Taxation as Safety?
0
I just heard my mom bitching about this and thought it'd make a good topic. Yay, mom!
She was saying that the news said that taxes on cigarettes were raised because the idea is, if cigarettes cost more, people will smoke them less. Apparently, the people who pass laws or whatever are taking that idea and applying it to other things, such as junk food. So, they are trying to protect us by making it harder for us to buy unhealthy things. Does that seem like bullshit to anyone else?
First off, making cigarettes more expensive isn't going to make all the smokers cut back. It's just going to make them spend less money on other things. It's hard as hell to quit smoking, and it's not something that you can even cut back on without a lot of effort. People may be less inclined to start smoking, but the majority of smokers don't start in their mid-20s with a clear head. They start when they're teenagers and don't think about how they'll get money for cigarettes.
Onto junk food, if it's going to cost a lot to get a honey bun, and it's going to cost a lot to get all-natural shit, then what the hell am I going to eat? Not to mention that I should be able to decide my own eating style. Which leads into . . .
Why the fuck should the government try to change our behavior through taxes? The government should make sure people are informed, and if people know the dangers, they should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to smoke or eat food that's bad for them. Right?
I don't keep up with the news or current events, so this could be old news, or I could have gotten some things wrong, and if so, I welcome anyone to set me and everyone else straight, but from what I have heard, the government (perhaps just local, perhaps national) is doing some shitty things. Maybe the worst thing they're doing is lying about their motives; maybe they're increasing taxes because they need money and decided to stiff smokers and eaters of junk food with a lame reason. But if they're earnest about trying to change behavior through taxation, then what the fuck?
She was saying that the news said that taxes on cigarettes were raised because the idea is, if cigarettes cost more, people will smoke them less. Apparently, the people who pass laws or whatever are taking that idea and applying it to other things, such as junk food. So, they are trying to protect us by making it harder for us to buy unhealthy things. Does that seem like bullshit to anyone else?
First off, making cigarettes more expensive isn't going to make all the smokers cut back. It's just going to make them spend less money on other things. It's hard as hell to quit smoking, and it's not something that you can even cut back on without a lot of effort. People may be less inclined to start smoking, but the majority of smokers don't start in their mid-20s with a clear head. They start when they're teenagers and don't think about how they'll get money for cigarettes.
Onto junk food, if it's going to cost a lot to get a honey bun, and it's going to cost a lot to get all-natural shit, then what the hell am I going to eat? Not to mention that I should be able to decide my own eating style. Which leads into . . .
Why the fuck should the government try to change our behavior through taxes? The government should make sure people are informed, and if people know the dangers, they should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to smoke or eat food that's bad for them. Right?
I don't keep up with the news or current events, so this could be old news, or I could have gotten some things wrong, and if so, I welcome anyone to set me and everyone else straight, but from what I have heard, the government (perhaps just local, perhaps national) is doing some shitty things. Maybe the worst thing they're doing is lying about their motives; maybe they're increasing taxes because they need money and decided to stiff smokers and eaters of junk food with a lame reason. But if they're earnest about trying to change behavior through taxation, then what the fuck?
0
Personally I think the government shouldn't raise taxes on anything they see as non favorable. Actually today catching the bus home today, I stood outside with a group of people. They were talking about how cigarettes were close to ten dollars a pack. One girl said her dad has been smoking 2 packs a day for years. Which means the prices going up haven't stopped him from buying. Also they talked about other ways of getting cheaper cigarettes. For instance I live in New Jersey, and 15 minutes away from Pennsylvania, where cigarettes are cheaper. So it's not that they're stopping, they just find other ways to get them cheaper.
Also if you raise tax on one thing, what's to stop them from raising taxes on another such as junk food? Then if they raise taxes on that, what's to stop them from raising taxes on something else like video games?
Really even if this does work it's, only going to work on a certain group of people IMO. It'll affect the lower class because eventually they can't afford it anymore and some part of the middle class. It's not that raising prices will stop people from doing it, it's raising prices will stop certain people from doing it.
And who knows, this may be a bit on the extreme side, but it could lead to crime like stealing for the people who can't afford it anymore and feel as if they desperately need it.
Just my 2 cents.
Also if you raise tax on one thing, what's to stop them from raising taxes on another such as junk food? Then if they raise taxes on that, what's to stop them from raising taxes on something else like video games?
Really even if this does work it's, only going to work on a certain group of people IMO. It'll affect the lower class because eventually they can't afford it anymore and some part of the middle class. It's not that raising prices will stop people from doing it, it's raising prices will stop certain people from doing it.
And who knows, this may be a bit on the extreme side, but it could lead to crime like stealing for the people who can't afford it anymore and feel as if they desperately need it.
