Quote:
Originally Posted by mdmarvich
I think the only way of doing it is taxing known bads. Sugar, alcohol, tobacco...gray area on what evidence you need to add something to the list, but I think those 3 would go a long way to paying for universal care.
|
I am no fan of sin taxes at all. I can understand why some people think we need them but much like idiotic gun laws they end up targeting the wrong people. Take myself for example, I will be 40 in a month - I smoke just shy of a pack of lights a day, I average about 6 alcoholic drinks per month, have the occasional cigar every few months, I avoid sugary and fatty foods, I do not do drugs except when told to do so by my doc, my health is damn good and I work every damn day to stay in shape by running, swimming and playing sports. So as far as risks go I am not really a big health risk anytime soon yet when I occasionally buy something others consider 'bad' I get whacked in taxes as bad as some 400 pound tubbo, a fall down drunk or a chain smoker - is that remotely fair?
Sure, I know my cigarettes do not have vitamin D in them or something and maybe decades from now I will end up with lung cancer due to my smoking but is that costing the taxpayer any more than the drunk who needs a new liver or the fat ass who has a heart attack or the opiod user who OD's and needs a lengthy hospital stay? The reason I ask is because currently in the US I pay about ten bucks a pack for cigarettes, when I leave the US and purchase them in other countries (the exact same brand) they cost me $1.25 per pack - that is not taxation nor is it a sin tax, it is pretty much theft on a massive scale. The argument to tax tobacco is always about what the healthcare costs will be, how come that never comes up when we talk about drunks, drug addicts and fatsos? While I cannot speak for all smokers I have no more desire to pay for someone else's self-induced health problems than anyone else wants to pay for my possible lung cancer - yet only the smokers are taxed at such a ridiculous rate. Worse smokers are treated as second hand citizens while a crackhead is somehow a victim of the system, a drunk is laughed at as harmless and a tubbo is always somehow supported by idiotic arguments like 'they can't afford better food.'
Maybe we should treat every risk taker like a smoker - lets tax the shit out of jack daniels or ben and jerries at the same rate as tobacco. Lets force people over say 350lbs to park at least 10 rows from the supermarkets so they get some exercise walking from their cars and not allow them to use elevators so they can use the steps and drop a few pounds at the local Macy's. Quit acting like drug addicts are victims and raise their insurance premiums 900% (approximately what tobacco is taxed in the NE) after testing positive for heroin or blow and if they OD make them do community service until they have paid back their hospital bill.
That is what I do not like about sin taxes, they are not implemented evenly at all. The smoker is always the bed person, the drunk is lovable and harmless and the fatso's and drug addicts are victims. The convoluted logic just makes no sense to me at all. If you want to implement a sin tax so be it but apply it evenly to every dangerous thing people can put in their bodies.