The justification for these taxes in the first place is that these things were bad, therefore the government should discourage people from using them by taxing them so much that people don't buy as much. That was part of the justification for taxes on cigarettes. The justification for the soda and pizza tax was that obesity is a problem and the government needs to do something about it.

Since the government can't realistically outright ban these things, like they did with cyclamates and DDT, they tax them.

Maybe it's a question of semantics for socialism vs nanny state, but I sure see these taxes as a way for the government to try to protect people from themselves, i.e. nanny state.

Do you believe a person has the right to take their life in a way which causes a net drain on the health and resources of those around them?

Interesting question, but I fail to see the point of it.

How is making tanning 10% more expensive protecting people from it? How is making cigarettes, gambling, and alcohol more expensive protecting people? Have these industries disappeared? Are people no longer addicted to smoking, gambling, and alcohol?

If it were truly a case of "nanny state" politics, tanning beds (in addition to those other products) would have been banned. I have a difficult time accepting it as a strong case for such. I think it's tenuous at best.

Well, I don't know why the "point" determines what your answer is. Is it your belief that a person has a right to end their own life?

Why, are you concerned that euthanasia might become taxed?

I want to know what relevance it has to this topic.

I would bet that you believe that a person has a right to take their own life...an unalienable right. Wouldn't sin taxes infringe on someone's right to kill themselves? Is the government regulating the manner by which people can do it? I know it's a stretch. This is all in good fun, anyway.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

You and I have different belief systems. This question is not relevant in my belief system because the government(me) would not be funding those resources. Therefore, I would not be offended by the person using the tanning bed or the personal costs they would incur from the consequences.

Is the government taxing jumping off a bridge?

I believe in reality because that is where I exist. In reality, people who engage in activities which tend to increase their susceptibility to diseases requiring expensive treatment increase the taxes I pay and the money I spend on healthcare (via private industry). So yes, in their slow painful suicides are a drain on both public and private resources.

I'm trying to be patient because I did start the thread as well as this line of thought - I really don't understand the vitriol. Again, it's all in fun.

The private system chooses every day who to treat and I don't mean at the insurance level....at the doctor level. A doctor will not give a liver transplant to a person who is brain-dead from cancer.

Health insurance costs more right now for smokers. Why can't it cost more for tanning bed users? Would the evil corporation be sticking it to pasty people for a buck?:D

There isn't a smoker in this country who doesn't know what they are doing to themselves - at what point does it convert over to them willfully killing themselves? At what point, in the name of conserving those resources, does the healthcare system simply let them do it? (Assuming, we agree that an individual has a right to take their own life.)

Yes, a stretch....

:lol:

Again, I will say that this isn't stopping anyone from doing anything. It's a tax that helps offset the costs of certain behaviours. While they might package it up as "taxing smoking out of existence" or somesuch, I think such packaging is merely playing politics. I think otherwise that it is good public policy to raise funds from harmful activities to help pay for the negative consequences of such activities.

Ah, but that is the rub. The need to protect someone from hearing offensive speech can not infringe on one's right to make that offensive speech.

Even if you have good intentions or even alternate intentions, it still can't infringe on unalienable rights. Again, right to end one's life? Yes? No? Otherwise, I'm arguing based on an unfair assumption of you.

But I have a problem with your premise. The "I have the right to kill myself slooooowly" argument isn't the same as an argument for the right to commit suicide (as in immediately taking one's life). It's murky. It's like saying we're all committing suicide by living in large cities because we might get lung cancer and heart disease from the pollution.

Again, the smokers, drinkers, gamblers, and tanners aren't barred from doing their thing. They just have to pay more for it because the likelihood that someone among them will require medical/social services related to their activity is rather high and well-documented.

Ignoring all the other banter...

I'm all for sin taxes and taxing shit out of stuff that makes you sick. Tanning beds have a direct link to cancer, tax them and at a high %. I fail to see this as a race or gender issue. It's a vanity/stupidity issue, IMO.

Well, is your life yours to do with as you please or not?

If it is, then why can't the government/private services draw a line on "If you do these few pre-determined, gallactically-stupid things, we aren't going to save your ass when you get sick from them." That avoids the taxation and expense of services outright. Just don't save them. They knew what they were doing. It's sort of like smoking/tanning for 15 years earns you a "D.N.R." tattoo across your forehead. Why are we duty-bound to save these people, regardless of their behavior?

The only murkiness is how long you let someone engage in the behavior before they get their tattoo.

P.S. Since someone will think I am serious, I don't really think the tattoo should go on their forehead. Maybe their cheek, though.

Sure, one alternative is to say "engage in these behaviors and face the consequences all by yourself." That would have to extend to insurance as well (unless a higher premium is somehow ok while a tax is not), so if you engage in any sort of potentially risky behavior (smoking, tanning, etc) you are immediately cut from insurance and have to pay the costs of treatment out of pocket.

However, most people would find a system where people are left to fend for themselves abhorrent, so people vote for these "sin" taxes in order to provide coverage for those things.

Raising the tax on alcohol (liquor/beer/wine) wouldnt be a bad idea. The federal tax has not been increased in 20 years and it could easily raise $50 billion over ten years towards the cost of the health reform.

Well, it depends on your position on how the tax money is used and why. We can view most of these things as a disease, addiction, or a habit formed based on a disease, etc., and so it would make sense to have programs in place to help people kick the habit or find healing. If it's tax dollars purely for treatment of "end game" diseases, then wouldn't it be better to have funds for treatment rather than having families go bankrupt?

