[banannaise]

> whereas gambling taxes disinventivize gambling.

Do they, though? The vig is 10%, very transparently shown in the odds, and paid immediately. It proves very little disincentive. The tax is paid annually and only if you win; for most people, it is 0%. Are we really going to argue that the tax is a serious factor in discouraging the behavior?

[laterium]

Taxing something almost always decreases usage. By how much depends on the rate and the elasticity of demand. Gambling demand is probably very inelastic, much like cigarettes and alcohol. (Your argument supports this too) If the rate is low too I can see your point about not having much effect. But it still has an effect. Excessive sin taxes can be the sign of a nanny state, but otherwise I agree with it. All taxes are bad anyways, some are just less worse.

[gojomo]

When you describe a tax that is "paid annually and only if you win", that's plain generic income tax.

That's not the gambling-activity-specific taxes that Stoller's article discusses - typically applied to gambling businesses' revenues, not bet winners specifically.

[mlrtime]

Yes, because if the tax were 100% then people would still bet, they would just move it off platform. Just like every other sin tax in existence.

[hrimfaxi]

Every other sin tax is levied on the consumer, unlike gambling taxes.

[thaumasiotes]

Huh? Cigarette and alcohol taxes are levied on the vendor in exactly the same way a gambling tax is. Make your own alcohol and drink it yourself, share some with your friends, and you'll never pay an alcohol tax.

[hrimfaxi]

Cigarette and liquor taxes are levied on the purchaser, just like gas taxes. Gambling taxes are taxes on the gambling houses/platforms not excise taxes.