced to think about where his money would go: buying cigarettes or buy food instead? Not only are they being forced to think rationally, but they are also being directed to responsible health care for themselves. Tax increase for such products is a way for discouraging harmful behavior.(‘Cause hello, we don’t want our Filipino people, whether they smoke or not (cos remember, even if you don’t smoke, just by sitting beside someone who smoke would already make you vulnerable to many illnesses) to have higher risks of cancer and smoking and drinking related illnesses. A sickly country does not pose well with the international community. (Health is wealth kuno. :P)

In its sense, levying a tax on any kind of product puts a value on the consumption of that product. Increasing taxes does not automatically discourage everyone from consuming sin products, but the opposite could also happen. No matter how much increase would be levied, it only motivates people who can afford it even more. This is because people feel that paying their taxes is already a way of justifying that they don’t need to feel guilty—that as long as they paid their taxes, then they don’t have anything else to worry about which is not exactly good.(You can’t exactly say to a person that you want him/her to stop smoking, because he/she could just retort back, “I’m helping the government because I pay my taxes!”) So it’s not really a matter if you have paid your dues or not, an increase does not automatically discourage individuals.

In relation to that and with regards to the health care program that would benefit from the tax increase, advertising the increased sin tax by saying that it would increase tax revenues that would be used for the health care program would all the more encourage consumption. People (who can afford it) would think that they are doing society a favor by buying sin products since a portion of their money would go to health budgets anyway. And, assuming that these people who can afford to buy numerous sin products could also afford to pay their own medical bills, using sin tax to discourage them would be very difficult and may even be futile in the end.

For those individuals who belong to the middle- to upper-classes of society who can still and are still willing to buy such commodities despite the price increase, all the more will the government benefit from them. Since one of the initial purposes of increasing sin tax is by increasing tax revenues, the government will use the increased tax collected from the industry in order to have a greater budget for health care, specifically the Universal Health Care Program. Government actions and policies are inherently good-natured and most of the time for the betterment of public safety and welfare. The state levies taxes on products

Profit-oriented companies and manufacturers are not in favor of having such increase because that would create an effect on their sales and revenues. Since the tax increase, the market for sin commodities would shrink (since diba nga hindi na makakabili ung poorer people) thereby creating a dent on the profit charts of the suppliers. So how is that bad for the Philippine economy? It is bad because the Philippine government actually recognizes the big contribution of the sin industry. Major cigarette producers like Marlboro and Fortune were listed as the biggest corporate taxpayers in the country. A loss in their profit would also mean a

mainly for 2 reasons: 1) protection & 2) revenue collection. Since there are 2nd and 3rd degree harms of tobacco and alcohol, government action is necessary as to lessen and diminish these harms while at the same time increasing tax revenues which is helpful for the country’s development in the long run.

decrease in the tax they are required to pay, which in turn, is bad for the government. It has already become part of the Filipino lifestyle to smoke and drink especially during festivities, that’s why the market for sin products is big. Increasing taxes, assuming that it could discourage consumption, would also decrease the taxes collected therefore this law is not the way to go.

PAMBARA QUESTIONSPROS CONS

If the government really wants to encourage a healthier lifestyle, why not ban cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking instead?

An added law protecting the country’s health is better than no addition at all. If you didn’t want a tax increase of sin products, would you please provide us a present law that would actually be beneficial for the overall health of the country?

It is not a full-proof plan. As of date, there are still many people coming from the lower classes of society that still buy sin items because they can still afford them (like 5php per stick, pwede pa right?) So how could you exactly say that it could discourage consumption when even young individuals are still able to afford them?

The current mechanisms and policies regarding health safety and responsible drinking are insufficient. Therefore, don’t you think that by attacking the root causes of these accidents and illnesses (DUI/drunk driving, excessive smoking), we would be able to lessen them in return? Please tell us how not applying this law would still decrease the number of cancer patients (due to smoking) and deaths due to drunk driving.

How exactly does increasing the taxes on sin products help tobacco farmers? (since isa sila sa mga victims ng tobacco industry sa PH)

Do you think the current mechanisms of the government (using the media advertisements, yung mga government warning stickers sa cigarettes and alcohol bottles) is enough in discouraging consumption?

Don’t you think that by increasing prices, there is an even greater demand for smuggled products since they are much cheaper, which in turn is more dangerous?

You said that the government is in gratitude for the huge amounts of corporate taxes collected from big sin industries such as Marlboro and Fortune. How do these companies actually help the overall health of society since you said so yourself that they are profit-oriented and not service-oriented?

Instead of increasing taxes for sin commodities, why not increase corporate taxes for producers and manufacturers of sin products instead? (for example, increase the tax rate for Malboro Corp. in order to discourage production or selling of cigarettes)Don’t you think that it’s very contradicting that you increased taxes because you want to discourage consumption, but you want to increase tax revenues to have a bigger budget for health care? (You could increase tax revenue if you increase consumption, but

in this case, you want to discourage consumption which would, in theory, not increase tax revenue.)