4 ms·

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

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...

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...