On a newsgroup I recently saw someone complaining about obese people and smokers because he feels we will have to pay more in taxes to pay for these unhealthy people's increased health care costs. He then asked if government could tackle weight gain without intruding into the citizens' kitchens, restaurants and grocery stores? I think that is a very interesting question, and it can easily be made in regard to other unhealthy behaviors such as smoking. So what do you think?

In my opinion, if we are forced by the government to be in a health care plan with people who don't take care of themselves (e.g. overeat, smoke, etc.), then I would like the government to also make them pay more for it. Also, if the government is going to use taxpayers money to fix the problems caused by those unhealthy behaviors (overeating, smoking and so forth), then I think it is fair to make those people pay more in taxes, which is most easily done by taxing unhealthy behaviors like smoking and eating unhealthily. I do not want to be forced to pay for someone else's unhealthy habit; it's not fair to me, and it's enabling to them. Don't you agree?

Nameless, do you feel that smoking cigarettes significantly differs from overeating? If so, how? They are both addictive, they are both expensively unhealthy, and they are both choices that some people make and some people do not, for some people its easier to avoid or quit and exercise self-control and for others it is harder, especially I think for those who are depressed, who were not taught self-control as much, and who have an addictive personality.

But I still think it is unfair for one person to have to pay for the expenses caused by the unhealthiness of a second person's voluntary habit, such as smoking, overeating, drinking alcohol, boxing, having unprotected sex with many different partners, daredevil risk taking, et cetera. Don't you? Would you mind paying for that? What about if my friend dares me to jump off my roof, I do it knowing the likely risk that I might incur an expensive injury, break my ankle, go to the hospital and get a bill for $1,000; how would you feel if someone made you pay for it or some of it?

Homicidal Pacifist wrote:Tax unhealthy foods???

I'm a skinny bastard and eating a juicy big-mac and a donut should be considered healthy for me because I NEED fatty foods and as many calories as I can find.

The food item is not the problem. It is the willing abuse of the food item that is to blame.

That's a good point. I agree that I do not think it would be fair to tax everyone who uses something because some people use it unhealthily while others use it moderately and healthily. If the proposed taxed object is used for healthy purposes, then I would suggest we find a way to tax the unhealthy usage of it. Though in the case of a Big Mac, I don't think it would ever be considered healthy. I doubt I doctor would ever recommend that, even to a skinny person.

Also, I only want to tax expensive, unhealthy behaviors if the taxpayers are being forced to pay for their cost, namely the increased health care costs. If someone chooses to engage in an unhealthy activity, but that person is paying for the health care costs not the taxpayers, then I say live and let live and forget the tax.

Anon007 wrote:I live in Wisconsin and this state is fifth-highest in the county for cigarette taxes. In addition, from a WI state Website, it states, "Cigarettes, with tax collections of $551.3 million, continue to be the largest excise tax generator."

I see the potential problem of overtaxing, but that single statistic doesn't mean much by itself. It could only mean what you are implying if compared to other statistics. How much do the state and local governments in Wisconsin pay for health care? What about for 911 and similar emergency services? Is there an estimate for how much more the average non-smoker in that state has to pay out of their own pocket for unhealthy effects of secondhand smoke? How much does the state and local governments spend on regulating cigarette sales and trying to stop minors from getting cigarettes?

Simon says... wrote:To an extent, just to be devils advocate here, this is, I'm guessing, coming from someone who is healthy and doesn't overeat or smoke. As such you have nothing to lose, ergo are you at risk of sounding biased?

This seems to me to be an instance of the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy.

Incidentally, I do many unhealthy things. I once wrote a very popular article that got a lot of publicity online entitled 71 Thing You Can Do, even though I have not consistently done most of them. The intent of the article was that nobody's perfect and self-improvement is wiser than being self-righteous or making up excuses for why one's life isn't better.

Anyway, for an example of an instance where I'm less at the risk of sounding bias, I drink alcohol regularly and I am pleased to pay taxes on alcohol and would be happy if the taxes on it were increased. It's an unhealthy luxury. And drinking it less is one of those 71 things I could do. This mirrors your views regarding your own occasional smoking, I think.

