Stuartp523,
Stuartp523 wrote:Scott, your argument is the equivalent of asking poor people to pay a poor tax.
In what relevant ways? Are those common traits really the ones that make asking poor people to pay a poor tax objectionable? I can think of numerous relevant differences between taxing poor people for being poor as opposed to taxing unhealthy things like cigarettes, fast food and soda:
1) Poor people cannot afford the tax and need the money for other more important things like food, clothes and shelter. In contrast, someone buying a luxury item like a cigarette, soda or a 6-pack of heavy beer can instead use a portion of that money to afford the tax without cutting into their rent money and so forth. (Granted, addicts do not behave like rational agents, such as by spending rent money on booze, but that hardly means enabling them even further makes sense.)
2) Poor people, by definition as I use the term (see note), do not choose to be poor. If someone gets mugged out of all their money and then their house gets struck by lightening and then their insurance company screws them over and so on and so forth, what sense is there is in penalizing that person for that? In contrast, someone who smokes themselves to lung cancer or eats Big Macs into obesity is responsible for the long-term consequences of those decisions, and it makes sense to have them pay for those expenses in a way that does not make sense to charge poor people. (Note: As for people who choose to live in poverty-like conditions, I do not consider them to be poor just like I do not consider an anorexic to be suffering from world hunger.)
3) Taxing and/or raising interest rates on cigarettes, fast food, motorcycle driving, soda discourages these often compulsive behaviors. Poverty is its own financial discouragement so the issue of financial discouragement is yet another thing which is inapplicable to the poverty tax.
Stuartp523 wrote:I think (sarcastically) there should be a tax for people who never had a problem in their life insulting those whose existence has been suffering from day one.
I don't understand your point. Can you rephrase this in literal terms rather than sarcastic ones?
Stuartp523 wrote:When my health has enabled me to work I outworked everyone in the store. No one was faster, stayed more overtime, and came in on the days off more. I have a completely clean conscience. I've never bullied, stole, cheated, done drugs, voted ignorantly, ran my mouth against the defenseless or even broken someone’s heart. I quit my last two jobs because my employers were putting the public at risk.
You sound like the kind of person who would have a lot of wealth in a merit-based distribution of wealth, which I believe is the economic ideal.
Stuartp523 wrote: Yes I’m overweight. Should I send you a check??????
My main proposal is to tax the kind of things that make a person overweight, like fast food, candy and soda. Just like a cigarette smoker, you can give the metaphorical check over to the clerk at the store if you buy these kinds of things. I also propose, all things the same, that an overweight person pay more for health insurance than a person of healthy weight. You can send that check over to the insurance company, or if you live in a place with a single-payer insurance system you can send that check to the appropriate government branch.
***
UniversalAlien,
UniversalAlien wrote:My basic point was if you are going to tax people for behavior where are you going to stop - or should we tax people based only on an ultimately materialistic agenda? Smokers, over-eaters, drinkers, those who use too much salt, those who do not control their blood pressure, those who practice un-safe sex, etc, etc. Where does it end and how are you going to enforce all the tax collection. Cigarettes are easy, just keep raising the per-pack tax rate. But you note the Mayor of NYC now wants to outlaw soft-drinks that are over-size; Over-size for who a 5'2" 110 pound women or 6'7" 300 pound football player? One size fits all in that mayors save the people from themselves agenda.
This line of thought runs the risk of the
camel's nose fallacy.
You say cigarettes are easy. It seems to me taxing soda, candy, unhealthy fast food, and unhealthy food is very easy as well. Unhealthy food can be defined by any number of simple measures which can be used separately or simultaneously, including the ratio of protein-to-calories, or whether the product has refined sugar or other sweetening additives, or whether the product has trans fat. Are cigarettes more unhealthy than trans fat and refined sweeteners (or by extension obesity and diabetes)? They seem no easier to tax.
I agree that taxing portion-sizes is impractical.
