6 ms·

Eminently logical. The question is what right does the government have to penalize a person for drinking soda, and the answer is "none whatsoever."

zzleeper 11y ago
Two things: 1) In countries where health costs are at least partly absorbed by everyone, then it does have a right. 2) In the case of the US, the answer would be what right does the govt have to subsidy soda drinks (due to corn syrup, the main ingredient): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/United_States_farm_subsidies_%28source_Congressional_Budget_Office%29.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/United_S... (note how there are no subsidies for fruit or veggies)
- nickff 11y ago
  1) By that logic, the government could expand its moral authority by absorbing the costs of certain behaviors. One could argue that because STD/STI treatment "costs are at least partly absorbed by everyone, then it does have a right" to tax or ban homosexuality. 2) The fact that a government does one thing wrong does not mean that it somehow gains the right to commit more wrongs.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    1) It may as well have a right, but just because it has, doesn't mean it should act on it. Those types of decisions are in fact complicated trade-offs. What you're trying to do here is equivalent to binary perception of risk, aka. "it's dangerous outside, so let's all stay in caves". People don't work like that. 2) Many, myself included, disagree that the government is commiting a wrong by penalizing sodas.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Well, but that's why we talk about it and decide this democratically. Where are we drawing the line on what the government does for public health? Right now, we're not banning sodas, but a tax on them seems like a relatively benign way to curtail the public health hazard sodas represent. It isn't a slippery slope so much as a discussion we have as a people. After all, there's very little debate over how much right the government has to nanny-state us with all these traffic lights and traffic lanes (where in the constitution does it say that the government can tell ME where and when I can drive my car??), because we're generally OK with that kind of government-dictated restriction of freedom to move.
  - zzleeper 11y ago
    The key reason for a Pigovian tax [1] is people change their behavior due to it. But I doubt that my gay friends will stop being gay if they get taxed on that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
- chroma 11y ago
  > 1) In countries where health costs are at least partly absorbed by everyone, then it does have a right. I worry that this sort of thinking might end up like the Commerce Clause[1]. Just as there are many actions that affect interstate commerce, there are many behaviors that affect life expectancy. Using that justification to allow the government to imprison or tax people seems (to me, at least) a recipe for disaster. Let me be more concrete: If you're going to use that argument to tax soda, you should also be in favor of taxing things that cause more harm to public health than soda. Should we tax people for being sedentary? Should we tax people for being old? Should we tax obesity? These are the major costs for health care. Soda is a rounding error. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
  - zzleeper 11y ago
    Most of economics is about either efficiency or equity. If you say "let's just tax fat/old/disabled people because they cost more so they should pay for it", that's an equity argument. If you say "let's tax fat people because by doing so you create incentives for being less fat", that's an efficiency argument. So it all depends on whether the tax has an effect or not (which is what the article is about) :)
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    This isn't some new and radical concept these sorts of "nudge" laws to encourage/discourage particular individual behaviors are pretty common. tobacco, alcohol, seatbelts, helmets, vaccines, mandatory education, liability insurance...
nopinsight 11y ago
There is economic externality for the healthcare system in the future for excessive consumption of bad diets. If we want to reduce punishment to other taxpayers, it might be rational to nudge people towards healthier behaviors. Such policy might include tax breaks for exercises, taxes on cigarettes, soda, etc. Tax subsidies for veggies, etc. Obviously solid evidence is needed before it is initiated. There could be philosophical arguments that the government should not interfere with their citizens' lives. But this is more about charging the true (future) costs of actions, like carbon tax, rather than dictating behaviors.
- tsotha 11y ago
  There's no end to that road. What people do in the bedroom affects their health as well. Shall we tax the more risky sex practices?
  - Akkuma 11y ago
    Why stop there? We might want to monitor people each day via fitbit like devices that report back the data to ensure everyone is exercising the recommended amount. We can then tax or reduce taxes for the applicable individuals. This could obviously be deemed a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but I'd argue the above is probably more beneficial than taxing my soda if you truly want to reduce healthcare costs by having healthier individuals. But, who wants to go that far?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Personally, I would, if FitBit et al. were actually about health and not about sports-obsessed people bragging about their fitness activities. I definitely wouldn't mind being monitored for health with real-time advice on how to optimize it. As for the bedroom thing, this is a bad kind of slippery slope argument (not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies). It's ignoring the fact that penalizing soda is not a binary +health/-health decision but a complex tradeoff that includes the magnitude of expected gains and the probable sentiment of the public.
  - nopinsight 11y ago
bluthru 11y ago
How do you feel about cigarette taxes?
- Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
  Banning smoking indoors is a better example. A nice example of externalities.
  - witty_username 11y ago
    Not really, smoking indoors means other people in the house/apartment also get the radioactive particles and toxins like benzene.
    - eru 11y ago
      Smoking is bad for you, no doubt. But, radioactivity?
      - dangrossman 11y ago
        http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/smoking.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/smoking.htm
      - witty_username 11y ago
        tl;dr tobacco plants absorb high amount of polonium and other radiocative materials and these particles end up inside your lungs were they can cause the most damage. (Alpha radiation externally is of little harm).
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Not everyone believes in that, but I personally accept "we have a top-level view, we see clearly the stupid things you're doing that you can't see yourself" as a valid reason.
- briholt 11y ago
  So basically, "because science."
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Yeah. That and the fact that I recognize the concept of global optimization. Sometimes things you think are in your best interest turn out not to be so if you take a global view. Take gasoline. Of course cheap fuel seems like it's in my best interest because it means I pay less for travel. Still, I want the carbon tax badly because I understand that if we don't start accounting for the emissions, we're going to cook the planet in few decades. Or a different example - traffic lights and signs. People bitch about the timings all the time because they see a red light often when driving through their area, without stopping to consider that they're being optimized to give optimal traffic throughout half of the city.
    - briholt 11y ago
      You misunderstand. "Because science" is the correct reason to do anything. It is short hand for everything objective and rational in the world. It means, "we've conclusively proven this will have a better outcome; your personal whims are baseless." Why should we decrease fossil fuel use? Because science. Why should kids get vaccinated? Because science. Why is the Earth 6 billion years old? Because science.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        While I personally wouldn't use the term "because science" for this, if you define it as "short hand for everything objective and rational in the world" then yes, I agree - I'm doing so because science.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
adamnemecek 11y ago
Public health is and should be a major concern of the government.
code_sterling 11y ago
I don't know enough about American law to understand this comment. Is there something in the constitution about fizzy beverages not being taxable? That seems unlikely, though very forward thinking for the founding fathers.
r00fus 11y ago
It's the same right that government has to restrict the speeds of vehicles on the road... the public good.
mc32 11y ago
True, but, I dunno, since it improves overall health of the population, I'm for it. It's not like they're banning them or taxing them prohibitively, it's more like they are taxing externalities. That said, one interesting thing I heard about the really poor (at least in India) is that they'll spend a third of their income on junk --as it gives them a "little pleasure" to endure the day. So, this has the potential to be a tax unintentionally skewed against poor people.