The revenue could go towards health care and education. It could compensate for other tax breaks. I wouldn't mind seeing the revenue gained by taxes on unhealthy behaviors and the purchase of unhealthy items to go up by increasing those taxes while simultaneously equally reducing income or property taxes, particularly those on working class folks. This could be done such that the total amount of taxes being collected is the same or less, but that it is being collected by taxing unhealthy behaviors instead of income or owning a modest sized home. For some, this may be seen as the so-called lesser of two evils; for others it may seem like not only a less undesirable option but a course of action that has a ultimately positive outcome by discouraging people from engaging in unhealthy behaviors.

I do think the government would be stepping into dangerous ground by opening itself up to discriminating between people based on their weight. But generally speaking I firmly expect a private health insurance company to charge an obese, alcoholic smoker more than a non-smoking, non-drinking person who maintains a health weight just as a private car insurance company will charge a driver in a higher risk category more than one who drives more safely.

Meleagar wrote:When health care is considered a right, then the country cannot become anything other than a completely socialistic country.

I don't understand your logic.

There are plenty of non-socialist countries where education is a right. Why is health care different than education in that respect?

Regardless, I don't see what health care being considered a right has to do with the topic of this thread. Meleagar, if the government even in a non-socialist is going to be spending money on health care, do you want unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol and soda to be taxed to help pay for ensuing health care costs? If not, then where do you suggest we get the revenue to pay for the extra health care costs caused by some people's unhealthy choices?

Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not? In other words, would you rather discourage and punish through taxation unhealthy behaviors like cigarette smoking or discourage and punish people for earning more money at their job?

In an ideal society maybe nobody would be taxed at all. But right now in are unideal society governments all over the world are spending money. Someone and something has to be taxed to pay for that. Do we tax income and property solely, or do we at least get some of the tax revenue from taxing unhealthy behaviors so that income and property taxes don't have to be so high?

Marabod, good point. The more something is taxed or regulated, the more it tends to spread to the black market. This is an inherent drawback of government intervention that I believe generally makes it counterproductive. This is why in my version of an ideal society, I believe there would be no government spending and taxation (at least not on the large-scale level of federal and state governments). However, I do not think this black market effect is any more prevalent or any more of a problem when taxing unhealthy things like cigarettes as opposed to taxing income traded for labor. I have known many people who make some, most or all of their income sub rosa so that they can avoid taxes and regulation. Many private contractors get paid in cash for numerous jobs so that they can avoid paying taxes and/or avoid other regulations. This is trading labor for income on the black market. If we are going to discourage either trading income from labor or buying unhealthy things like cigarettes, which presumably will increase the occurrence of whichever one we choose to tax more on the black market, I'd rather choose buying unhealthy things like cigarettes; wouldn't you?

***

Scott wrote:There are plenty of non-socialist countries where education is a right. Why is health care different than education in that respect?

Meleagar wrote:That's like asking me why an apple is different from an orange. If government provides everyone with healthcare, then it has the responsibility to regulate anything and everything that impacts the cost of that healthcare; that includes virtually every aspect of the US economy.

It is like asking why an apple is different than an orange if you said that government providing universal access to oranges was socialist but government providing universal access to apples is not socialist. In the context of leading to "complete socialism," I don't see the significant difference between oranges and apples or between education and health care.

What you say to one who argues, when education is considered a right, then the country cannot become anything other than a completely socialistic country? What if they claimed, if government provides everyone with education, then it has the responsibility to regulate anything and everything that impacts the cost of that education; that includes virtually every aspect of the US economy?

Scott wrote:Regardless, I don't see what health care being considered a right has to do with the topic of this thread. Meleagar, if the government even in a non-socialist is going to be spending money on health care, do you want unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol and soda to be taxed to help pay for ensuing health care costs? If not, then where do you suggest we get the revenue to pay for the extra health care costs caused by some people's unhealthy choices?

Meleagar wrote:The short answer is that private healthcare companies get to decide who they will and will not contractually cover via privately-held insurance agreements or through other means that they deem appropriate and according to standard contractual law. IOW, those who cannot afford health care and cannot find a way to obtain it privately (through charitable organizations, family, etc.) do not get health care.