UniversalAlien wrote:I believe Scott in one of your posts you indicated your philosophy was basically Libertarian as to human behavior. So I might ask how could you advocate taxing human life-style choices when to do so inevitably is going to lead to attempts at control? I understand what you are saying as to it costing the public more for dangerous life style choices but it would seem to me that we can't have it both ways. Either we allow people their own choices in life or go down the dangerous path of control for a materialist agenda and what other agendas government decides upon.
Great question! But let's look even just at what I wrote in the OP of this topic with some freshly added emphasis:
"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, in some later posts I make a similar but even more general argument:
Meleagar in post #31 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.
Scott in post #32 wrote: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?
Scott in post #35 wrote: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.
In theory, I would rather have the anarchist or minarchist society of my idealistic dreams, but all this discussion about taxes and who pays more has been under the assumption that I do not have that. So it's contextualized by those 'ifs' to make it matter of the so-called lesser of two evils. In that way, I think my proposals fit in more with my anarchist/minarchist views which do indeed share a lot in common with even right-wing libertarianism than the opposing views under that context. In other words, I'm proposing government policies that mimic the benefits of truly free markets and free societies, such as people having to pay for the costs of their own unhealthy habits rather than being subsidized by unfair taxes on healthy people.
UniversalAlien wrote:Because there is no money in it the following statistical survey will probably never be done, but it would be interesting. I would like to see a survey of say 10,000 people; Group A basically follows good life-style behavior and group B doesn't give a dam and does whatever they feel like. Do you think there will be a significant difference in illness and longevity between the two groups?
Yes, I do. But I do not find it wise to encourage people to kill themselves so that the rest of us who are part of the same insurance pool can save money on the would-be insurance/retirement payouts.
There is a myriad of factors to consider if trying to measure by total lifetime costs and then using that to come up with amounts to tax, since taxes are collected by the moment or year. I agree with your suspicions that it is too complicated to settle. Logically, I think it must work out the same as it will if we use a per year system. When I say I want to charge smokers, obese people and people who engage in other known unhealthy behaviors more for taxes/insurance, I mean it on a per year basis. Indeed, they may end up paying less taxes and costing less to insure on a lifetime basis because they die early, but the numbers would logically work out the same, wouldn't they? You can't get ripped off year after year, then add it up and find out you are ahead. (I hope I'm being clear, but if not let me know.)
***
Ethanphoto,
Ethanphoto wrote:I find it even more interesting that many people keep bringing taxes and government into this when all of these factors are already considered in the the free market by private insurers and that that since they are not there to lose money they will take this into account and charge based on the risk of investment.
They
would be taken into account by the free market if we had a free market. However, the discussion is under the context of the fact that we do not have a free market and we do have to pay taxes to big governments. I feel --
IF there is not a free market and/or
IF we have to pay taxes -- my proposal is for that government/taxes to mimic the free market in this specific respect you mention by making people who choose to engage in unhealthy behaviors pay for the additional health care costs created by those unhealthy behaviors by charging them more for insurance and/or by putting simple taxes on the agreeable unhealthy items like soda, cigarettes, candy, beer and most fast food.
People who buy a below average amount of such items would theoretically actually save money on their taxes since they wouldn't have to pay for this health care through income taxes instead.
Ethanphoto wrote:This will ensure that everyone pays their fair share for the costs they incur. Using the free market will more fairly charge and distribute money based on on risk and need than a government employee who merely follows directions and sucks money from taxpayers.
I agree. Those are the benefits a free market has to an unfree market and those are the benefits my proposal of taxing unhealthy things to pay for any health care spending by the government has over funding health care costs solely by taxing income paid for labor. Overall, of course, I would prefer less spending and less taxes, in theory. But my proposal is in regards to the ratios of the methods at which the taxes that are collected are collected and the ratio of that to health care spending and individual's taxpayer's unhealthy habits.