Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
so you see, ace, it is possible to frame the argument you were setting up without the "this is what liberals do...and this is what heroic conservatives do."...problem is that the argument isn't terribly interesting. but that's more a function of the rickety premise i think, the example of the tanning-bed tax. personally, i don't see this is an interesting matter in fact: the practice seems to me goofy and the amounts that would be generated by the tax trivial. plus its a luxury item. you know, you don't NEED to tan yourself so as to resemble skin-wise a carrot.
but the relation of a mother and baby to baby formula is obviously not like the relation of some nimrod to a tanning booth.
|
Agree there are differences, however...for a mother who is capable of breast feeding, using public funds, statistically putting her baby at greater risk and potentially at a greater cost to society...using formula is {blank} (please use your word) so we can discuss further.
Quote:
simpler, more obvious: cigarettes.
position: i used to smoke. when i rolled them, i didn't care about the tax. when i decided to switch to manufactured cigarettes, i found the tax onerous. like it's alot of money you piss away on these taxes. i quit smoking 11 weeks ago. did the tax prompt me to quit? no.
is the tax an effective way to create disincentives for potentially harmful practices?
i dunno. it wasn't for me. it wasn't for anyone i know who smokes.
what do they do then?
|
On the margins it seem you, here, and others at various times want me to suspend belief of rational thought. At tax rate x%, perhaps there is a small or no impact on demand, perhaps not even on xx%, but for every activity there is a marginal cost increase that will impact demand. Are you suggesting that there is not?
Quote:
they slap a penance tax on practices that receive a certain social opprobrium, yes?
and they allow for a fiction to be maintained that that social opprobrium is being translated into some policy nudge.
but really, cigarettes are an easy source of revenue. the taxes punish smokers.
you wanna go down that kind of route with baby formula?
|
My premise is a simple one. Tax policy should reflect real costs to society. If having a baby imposes a net cost to society rather than a net benefit and those costs are "hidden" and not incurred by those having babies, hence putting a burden on others, I think a tax is legitimate. Period end of story for me. I do not support tax policy for social engineering, only as a means for real societal costs to distributed as fairly as is possible. My view on this would not change regardless of the subject, hence I see my position as an objective one, not emotional, not moral, not punitive, just as an attempt of fairness.