Just my 2 cents.
0
I've heard about this on "Penn & Teller: Bullshit."
And yea, it's bullshit. It's obviously biased: it completely shits all over people with certain interests that may be deemed "unhealthy," but who the fuck is the government to tell me what I should be doing/interested in? I don't even get why we need to be protected, I mean, whatever happened to the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" If we our happiness results in us getting harmed, so fucking be it.
There's nothing really more to say about this except that it's complete bullshit. I also have a hard time believing that the government cares about my health.
Spoiler:
And yea, it's bullshit. It's obviously biased: it completely shits all over people with certain interests that may be deemed "unhealthy," but who the fuck is the government to tell me what I should be doing/interested in? I don't even get why we need to be protected, I mean, whatever happened to the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" If we our happiness results in us getting harmed, so fucking be it.
There's nothing really more to say about this except that it's complete bullshit. I also have a hard time believing that the government cares about my health.
0
Cigarettes are a politically-friendly, guaranteed source of tax income, plain and simple. One one hand, It is a significant source of income for the state. On the other hand though, the libertarian inside me gradually claiming more of my mind says that remove the taxes and let people decide for themselves.
Spoiler:
0
For a change of pace I post arguments for both sides simply because I'm bored.
Now, I'll defend the addition of a "Fat Tax"
Spoiler:
Now, I'll defend the addition of a "Fat Tax"
Spoiler:
0
WATCH THIS FIRST
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/523/index.html
considering some of the fedral subsidies to, and the crookedness of, the food industry. how many people are going to become a burden on the health care system because they eat garbage all the time. how many people actualy try to eat healthy instead of being lazy and eat premade processed food that is bad for them because it's easier and cheaper to get. maybe if they have to pay more for that crap they might pay more attention. i think it's a good idea to tax things that are a health risk. put the revenue from those taxes towards a public heath care system, or towards public school funding.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/523/index.html
considering some of the fedral subsidies to, and the crookedness of, the food industry. how many people are going to become a burden on the health care system because they eat garbage all the time. how many people actualy try to eat healthy instead of being lazy and eat premade processed food that is bad for them because it's easier and cheaper to get. maybe if they have to pay more for that crap they might pay more attention. i think it's a good idea to tax things that are a health risk. put the revenue from those taxes towards a public heath care system, or towards public school funding.
0
There should be taxes on this:
What Are the Costs of Drug Abuse to Society?
From National Institute on Drug Abuse
Updated September 07, 2009
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board
.Filed In:Alcoholism
Question: What Are the Costs of Drug Abuse to Society?
Answer: It is estimated that in 2000 illegal drug use cost America close to $161 billion:
†¢$110 billion in lost productivity
†¢$12.9 billion in healthcare costs
†¢$35 billion in other costs, such as efforts to stem the flow of drugs.
Beyond the raw numbers are other costs to society:
†¢Spread of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C either through sharing of drug paraphernalia or unprotected sex
†¢Deaths due to overdose or other complications from drug use
†¢Effects on unborn children of pregnant drug users
†¢Other effects such as crime and homelessness.
This does not include the tax on cocaine, crack, heroin, prescriptions which are abused for drug use. I forgot marijuana and meth also K2.
What Are the Costs of Drug Abuse to Society?
From National Institute on Drug Abuse
Updated September 07, 2009
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board
.Filed In:Alcoholism
Question: What Are the Costs of Drug Abuse to Society?
Answer: It is estimated that in 2000 illegal drug use cost America close to $161 billion:
†¢$110 billion in lost productivity
†¢$12.9 billion in healthcare costs
†¢$35 billion in other costs, such as efforts to stem the flow of drugs.
Beyond the raw numbers are other costs to society:
†¢Spread of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C either through sharing of drug paraphernalia or unprotected sex
†¢Deaths due to overdose or other complications from drug use
†¢Effects on unborn children of pregnant drug users
†¢Other effects such as crime and homelessness.
This does not include the tax on cocaine, crack, heroin, prescriptions which are abused for drug use. I forgot marijuana and meth also K2.
0
Why should the government get in our lives you say? Well, if we don't take care of ourselves, we cannot work hard. If we do not work hard, firms cannot make money. If firms cannot make money, they piss and moan to the government so the government has to do something about it. That involves getting into our lives. Plus, getting into our lives is profitable (taxes), and not doing so loses money (income tax, as well as has to pay out money if you can't feed yourself).
On a separate note, higher prices WILL reduce the amount consumed overall, at least if you believe in mainstream economic theories. On a personal basis, sure, if you are rich and a hardcore addict, then you probably would not cut back much, if at all. But the poorer, less addicted group of people will. By how much is determined by the price elasticity of demand, which depends on how reliant you are, how much of income is spent on the good, time period for consideration, etc.
