The piece argues against taxing smartphone use as a behavior-control tool, defending personal freedom and parental responsibility while criticizing proposals to levy digital or broadband consumption taxes as ineffective and overreaching.
“Sin taxes” are a poor way to manage private choices, and the government should not be in the business of policing everyday habits unless those habits harm others. There is a clear difference between regulating tangible public harms and trying to engineer virtue through taxation. The instinct to use fiscal levers as moral enforcement is a slippery slope that too often leads to more government control.
Excessive phone use can certainly be disruptive in social settings, and many people notice the deterioration of face-to-face interaction when screens dominate the room. Observing a family sit through a meal without speaking because everyone is glued to their devices is jarring, and it points to cultural shifts worth addressing. But personal annoyance does not automatically justify state intervention.
Matthew Yglesias floated the idea of targeting ad-supported models and broadband consumption with taxes to discourage endless scrolling and binge streaming. He suggested taxing digital advertising and imposing a progressive levy on broadband consumption to nudge people away from low-value engagement. The author of the original article rejects these prescriptions as heavy-handed and misaligned with what government taxation should accomplish.
Americans are reading less, sleeping less and partying less. We have fewer marriages, fewer children and fewer friends than we used to. Our children are doing worse in school.
Those trends are real and worrying: less reading, weaker social ties, and educational declines deserve attention from families, communities, and policy makers. But the right response is to empower parents and institutions to promote healthier habits rather than to weaponize taxes against entire technologies. Targeted public policy can support education, mental health services, and community programs without punishing everyday communication tools.
But there is a need to go broader, especially in a world of growing fiscal deficits. Why not tax policy that discourages the all-you-can-stream ad-supported business model? How about a tax on digital advertising? Subscription-based models work for content that people are proud to consume, while ad-supported ones reward quantity over quality. I might also consider a progressive levy on broadband consumption, creating something like a return to the early days of cell phones, when people used them but had to be mindful of their minutes. That would allow people to use the internet for valuable activities while discouraging zombie-like scrolling.
In such a world, the tech industry would still be very powerful, tech companies would still be very large, and tech entrepreneurs would still be very rich. But the overall direction of entrepreneurial activity would shift away from low-value engagement and toward the many other things that can be done with digital technology. And Americans might spend less time watching streaming video and more time doing something more productive — which is to say, basically anything else.
Using taxes for social engineering also raises questions about fairness and effectiveness: who decides what counts as “low-value engagement,” and how do you measure it? Taxes that aim to shape culture tend to create perverse incentives and can be gamed or burden marginalized communities who rely on affordable connectivity. Broadband access is a utility for work, school, and civic life, and penalizing consumption risks unintended harm.
There is a principled conservative argument against turning tax policy into a moral cudgel: taxation should fund essential government functions and preserve liberty, not micromanage personal choices. If society wants healthier habits, the tools that work are cultural leadership, parental guidance, education, and voluntary market responses that reward quality content. Those approaches respect individual freedom while encouraging better outcomes.
When families want to curb phone use, practical, local solutions work best: set house rules, model attentive behavior, and insist on device-free family time. A father telling his children, “This is a family event. No phones. Put them away,” is a far better remedy than a new federal levy. Responsibility and community norms fix many of these problems without expanding government reach.
Policy debate should focus on defending personal freedom and avoiding one-size-fits-all fiscal remedies that claim to fix cultural trends. Smartphone overuse is a cultural challenge, not a paleont of taxation, and the government must be cautious about claiming power to tax habits into virtue.
Add comment