4 ms·

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

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
  There are two conflating issues in your example: privacy and economic externalities. Taxing soda does not violate anyone's privacy while monitoring sexual practices does. Although hard to imagine, if we can somehow develop a system to charge people more for unsafe sex while perfectly anonymizing it, I do not see how it would be different from carbon tax in principle.
- csours 11y ago
  Most sex practices are not a direct financial transaction. For the ones that do include a financial transaction, sure, tax it!
harigov 11y ago
In a certain sense, govt is for the people, by the people, of the people, so I would look at it in a similar way as we look at other social obligations like wearing pants before walking on the streets or not smoking in public areas.
dmfdmf 11y ago
>...it might be rational to nudge people towards healthier behaviors. Let's be clear on this issue because the advocates of nudging always seem to rationalize, minimize, evade and deny the fact that govt nudging occurs, ultimately, at the point of a gun. This is not how civilized people live and, no, it is not rational. In fact, it is the very negation of rationality regardless of any real or imagined economic, financial or health benefits that accrue to the nudgers or the nudgees.
- Frondo 11y ago
  "... at the point of a gun." No, that isn't it. That's silly and doesn't contribute anything of substance to this discussion.
  - dmfdmf 11y ago
    Its not silly it is the crux of the issue that you evade. Tell me, what happens if you don't go along with govt nudges? Don't they fine you or sanction you in someway? And if you continue on this path, refuse to pay your fines and continue to disobey what happens? A man with a gun will come and take you to jail. It is that simple.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Don't pay your taxes? They'll issue a levy or a lien or garnish your paycheck. That's not "a man with a gun". That's a totally non-violent way to collect their taxes. Invoking the violent image of "a man with a gun" is a childish way to make the down-to-earth subject of tax collection into an emotional, fear-based thing.
      - dmfdmf 11y ago
        "...the advocates of nudging always seem to rationalize, minimize, evade and deny the fact that govt nudging occurs, ultimately, at the point of a gun." QED
        11y ago

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
There are two conflating issues in your example: privacy and economic externalities. Taxing soda does not violate anyone's privacy while monitoring sexual practices does. Although hard to imagine, if we can somehow develop a system to charge people more for unsafe sex while perfectly anonymizing it, I do not see how it would be different from carbon tax in principle.
csours 11y ago
Most sex practices are not a direct financial transaction. For the ones that do include a financial transaction, sure, tax it!

harigov 11y ago

In a certain sense, govt is for the people, by the people, of the people, so I would look at it in a similar way as we look at other social obligations like wearing pants before walking on the streets or not smoking in public areas.

dmfdmf 11y ago

>...it might be rational to nudge people towards healthier behaviors. Let's be clear on this issue because the advocates of nudging always seem to rationalize, minimize, evade and deny the fact that govt nudging occurs, ultimately, at the point of a gun. This is not how civilized people live and, no, it is not rational. In fact, it is the very negation of rationality regardless of any real or imagined economic, financial or health benefits that accrue to the nudgers or the nudgees.

Frondo 11y ago
"... at the point of a gun." No, that isn't it. That's silly and doesn't contribute anything of substance to this discussion.
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  Its not silly it is the crux of the issue that you evade. Tell me, what happens if you don't go along with govt nudges? Don't they fine you or sanction you in someway? And if you continue on this path, refuse to pay your fines and continue to disobey what happens? A man with a gun will come and take you to jail. It is that simple.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Don't pay your taxes? They'll issue a levy or a lien or garnish your paycheck. That's not "a man with a gun". That's a totally non-violent way to collect their taxes. Invoking the violent image of "a man with a gun" is a childish way to make the down-to-earth subject of tax collection into an emotional, fear-based thing.
    - dmfdmf 11y ago
      "...the advocates of nudging always seem to rationalize, minimize, evade and deny the fact that govt nudging occurs, ultimately, at the point of a gun." QED
      - 11y ago