On a separate note, higher prices WILL reduce the amount consumed overall, at least if you believe in mainstream economic theories. On a personal basis, sure, if you are rich and a hardcore addict, then you probably would not cut back much, if at all. But the poorer, less addicted group of people will. By how much is determined by the price elasticity of demand, which depends on how reliant you are, how much of income is spent on the good, time period for consideration, etc.
0
Well I have no problem with taxes on things like cigarettes because they not only fuck up you but people around you who get no say in your fucking with their lungs. Unless someone invents a chip that causes the people around you to get fat too it's not on the same level and therefore should be left alone.
0
But but... cigs are a good way of keeping the human population in check. D:>
Just like war!
Now, instead of raising taxes on cigs, they should legalize pot.
The whole nation.
Just like war!
Now, instead of raising taxes on cigs, they should legalize pot.
The whole nation.
0
If we want to keep populations in check we should make abortions legal everywhere and socially accepted (and for dumb people mandatory).
0
You don't really need to keep the population in check in the richer countries since people shouldn't feel the need to get many children and they should also be busy with other stuff then making kids.
I think it's a good idea to make "bad" stuff less attractive. The major problem i see with these sorts of taxes is that people get's annoyed and if the idea works and people starts consuming less of the "bad" stuff the goverment is going to run into money problems and will need to make a new tax of some sort
I think it's a good idea to make "bad" stuff less attractive. The major problem i see with these sorts of taxes is that people get's annoyed and if the idea works and people starts consuming less of the "bad" stuff the goverment is going to run into money problems and will need to make a new tax of some sort
0
I can understand trying to make "bad" things less desirable, but taxation seems like the wrong avenue. information should be key. Yet information has been tried, hasn't it? Everyone knows how dangerous cigarettes are, everyone knows how bad junk food is, but people still smoke and eat crap (myself included). So, if people are informed, why do they continue to do these "bad" things?
Since I eat junk food, I'll defend why people continue to eat crap. For me, there are two reasons I eat the stuff. One, I think it tastes good. No-brainer. Two, it's easy. It's not very expensive, and there's no cooking or preparation involved. I like that, not just because I'm lazy, but because I cannot cook. Some people cannot do certain things, and I am not a chef. So, there's no reason for me to stop eating junk food. I don't care much about health benefits, and I prefer the ease (rather, the lack of difficulty cooking would entail). If there was an avenue I could walk down that would satisfy my taste buds and my desire to not cook (as well as my low amount of money), wouldn't I take it?
Similar thing with smoking - if there was a guaranteed way to quit smoking, that didn't drive the person mad or send them to the poor house, wouldn't a lot of people do it? But there isn't such a thing, or if there is, it isn't widely known. If the government wants people to be healthier, they should take active measures to get people to change their lifestyles, instead of simply raising taxes.
Of course, it could be that the government doesn't care and just wants money, as I said in the first post. In that case, it's understandable why they'd tax cigarettes and junk food. There are people who'd rally behind the taxes, believing that it'd get people to stop abusing the things. But the government wouldn't care. They'd just want money.
In either case (the government cares or the government wants money), I see reason to be angry. This isn't the best option for stopping undesirable behavior, and it's an unfair way of making money from taxes.
Since I eat junk food, I'll defend why people continue to eat crap. For me, there are two reasons I eat the stuff. One, I think it tastes good. No-brainer. Two, it's easy. It's not very expensive, and there's no cooking or preparation involved. I like that, not just because I'm lazy, but because I cannot cook. Some people cannot do certain things, and I am not a chef. So, there's no reason for me to stop eating junk food. I don't care much about health benefits, and I prefer the ease (rather, the lack of difficulty cooking would entail). If there was an avenue I could walk down that would satisfy my taste buds and my desire to not cook (as well as my low amount of money), wouldn't I take it?
Similar thing with smoking - if there was a guaranteed way to quit smoking, that didn't drive the person mad or send them to the poor house, wouldn't a lot of people do it? But there isn't such a thing, or if there is, it isn't widely known. If the government wants people to be healthier, they should take active measures to get people to change their lifestyles, instead of simply raising taxes.
Of course, it could be that the government doesn't care and just wants money, as I said in the first post. In that case, it's understandable why they'd tax cigarettes and junk food. There are people who'd rally behind the taxes, believing that it'd get people to stop abusing the things. But the government wouldn't care. They'd just want money.
In either case (the government cares or the government wants money), I see reason to be angry. This isn't the best option for stopping undesirable behavior, and it's an unfair way of making money from taxes.