Okay, but that's not what I asked you.

In this thread, I'm not saying I support the government spending money to subsidize health care. If a government is spending money on health care, then I would prefer that that government at least in part tax unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes to pay for that spending than solely tax things income and property; wouldn't you?

Scott wrote:Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not? In other words, would you rather discourage and punish through taxation unhealthy behaviors like cigarette smoking or discourage and punish people for earning more money at their job?

Meleagar wrote:I don't wish to discourage unhealthy behavior at all.

Okay, but you agree that taxing an activity discourages it, right? If there is any government debts to be paid, would you rather pay them by taxing and thus discouraging unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes or pay them by taxing and thus discouraging having a income-paying job or buying a modest-sized home?

There's no reason to tax for an expense if you cut out the expense. I'd rather my taxes go to national defense, not correcting the bad health habits of others.

I'd rather my taxes go towards preventative care than to handouts, subsidies and unneeded welfare for the private military industry. But that's not really of consequence to the topic at hand as far as I can tell. If the government is going to spend money on anything be it defense or health care, would you rather the government solely pay for it by taxing and thus discouraging getting income and buying modest amounts of real property or by, at least in part, taxing and thus discouraging unhealthy behaviors that increase overall health care costs. I would rather it tax at least in part the unhealthy behaviors than tax the trading of labor for income or tax the owning of a modest-sized home especially if the government is spending money on health care meaning the people engaging in unhealthy behaviors are increasing the total amount of government expenses needing to be paid by taxation.

As far as I know, every state in the U.S. already has a single-payer, universal education system. If the total amount being spent on education in the U.S. is less than the total amount being spend on health care, then that could be argued to be a vindication of the claim by some people that single-payer systems lower costs. Indeed, if I remember correctly, the U.S. spends more per capita on health care than any other country--though it gets terrible results per capita in terms of things like mortality.

Some countries spend more on education than health care; some countries spend more on health care than education. So I don't think having a right to one leads to complete socialism significantly more than having a right to the other.

Here are some examples: The country of Vanuatu's health care spending equals 3.8% of its GDP while its education spending equals 11% of its GDP. The country of Lesotho's health care spending equals 6.2% of its GDP while its education spending equals 10.4% of its GDP. The country of USA's health care spending equals 14.6% of its GDP (a larger percentage than any other country) while its education spending equals 5.7% of its GDP (a smaller percentage than about 36 other countries). So people in Vanuatu and people in Lesotho spend more on education than health care and people in the USA spend more on health care than education. (Sources: Education spending by country as percentage of GDP, Health care spending by country as percentage of GDP.)

Scott wrote:In this thread, I'm not saying I support the government spending money to subsidize health care. If a government is spending money on health care, then I would prefer that that government at least in part tax unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes to pay for that spending than solely tax things income and property; wouldn't you?

Meleagar wrote:No, because it's an erosion of freedom. I'm not in favor of the government establishing a system of fining people for non-criminal behaviors, which is what such taxes are.

Okay. But if the government is going to "fine people for non-criminal behaviors" (a.k.a. tax people), wouldn't you prefer the government collect at least some of the revenue by "fining" people for engaging in unhealthy things like smoking cigarettes rather than solely collect the revenue by "fining" people for receiving income or owning property?

Meleagar wrote:The reason I didn't respond to your O.P. and was instead responding to a later post was because I consider the question posed by your O.P. to be of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety; you offer a rigged choice.

The question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is loaded because it assume that you have at least previously been beating your wife. The question, "If you have been beating your wife, would you stop now?" is not loaded as such because it uses the word 'if' to openly propose a hypothetical condition for another statement or question. There are countless examples of if, then statements which can be phrased as statements or questions; they do not assume the truth of the if statement but only assert a connection between the truth of the then statement based on the if statement. It's a basic logical operator, not a loaded statement/question.

If you still believe that I have falsely assumed something by making a loaded statement or asking a loaded question (like assuming you beat you have previously beaten your wife by asking, "Did you stop beating your wife?") as opposed to making conditional statements (i.e. if/then statements), then please specify exactly with what proposition I have loaded a statement or question (e.g. "That question is loaded with the assumption that I have at some point beat my wife.")