I think the best would be to find a balance.

Also, I think it would be difficult to decide whether specific diseases were caused by certain behaviours. A smoker's lung cancer isn't necessarily caused by smoking; there could have been other factors that actually caused it. In many ways, these taxes are merely a way of hedging the bets.

I have never seen anything like the Tea Party in my travels to England, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Spain,... People seem to be a lot happier there as well. I wonder if there is a connection.

Their social/fiscal conservatives aren't close to the level of the right in this country. Our right-wing is also much better at spreading fear, hate, doubt, and lies.

You do realize that Libertarians are not right wing, right?

depends on the libertarian. and where you are.
in france, the word libertarian is more associated with revolutionary marxism that advocates a socialism based in direct democracy. which is a political vantagepoint i'm pretty sympathetic to. but that entire tradition is antithetical with the type of libertarian(-ism) that's dominant in the states

where the word libertarian seems to refer mostly to people who confuse ayn rand with a philosopher and who actually believe in the existence of entities like the Heroic Individual and capitalist markets that are somehow rational. that's what makes american libertarians so conservative-sounding. and often statements made by libertarians will match point-for-point with mainstream conservatism except that the libertarians will deny that they are mainstream conservatives while mainstream conservatives will not necessarily.

What are your thoughts, then, on all the right-wingers screaming libertarianese to score political points for Republicans?

Do you really think a significant fraction of these "libertarian" tea partiers vote Democrat? I'd be willing to bet there's at least 90% overlap of self-identified "libertarian" and "conservative" out there with the misspelled signs and the talking points and the pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache.

I tend to think that many libertarians are essentially conservatives with an obsession with individualism.

I'm sure there are some left-leaning libertarians, but I tend not to hear much about them.

You guys have it all figured out, no need to explain.

It wasn't us that did it.

It typically isn't liberal or progressive to long for the wealth of joy that characterized the employment opportunities and safety liabilities of the industrial revolution. So I imagine the left leaning libertarian is a rare breed. That being said, I think that left leaning libertarians are typically called anarchists.

Oh don't do that. I asked, "what are your thoughts", and I meant it.

Why not raise the tax on tofu, brussel sprouts, pine nuts, and $7 dollar lattes? Or, why not have a taxation policy that has a direct correlation to actual costs to society rather than an attitude of - let's just raise the tax on the things I find socially unacceptable? This is the attitude that is described by the concept "nanny state".

What are the "actual costs to society" of those things? Versus other things?


Are you arguing that the "actual cost to society" of consuming too many lattes is similar to that of lung or skin cancer?

Tobacco-related and alcohol-related health issues are a significant drain on the health care system and are among the highest causes of preventable deaths. Obesity is right up there as well.

When tofu and brussel sprouts have such an adverse impact, not just on the individual, but on the cost to society.....tax it!

I propose we build a giant screen that blocks out the sun thereby protecting us white people from the racist sun. For too many years we have been oppressed by this day star. Will you join me in my crusade to eliminate the sun?

Al Gore, is that you?

To Spectators,

Watch as a liberal mind goes bizzaro.

Regards,

Ace

Great point. So, what you are saying is that it is o.k. to tax when there is an adverse impact, right?

Well what would you tax in this situation:

Read more: Study: Breast-feeding would save lives, money - CharlotteObserver.com

Should we tax baby formula to encourage more women to breast feed?

How about we play some connect the dots.

* Let's say we have policy that offers free formula to poor mothers for their babies.
* They choose not to breast feed.
* Infant mortality is adversely affected.
* Liberals read reports about infant mortality being worse in this country compared to other countries.
* Liberals conclude the problem is due to poverty.
* They offer more poor women free formula.
* Then they feel all warm and fuzzy about doing good...until the next report comes out, because they never really address the real issues - a tragety isn't it?

What does a liberal do? I know...make it about Ace and how silly he is, am I right or what?

this--->


is plausible how exactly?
i'm assuming there's something holding it together that goes beyond your projections about "liberals"...and it's reverse which is that people like aceventura monopolize "realistic" approaches to social questions.

I was right!:thumbsup:

no ace you weren't. i'm asking a logic question: under what conditions is your scenario plausible. wanna answer it?

You were the one that posted a link to a study stating that the infant mortality rate in this country for poor women was due to a lack of access to good prenatal care. The scenario is an illustration of the actual posts that followed. How much more real can it get. The solution suggested in the report you cited was completely off base, because I believe there was a political agenda.

And as usual, I am amazed here, do you truly not see the points and the value in the points being made or are you just being argumentative? If people acknowledged the obvious discussion could get much more involved.

Okay, let's tie it all back then:

The purpose of the original tax on tanning is (implicitly) to control behavior which could be harmful to individuals AND (explicitly) to offset healthcare expenses of those who engage in that behavior. I think we all agree.

So, the exact same argument could be made for taxing baby formula: that taxing it should implicitly control the behavior which is harmful and should explicitly offset costs associated with that harmful behavior (doctor visits due to ear infections, asthma, stomach viruses, juvenile diabetes, etc.)

I know not every woman can breastfeed - but there will be healthcare costs associated with their use of formula which must be collected somewhere. Why don't we tax it?

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.

so while the same logic **could** i suppose be applied, it's not a good parallel.

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?
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?

rb,

This is for their own good. If they would breastfeed instead of formula, their children would be much healthier and they would save money. We are trying to help them. Why can't you see that?

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.


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?

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.

the equivalence is false.
if that's all you've got, your argument falls down.