0
I think one of the major reason why information doesn't work is that side effects that you might not notice aren't that persuasive, all people that smoke doesn't die in lung cancer, and it takes time to get overweight and if you're already overweight, who gives a fuck if you get a little extra. Kinda like if you're disciplining your dog, if something bad doesn't happen straight away she's not gonna care much.
To be fair tho, i would eat more junk food if i could afford it, but over here it costs like 3 times more then the food i cook myself so i end up cooking unless i really can't be arsed.
To be fair tho, i would eat more junk food if i could afford it, but over here it costs like 3 times more then the food i cook myself so i end up cooking unless i really can't be arsed.
0
blacktornado wrote...
Why should the government get in our lives you say? Well, if we don't take care of ourselves, we cannot work hard. If we do not work hard, firms cannot make money. If firms cannot make money, they piss and moan to the government so the government has to do something about it. That involves getting into our lives. Plus, getting into our lives is profitable (taxes), and not doing so loses money (income tax, as well as has to pay out money if you can't feed yourself).On a separate note, higher prices WILL reduce the amount consumed overall, at least if you believe in mainstream economic theories. On a personal basis, sure, if you are rich and a hardcore addict, then you probably would not cut back much, if at all. But the poorer, less addicted group of people will. By how much is determined by the price elasticity of demand, which depends on how reliant you are, how much of income is spent on the good, time period for consideration, etc.
Shouldn't you (not you specifically, just people) be smart enough to decide between unhealthy foods and healthy foods? If so, then why do we need some bureaucrat in some cubicle to decide what we should be able to eat?
As for firms not being able to make money, companies fire unproductive workers all the time. You ate too much McDonalds and you've gained 50lbs which has made a negative impact on your productivity then you'll get fired. You don't have to worry about firms not being able to make money.
The only real argument from this avenue is that obesity leads to an increased strain on the health care system which raises the costs on everybody. A better alternative to taxing such foods is to tax obesity. Put a $1,000 tax on all obese people but, give healthy (a.k.a within a certain limit of BMI or similar scale) a tax break of $500. We could also extend that idea towards smokers. Just a thought
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
A better alternative to taxing such foods is to tax obesity. Put a $1,000 tax on all obese people but, give healthy (a.k.a within a certain limit of BMI or similar scale) a tax break of $500. We could also extend that idea towards smokers. Just a thoughtThat's probably not a good idea. People can't help their genetics and some people are just more likely to become fat than others. Also limiting their money so that they have less to buy more expensive healthier foods with doesn't help as that's also a factor in people becoming obese. Instead perhaps a tax break for obese people for buying healthier foods or taking other steps to leading a healthier life (thus rewarding and enabling them to do so).
0
The taxation of junk food and cigarettes to make us healthy is just a facade put up by the government. They are finding the things that we use the most, such as cigarettes, and taxing them for profit because they know that we cant quit. In reality, if some of the major staples of our economy like McDonalds died, our government would be in an even bigger pile of shit. Using that logic, that means that our government actually backs unhealthy foods such as McDonalds and Burger King.
18
18
0
Ramsus wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
A better alternative to taxing such foods is to tax obesity. Put a $1,000 tax on all obese people but, give healthy (a.k.a within a certain limit of BMI or similar scale) a tax break of $500. We could also extend that idea towards smokers. Just a thoughtThat's probably not a good idea. People can't help their genetics and some people are just more likely to become fat than others. Also limiting their money so that they have less to buy more expensive healthier foods with doesn't help as that's also a factor in people becoming obese. Instead perhaps a tax break for obese people for buying healthier foods or taking other steps to leading a healthier life (thus rewarding and enabling them to do so).
So how are we to go about doling out these tax credits? The tax preparers are supposed to know which items on your grocery receipts are healthier than what you bought beforehand? The system is too cumbersome as it is. Last thing we need is every obese person trying to milk the system for lower taxes by claiming anything they bought was "healthier".
Reminder; Most of what I say in this thread is for the sake of argument. Not actually what I believe. I'm simply bored.
0
I would have to disagree.. natural food is more expensive than junk food all the time.
And i'm in usa here and I don't live in a small town.
If such a lame thing happens, I might have to consider moving to one of the european country i have relatives in.
I can get natural food there for real real cheap and they're actually good to eat.
And plus i'll be in travelling distance to go get a tan at beach almost all year around.
In fact, why haven't I moved yet?
EDIT: I think i hate myself now.
And i'm in usa here and I don't live in a small town.
If such a lame thing happens, I might have to consider moving to one of the european country i have relatives in.
I can get natural food there for real real cheap and they're actually good to eat.
And plus i'll be in travelling distance to go get a tan at beach almost all year around.
In fact, why haven't I moved yet?
EDIT: I think i hate myself now.