Meleagar wrote:Instead of fining or taxing behaviors that might or might not cause health system burdens on down the road, how about we just fine or tax the actual health burdens when they show up by charging them (even if over time) for their health care?

I can think of pros and cons of doing that and of not doing that. Regardless, if the government is going to spend money on health care, then I especially want it to impose taxes on unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes instead of collecting that revenue by (increasingly) taxing income or property. If a government increases the proportion of money it spends on health care, then I would like to see the proportion of taxes imposed on unhealthy things like smoking cigarettes to be increased proportionally. Don't you agree with that? If not, why not?

Algol,

Algol wrote:But if someone wants a cigarette, a cheeseburger, or a beer, he/she should always have the right to do so without feeling guilt.

I agree with that statement to the same degree I agree with the statement 'if someone wants to trade labor for income or finish their basement, he/she should always have the right to do so without feeling guilt.' But I would rather tax the unhealthy behavior like smoking cigarettes to collect at least some of any collected revenue than solely tax trading income for labor and/or owning/improving modest amounts of property. This is especially the case when considering the fact that the unhealthy behavior increases the overall cost of health care which increases the amount of government spending in a government with a single payer system which increases the total amount of tax debt. Why charge a person who makes healthy choices more in income taxes because a unhealthy person chooses to do something unhealthy like smoke cigarettes? Why further infringe on the healthy person's "right" to have a job or finish his basement because a second person chooses to do something unhealthy like smoke cigarettes rather than further infringe the "right" of the unhealthy person to do unhealthy things like smoke cigarettes?

***

Meleagar,

Firstly I want to note that I'm not merely talking about federal governments in federalist countries. I'm talking about all governments that impose taxes and that spend money on health care, particularly governments that provide universal single payer health care (much like in the way education is provided currently in the United States).

Meleagar wrote:Because a complex, punitive tax code invites abuse and corruption and erodes personal liberty, responsibility and authority. The only tax the federal government should be able to levy on citizens is a flat tax.

I think that's a reasonable compliant. But in my state--the government of which does spend money on health--there is a sales tax on things like car washes and candy but not on things like bread. There is also an extra sales tax on the sale of alcohol and cigarettes which is significantly more than the regular sales tax on things like candy. In my opinion, the sales tax is much simpler than the income tax in my state which I think is still yet simpler than the federal income tax system in the United States.

Generally, I would prefer a simpler tax code to a complicated one; a main reason being that complexity is conducive to corruption. But I don't see anything inherently simpler about an income tax than a sales tax. Much of the complexity of deductions and exemptions will not be avoided even in a flat income tax system because most of the complexity stems from the question of what is and is not income, which in many cases is a harder, more complex question to answer than what is or is not as unnecessary and unhealthy as McDonald's burgers or cigarettes.

***

A tax can be complicated, it is punitive, it discourages people from engaging in the taxed activity, it can be said to be infringing on the 'right' of a person to do the taxed activity, and it can lead to an increased prevalence of the taxed activity on the black market. But I don't see why we would want the government to create a complicated tax system to punish people for and discourage people from trading labor for income instead of to punish people for and discourage people from engaging in unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes especially since the latter behaviors increase overall health care costs whereas merely having a job doesn't.

If the government is going to spend money on health care namely in a single payer universal health care system paid for through taxes, it clearly seems to me much fairer to charge more to the people who choose to engage in unnecessary activities that increase the average cost of insuring them, which we can easily and simply do by charging a sales tax on such activities or the purchase of things used in such activities. This seems to me as fair and simple as the idea that if one goes to a restaurant and orders twice as much food as another person one will pay more than that other person for it; If one chooses to engage in twice as much unnecessary, unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes thus increasing the average cost to insure one, then under my proposal or in a free market system one will on average pay more than one who as a result of their healthier choices costs less to insure.

Meleagar wrote:

Scott wrote:But I don't see anything inherently simpler about an income tax than a sales tax.

There isn't anything inherently simpler if the sales tax is a flat sales tax applied to all products. However, if one is able to charge different rates of tax for different products, then the potential for manipulative abuse rises.

