Syntax

The deluge of full-page advertisements regarding “SIN TAXES” that came out (serendipitously?) on the Ides of March, i.e. March 15, deserves a closer look. An attempt to see where they’re coming from might help see us through this issue.

There are several ways of going about solving a problem. But unlike math problems where there is only one answer (even if there are different solutions), when it comes to issues of public concern, the framing of the problem is just as significant in determining the appropriate policy response.

Different stakeholders have different interests — and consequently, they have different ways of viewing the issue. In our system of government, it is our policy-making branches — Legislative and Executive — that balance, allocate and, ultimately, determine “what is best for us” — and that means, certain interests will prevail.

This allocation of “burden” is most clearly seen in the State’s inherent power of taxation.

*      *      *      *

To law students, taxes, are characterized as the “lifeblood of government.” In this connection, our Constitution enjoins Congress to “evolve” a progressive, uniform and equitable system of taxation: progressive so that those who have or earn more should pay more; uniform and equitable in that people or things which are similarly situated should be treated in a similar fashion.

In this regard, “sin taxes,” form a class of their own. In a manner of speaking, it has as much to do with the life and blood of the citizens. Why this romantic claim? Simple: sin taxes are imposed on the manufacture and sale of certain goods that feed certain vices.

*      *      *      *

The apparent “hypocrisy” is, of course, not lost on the moralists: if it is so sinful, then why not just prohibit it? The law, however, does not see this as a rhetorical question.

Among the reasons often advanced in this debate is that people ought to be free do what they wish to do — and yes, that includes their choice of vice — provided, however, that these do not offend the rights of others. In other words, provided that the consequent harm does not rise to a level that affects the greater good of the many, then people are better left to do what they please.  

In the case of the objects of “sin taxes” — beer, distilled spirits, and cigarettes — much to the chagrin of the class of people who have tried to sue for damages (or seek to prohibit and ban them), the causal link between their consumption and their deleterious effects, remains inconclusive and tentative. Unlike some drugs, for example, that our Congress in its wisdom, has decided to prohibit, we allow these products to be manufactured and sold because there are people who tolerate them well enough without causing sufficient harm to themselves and to others.

Having said all of that, the choice of nomenclature is intentional. We prefer to call them “sin taxes,” because these taxes are, likewise, aimed at trying to “dissuade consumers from excessive intake of these potentially harmful products.”

*      *      *      *

There is no disputing the “what”: House Bill 5727 is a measure that seeks to unify and increase the excise tax rates for alcohol and cigarettes. It is the “so, what?” that incites and provokes different responses, simply because this bill, if passed, would mean different things to different people.

Manufacturers argue against the measure, primarily, on the following points: (1) it is the low-income earning earner-consumers (who can only afford the lower-priced products) who will feel the pinch; (2) the decline in sales (from this segment of the market) will result in decreased production; (3) and that the decrease in production will inevitably lead to massive lay-offs.

In the end, it is, after all, an advertisement, more than an explanation. In fact, pursuing the question “so, what?” a little further would reveal the irony just waiting to be unpacked. The ads tried to speak for the poor fellow who, with his meager earnings, has to make do with the lower-priced variants to feed his vice. Isn’t this precisely the point? The poor fellow who could barely make ends meet is better off with either a little less of his vice (or doing away with it altogether). And for this reason, Congress, speaking for the people, through this measure, is looking out for that same person — dis-incentivizing the vice and putting it beyond his reach. To further convince of who’s speaking for whom (and who has the people’s better interests at heart and in mind), what the ads leave out is just as telling: the fact that the collections from HB 5727 will be allocated to pay for a Universal Health Care Program. Now, that sounds more like the solution whose loss we should worry about, rather than feeling sorry for depriving the poor fellow of a vice he’s better advised to do without.

*      *      *      *

In memoriam: On this day, 55 years ago, an airplane (interestingly named “Mt. Pinatubo”) carrying President Ramon Magsaysay and 26 others, crashed in the outskirts of Cebu Province. (All the passengers perished except for then Philippine Herald reporter Nestor Mata.) Two centavos are given to honor the memory of President Magsaysay and the other ill-fated victims. 

Memorable to law students for coining the shibboleth “those who have less in life should have more in law,” President Magsaysay’s legacy is kept alive by his worthy namesake, former Senator Ramon B. Magsaysay, who continues to be a humble and simple gentleman farmer.

*      *      *      *

Delicious delights: Two centavos are given to the Oishi group led by Ambassador Carlos Chan for opening the first of several outlets of J CO donuts and coffee at SM Megamall B. This pan-Asean franchise started by Johnny Andrean in Indonesia offers a wide array of donuts, yogurt, and specialty drinks that are more attuned to the Asian palate. Just like their chips and other products, this new line of goodies is oishi.

*      *      *      *

“I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.”

                       —John D. Rockefeller Jr.

*      *      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]