zzleeper 11y ago

Two things: 1) In countries where health costs are at least partly absorbed by everyone, then it does have a right. 2) In the case of the US, the answer would be what right does the govt have to subsidy soda drinks (due to corn syrup, the main ingredient): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/United_States_farm_subsidies_%28source_Congressional_Budget_Office%29.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/United_S... (note how there are no subsidies for fruit or veggies)

nickff 11y ago
1) By that logic, the government could expand its moral authority by absorbing the costs of certain behaviors. One could argue that because STD/STI treatment "costs are at least partly absorbed by everyone, then it does have a right" to tax or ban homosexuality. 2) The fact that a government does one thing wrong does not mean that it somehow gains the right to commit more wrongs.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  1) It may as well have a right, but just because it has, doesn't mean it should act on it. Those types of decisions are in fact complicated trade-offs. What you're trying to do here is equivalent to binary perception of risk, aka. "it's dangerous outside, so let's all stay in caves". People don't work like that. 2) Many, myself included, disagree that the government is commiting a wrong by penalizing sodas.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Well, but that's why we talk about it and decide this democratically. Where are we drawing the line on what the government does for public health? Right now, we're not banning sodas, but a tax on them seems like a relatively benign way to curtail the public health hazard sodas represent. It isn't a slippery slope so much as a discussion we have as a people. After all, there's very little debate over how much right the government has to nanny-state us with all these traffic lights and traffic lanes (where in the constitution does it say that the government can tell ME where and when I can drive my car??), because we're generally OK with that kind of government-dictated restriction of freedom to move.
- zzleeper 11y ago
  The key reason for a Pigovian tax [1] is people change their behavior due to it. But I doubt that my gay friends will stop being gay if they get taxed on that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
chroma 11y ago
> 1) In countries where health costs are at least partly absorbed by everyone, then it does have a right. I worry that this sort of thinking might end up like the Commerce Clause[1]. Just as there are many actions that affect interstate commerce, there are many behaviors that affect life expectancy. Using that justification to allow the government to imprison or tax people seems (to me, at least) a recipe for disaster. Let me be more concrete: If you're going to use that argument to tax soda, you should also be in favor of taxing things that cause more harm to public health than soda. Should we tax people for being sedentary? Should we tax people for being old? Should we tax obesity? These are the major costs for health care. Soda is a rounding error. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
- zzleeper 11y ago
  Most of economics is about either efficiency or equity. If you say "let's just tax fat/old/disabled people because they cost more so they should pay for it", that's an equity argument. If you say "let's tax fat people because by doing so you create incentives for being less fat", that's an efficiency argument. So it all depends on whether the tax has an effect or not (which is what the article is about) :)
- nommm-nommm 11y ago
  This isn't some new and radical concept these sorts of "nudge" laws to encourage/discourage particular individual behaviors are pretty common. tobacco, alcohol, seatbelts, helmets, vaccines, mandatory education, liability insurance...