How so? The sales tax in CT is fairly simple, much simpler than the income tax in my opinion. Anecdotally speaking, I worked in a grocery store once and one day I performed the duties of scanning coordinator which in large part entailed entering items into the computer and correcting things that were in the computer wrong (e.g. something ringing at the wrong price or being charged tax that wasn't supposed to, etc.). Food like eggs and milk are exempt from the sales tax but things like candy and soda and general merchandise like ice cream scoops are not. It was very simple, which is why as a teenager with no experience they let me do that after a few days of training when they would have never let me have anything to do with the complicated income tax stuff they need to hire college educated accountants to do.

I think that a sales tax with a few different categories and a few exemptions can be much simpler than a flat income tax. Regardless, in what way could it be abused that a flat sales tax or flat income tax would be significantly less prone to?

Meleagar wrote:Any attempt to decree one lifestyle or set of choices as more favorable than another through manipulations of tax code is IMO not only contrary to the principle of liberty from government intrusion and coercion, but is also an invitation to corruption.

Okay. However, whether you choose to (increasingly) tax the behavior of trading labor for income or choose to tax the behavior of buying unhealthy things like cigarettes, you are making such a "decree." So why would you prefer to make such a decree against the behavior of trading labor for income or choose to tax the behavior instead of buying unhealthy things like cigarettes? I understand the simplicity issue, but it seems as simple if not more simple to tax the category of buying unhealthy things like cigarettes than tax the category of trading income for labor, namely because it is easier to tell when a purchase of cigarettes has occurred and easier to figure out a percentage of the sale price than it is to figure out when income has been gained and the amount of which to apply a tax percentage.

Meleagar wrote:If fairness is your target, it's hardly fair to tax people extra for services they might never use. A fair sytem of health-care specific variable taxation would be a flat tax (say, 2% of income) that goes up after one has exceeded a basic amount of health care cost. IOW, the variable amount of increased taxation is directly correlated to actual use over time.

I think that would work too and achieve essentially the same goals.

Aren't Medicaid and Social Security in the USA currently both funded by a flat income tax? So I think it is false to say it can't happen or it wouldn't work.

Anyway, the advantage of using a sales tax on unhealthy items to pay for any government spending on health care as opposed to using an income tax which is increased when people use more than a certain amount of health care is that it doesn't penalize people for being unlucky, which is the point of insurance in the first place. It penalizes people for being more expensive to insure. The cost of insurance is based on risk. If one person drives more recklessly and is a great risk according to certain factors, he costs more to insure; it may happen to be the case that he never gets in another car accident, but the point of insurance is to avoid chance (particularly when an unfortunate result would leave one liable beyond their ability to pay). Similarly, it costs more to insure a person who chooses to do things like smoke cigarettes as compared to someone who doesn't. The point of insurance is to not wait and see who gets in a car accident and then try to make them pay for the damages they caused and the point of insurance is to not wait and see who ends up coming down with a health problem that costs more than they can afford to pay and than charge them as much as we can get away with. The point of insurance is to spread the risk and negate luck and charge each individual based on the risk they bring to the table. Insurance is an especially fair process when the risk factors considered are based off choices the person has made (e.g. "did you go to driving school?" "do you smoke cigarettes").

Another benefit is that taxing unhealthy behaviors will reduce them from occurring and thus lower overall health care costs. And I think reducing overall health care costs is especially important when the taxpayer is being expected to pay for some or all of it rather than solely the individual namely via private insurance.

It's not a free market. For example, the production of the main ingredient, corn, in McDonald's chicken nuggets is subsidized by the government.

The morbidly obese person who doesn't take care of himself receives more subsidized health care from the emergency room on average than the healthy person but doesn't pay more in taxes for it.

I do want it to be legal for peddlers of addictive, unhealthy food like McDonald's to operate for the sake of freedom in the same way and to the same degree that I want it to be legal for people to sell drugs like cocaine or to be legal to engage in activities like prostitution. I am not suggesting we criminalize these activities.

I do think it makes more sense to at least in part tax these alleged vices instead of taxing things like the general trading of labor for income and possession of a home.

