Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

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?

I would say that if the federal government took over education, it might not necessarily lead to socialism because it doesn't have nearly the same economy-wide impact (in terms of expense and regulation) that federal healthcare would. Healthcare is a considerable portion of the US Economy; education isn't even close.

Still, I wouldn't advise a federal takeover of education because it would further facilitate a slide towards socialism.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

That way we can make sure that those who actually need the
extra health care are those who pay extra for their burden, instead of using statistical and often unreliable medical information, which is subject to politicization and corruption, and which change over time.

Nor would it erode any freedoms or subject the population to behavioral-conditioning fines for non-criminal activity.

[Scott]

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.)

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?

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?

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.")

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?

Don't you agree with that? If not, why not?

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.

[Scott]

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?

I don't think you can make those judged as having unhealthy living habits pay more for universal health coverage. To do this equates to a repression on everyone's rights indirectly. I'm not a smoker, but I think whoever chooses to smoke should have the right to do so without feeling repressed by law. Also, I think [a sloppy, overweight person] who gets a king sized happy meal should be allowed to get seconds if he so chooses. If we start penalyzing people for things that they have always had the ok to do before universal health care was initiated, then we all lose part of our rights. And some of you will argue with contempt saying, no one has the right to be a burden on everyone else simply because they choose to be. But by saying this you've given up an activity you once had the privilege to partake in if you so wanted to. The point I'm trying to make is not about smoking the cigarette. What matters here is the fact that you willingly gave (not had taken from you) a right you once possessed to the government. We can't let those elected to positions of authority tell us how we are to live. We're suppose to be telling them how we want to be alive.

I agree that no smoker has the right to smoke around others who do not wish to be around that type of environment. But if someone wants a cigarette, a cheeseburger, or a beer, he/she should always have the right to do so without feeling guilt.

[Scott]

Algol,

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's fair, and doesn't penalize the 40-year smoker that never develops any health problems.

The flat rate (whatever it is set at) would have to be set in relation to the projected total health care costs of the entire population to begin with.

Of course, that's just a solution for the sake of argument. I'd prefer that government not get involved, but if they do, then they need to keep the system flat or with a tax curve that matches actual use in order to avoid abuse.

[Scott]

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?

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.

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.

A flat tax on income assumes that this is a fair way to share the burden of taxes. A little thinking would bring the realization that the burden on those with low incomes would be disproportionate when compared with the burden imposed on those with high incomes. It is much the same with a sales tax.

One tax that does not do this is a transaction tax. People with low incomes tend to make fewer transactions while those with high incomes tend to make more. Some years ago a few economists did a study of electronic transactions and concluded that a transaction tax of %0.00002 on all electronic transactions would eliminate the need for all other taxes at every level of government, provide for paying off the federal debt within a few years and give the government a permanent surplus of revenue while eliminating distortions in the economy caused by current taxes.

Their idea was that to impose a tiny tax at the transaction point makes it virtually invisible and since there are so few companies that facilitate electronic transactions it could be implemented fairly quickly and easily. The only problem they saw was in the allocation of revenue among entities that traditionally collected their own taxes.

This was fairly widely publicized article. A Wall Street Journal editorial objected on the grounds that a $1Billlion transaction would be subject to an onerous $50,000 tax and that this would be a such a huge impediment to trade that world trade could grind to a halt and the economy would collapse. $50,000 is less than what each one of the many traders in a $1Billion transaction pocket so this is a specious argument.

In other words, a tax of 2 cents on every $1,000 you spend could free you from all other taxes but Wall Street is against it so it will never happen.

The flat tax has even less of a chance.

[Scott]

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.

Wow! What a hot topic "taxes". I am from down-under, we have a thing called GST (goods and services tax) and also income tax and many other taxes, and we are one of the highest taxed countries in the ‘developed world”, not sure what they really mean by that.

I have asked myself, why is it that when I buy something, that will have a GST on it, with money that I have already paid tax on, why do I get taxed again?

In this country the majority of people spend more than they earn, very few people have savings. The reason I mention this is because every dollar that goes back into the economy our government gets, in the majority of cases, another piece of the pie. In that environment there are two predominant winners, the financial sector and the government.

To add insult to injury, if one were to manage to have savings that attracted interest, you pay tax on that as well.

So the question is; how many times do we need to be taxed and when will the industries that contribute to chronic ill health, oil and coal just to name two, be taxed enough to off-set some of the health costs?

So the question is; how many times do we need to be taxed and when will the industries that contribute to chronic ill health, oil and coal just to name two, be taxed enough to off-set some of the health costs?

As a general rule you would be taxed as many times as you allow this to be done. A sheep is not asked when the shearers to arrive.

Idea of overtaxing the industries usually results in the increase of the unemployment - the ideal end is when the industries stop operating completely (except the printing press) and all population receives the dole, but in these cases the weekly payout sometimes becomes enough not to save the ill health of the granny but to buy a box of redheads, imported from Burkina-Faco. But you should not worry, there is plenty of carp in Murray river, so the nation would anyway survive.

Scott American`s have no high ground here, they caused a WAR which is bad for not only health but life. They can`t take the moral ground over other people`s lifestyle unless they change their gun and might is right WAR policy.

Whats the taxation on American soldiers and weaponry?

When you allow a free-market in which the majority of affordable food is unhealthy due to capitalism and greed, of course you will get obese/unhealthy people.

[Scott]

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.

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.

That is even worse. Why is Mcdonalds allowed to operate in the first place? Why give that morbidly obese person a chance to be morbidly obese? It is like putting drugs in front of somebody at a low price and expecting them not to take it. It is not just Mcdonalds... most food is unhealthy. Why does the government allow this poison to be sold? It is ridiculous. We sent man on the moon yet we don't have healthy food, one of our basic needs. Are we progressing, or are a few progressing at the expense of the masses? Certainly seems like the latter.