nopinsight 11y ago

There is economic externality for the healthcare system in the future for excessive consumption of bad diets. If we want to reduce punishment to other taxpayers, it might be rational to nudge people towards healthier behaviors. Such policy might include tax breaks for exercises, taxes on cigarettes, soda, etc. Tax subsidies for veggies, etc. Obviously solid evidence is needed before it is initiated. There could be philosophical arguments that the government should not interfere with their citizens' lives. But this is more about charging the true (future) costs of actions, like carbon tax, rather than dictating behaviors.

tsotha 11y ago
There's no end to that road. What people do in the bedroom affects their health as well. Shall we tax the more risky sex practices?
- Akkuma 11y ago
  Why stop there? We might want to monitor people each day via fitbit like devices that report back the data to ensure everyone is exercising the recommended amount. We can then tax or reduce taxes for the applicable individuals. This could obviously be deemed a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but I'd argue the above is probably more beneficial than taxing my soda if you truly want to reduce healthcare costs by having healthier individuals. But, who wants to go that far?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Personally, I would, if FitBit et al. were actually about health and not about sports-obsessed people bragging about their fitness activities. I definitely wouldn't mind being monitored for health with real-time advice on how to optimize it. As for the bedroom thing, this is a bad kind of slippery slope argument (not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies). It's ignoring the fact that penalizing soda is not a binary +health/-health decision but a complex tradeoff that includes the magnitude of expected gains and the probable sentiment of the public.
- nopinsight 11y ago

bluthru 11y ago

How do you feel about cigarette taxes?

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
Banning smoking indoors is a better example. A nice example of externalities.
- witty_username 11y ago
  Not really, smoking indoors means other people in the house/apartment also get the radioactive particles and toxins like benzene.
  - eru 11y ago
    Smoking is bad for you, no doubt. But, radioactivity?
    - dangrossman 11y ago
      http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/smoking.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/smoking.htm
    - witty_username 11y ago
      tl;dr tobacco plants absorb high amount of polonium and other radiocative materials and these particles end up inside your lungs were they can cause the most damage. (Alpha radiation externally is of little harm).

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Not everyone believes in that, but I personally accept "we have a top-level view, we see clearly the stupid things you're doing that you can't see yourself" as a valid reason.

briholt 11y ago
So basically, "because science."
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Yeah. That and the fact that I recognize the concept of global optimization. Sometimes things you think are in your best interest turn out not to be so if you take a global view. Take gasoline. Of course cheap fuel seems like it's in my best interest because it means I pay less for travel. Still, I want the carbon tax badly because I understand that if we don't start accounting for the emissions, we're going to cook the planet in few decades. Or a different example - traffic lights and signs. People bitch about the timings all the time because they see a red light often when driving through their area, without stopping to consider that they're being optimized to give optimal traffic throughout half of the city.
  - briholt 11y ago
    You misunderstand. "Because science" is the correct reason to do anything. It is short hand for everything objective and rational in the world. It means, "we've conclusively proven this will have a better outcome; your personal whims are baseless." Why should we decrease fossil fuel use? Because science. Why should kids get vaccinated? Because science. Why is the Earth 6 billion years old? Because science.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      While I personally wouldn't use the term "because science" for this, if you define it as "short hand for everything objective and rational in the world" then yes, I agree - I'm doing so because science.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

adamnemecek 11y ago

Public health is and should be a major concern of the government.

code_sterling 11y ago

I don't know enough about American law to understand this comment. Is there something in the constitution about fizzy beverages not being taxable? That seems unlikely, though very forward thinking for the founding fathers.

r00fus 11y ago

It's the same right that government has to restrict the speeds of vehicles on the road... the public good.

mc32 11y ago

True, but, I dunno, since it improves overall health of the population, I'm for it. It's not like they're banning them or taxing them prohibitively, it's more like they are taxing externalities. That said, one interesting thing I heard about the really poor (at least in India) is that they'll spend a third of their income on junk --as it gives them a "little pleasure" to endure the day. So, this has the potential to be a tax unintentionally skewed against poor people.