Even more importantly, I adamantly do not want governmental subsidy, support and bailouts for those unhealthy activities such as eating Big Macs, smoking cigarettes, binge drinking and snorting cocaine.

I think, unfortunately, the government is not trying to do what some people genuinely think is fair or in the best interests of the general public. I think it's all about money, and the government will sell out to any group with a big enough checkbook--be it fast food sellers, drug sellers, war profiteers or the folks producing and peddling the corn syrup. Our freedom and health is bought away like a murderer paying a politician to legalize the murders he commits or paying a judge to dismiss his case. If they kick enough back to the politicians and bureaucrats, the people doing the harm whether they do it by getting customers to voluntarily buy their cheap product made cheap through subsidization and through an asinine tax system or do it by blatantly infringing people's freedom (e.g. the murderer example above) can get their harm-causing business to be subsidized by the government. It's a vicious, common cycle.

Alethia wrote:For the american's entailed to this thread, why are you only picking on fast food outlets?

I'm not just picking on them. Insofar as taxpayer dollars are spent to deal with I would indeed suggest increasing the taxes not only on fast food but on all sorts of unhealthy products including cigarettes, alcohol, candy (and any edible product sweetened with refined sugar, corn syrup, artificial sweeteners like Splenda or so on), soda, recreational drugs, etc.

As far as restaurants go, they already usually pay sales tax. But I would suggest an increased sales tax for any product that doesn't meet a certain nutritional standard. But I would base that standard of the ratio of nutritional factors to each other without relation to the size of the dish. A small cookie may have less calories, less sugar and less fat than a big undressed salad, but I would do the standards in a way that the cookie may not meet the standard and the salad will. While its true that poor portion-sizing is a major factor causing people's unhealthiness, I just don't see how its feasible to tax. What if I buy 1000 cookies individually rather than 1 plate of 100 cookies? Would you tax the plate of 100 because its too big and not tax any of the 1000 individually purchased cookies? Would you penalize the person for ordering one big salad with good nutritional ratios instead of penalizing the person for repeatedly ordering small cookies?

If you replace the word socialism with the word statism, I agree with what Meleagar wrote in the post immediately preceding this one. We see an example of the type of flaws common in big government with the fact that in a supposed attempt to reduce health care costs or otherwise improve the health care system in many countries including the United States the government has created a system that subsidies health care coverage in a way that increases overall costs while not leading to better outcomes, marked by the fact that the healthy person pays taxes on his gym membership to pay for health care subsidies that are more often used by unhealthy people who buy and eat non-carbonated sugar water and don't pay any taxes on it. The inherent flaws of taxation and government spending lead to a system in which healthy people have to pay via taxes for unhealthy people's unhealthy choices which of course reduces the economic incentive for unhealthy people to not make the choices that will increase the health care costs that would be present in a more free society. In such a system, increasing taxes on unhealthy things like cigarettes is a way to partially undo the harmful effects of the statism (forcing healthy people to pay for unhealthy people's health care) and is a lot more agreeable than the stronger more fundamental reforms that a real libertarian, anarchist or borderline anarchist would want (e.g. to eliminate or nearly eliminate taxation and government spending all-together).

***

whitetrshsoldier wrote:And what happens, Scott, when the studies are released years from now proving that the items you considered "unhealthy" were actually beneficial for individuals?

That's a valid concern. But I think that the scientific method can be used with a fair amount of certainty to discern which activities are unhealthy. For example, I do not see much risk that future studies will show that cigarettes are actually not unhealthy. I can name things which most of us are convinced have been scientifically shown to be unhealthy, like cigarettes, but I wouldn't leave it up to me but rather up to scientists performing the scientific method which is necessarily reproducible meaning we do not have to take any one scientist or group of scientists words.

whitetrshsoldier wrote: Would that not constitute theft, as an unjust tax on a product you targeted for its adverse effects that didn't actually exist?

I think all taxes constitute theft by definition. But, particularly if the revenue is being used to pay for government spending on health care, I would much rather, create or increase taxes on something I think has been scientifically shown to be unhealthy like cigarettes or soda than on trading income for labor or owning a modest sized home.