Addiction is not cured with taxes

shutterstock 2107289702

A few days ago, the press reported on a new and absurd 92% tax rate for products that encourage addiction on purchases over $50 from Asian websites. With such a high tax, it’s as if people are buying one product for themselves and an identical one for the government. Lula tried his best to avoid doing something similar, but with the reckless spending and fiscal irresponsibility that permeate his government, imposing the new tax to increase revenue became inevitable.

The high volume of purchases on these sites prompted the government to review import rules. In this regard, it’s important to note that there are two reasons why the government decides to impose a tax. The first is to fill the public coffers. The second is to achieve a purpose beyond the primary function of collecting revenue—often with the aim of intervening in the market. The first reason gives rise to fiscal taxes, and the second to extrafiscal taxes.

The market, contrary to what the left usually rants about, is not an evil entity of the capitalist system aimed at enslaving people. The market is, at its core, a system of information exchange. Through this system operate supply, demand, the buying and selling of goods, and the provision and hiring of services. Thus, people decide to acquire or sell. When we talk about extrafiscal taxes, we’re referring to the possibility of the state intervening artificially in this system to influence people’s decisions.

Delegating individual decision-making power to the state is a danger that stems from the culture of state paternalism. This concept is based on the premise of protecting citizens’ well-being, with the state assuming a role similar to a “parent” of the people. The main problem with this is its unstoppable potential to undermine individual autonomy. Human beings are inherently autonomous, capable of making their own decisions and choices. This autonomy is a fundamental pillar of our existence, allowing us to shape the course of our own lives.

When the state adopts an excessively intrusive approach, it can inadvertently restrict people’s ability to make independent decisions. This can create a culture of dependency on the state and undermine personal responsibility, as individuals may become accustomed to expecting ready-made solutions rather than seeking alternatives and facing the consequences of their own choices—such as seeking a psychologist to treat oniomania, the condition of compulsive buying.

Regarding the taxation of Asian websites, the state’s audacity is glaring and highlights the flaws in our tax system. For companies that adhere to the Remessa Conforme program, individuals who buy up to $50 on AliExpress will not pay import tax. Only the ICMS (Tax on the Circulation of Goods and Services), a state tax with a fixed rate of 17%, will be charged. For purchases over $50, there will be two taxes: import tax (60%) and ICMS (17%).

Combined, these taxes amount to a rate of 77%. However, the real rate reaches 92% because the ICMS is applied to itself, effectively being charged twice. Excessively high taxes can burden citizens and businesses, reduce investment capacity, and decrease families’ purchasing power. Additionally, they can create disincentives for entrepreneurship and business growth, making it harder to generate jobs and foster innovation. All of this underscores the weight that the state places on the individual, especially in a country where we do not receive adequate returns in public services.

Click here to read the original article.