|
Sigh. I hate that we're arguing about the ideology of whether the government should tax unhealthy behaviors and not the SCIENCE of whether such taxation works to accomplish the goal or not.
The ideology is important (and probably juicier to argue about), but it's secondary IMHO to the point of utility. If this works to curb obesity, thereby bringing down health care costs and increasing productivity and overall quality of life, then I don't mind it - it benefits everyone. But my guess is that it would be ineffective and just get people pissed off about government interference.
Incidentally, (threadjack coming up here) I don't hear anybody bitching about the government interfering in personal consumption behavior by subsidizing the hell out of agriculture and oil so we can have cheap oranges in December and gas that costs less than milk so we can drive huge cars instead of funding public transportation. If you don't object to government action that affects one set of behaviors (public transportation issues), why do you object to it when it affects another set (public health)?
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
|