5 ms·

Taxing activities in proportion to their chance of future burden on society makes sense to me (i.e. healthcare costs), as I believe individuals ultimately choos

Taxing activities in proportion to their chance of future burden on society makes sense to me (i.e. healthcare costs), as I believe individuals ultimately choose their lifestyle. If it were up to me, taxes like this would be based on the same modelling that insurance policies are. People would choose what they lived like and the price would reflect the risk they are undertaking.

gyardley 16y ago
To me, this sounds like a pretty good argument for not unnecessarily burdening society with costs to the individual - like healthcare. A future where the government evaluates all your behavior and taxes you accordingly seems a little dystopian, no?
- thalur 16y ago
  If healthcare is all paid for by the individual, what happens when people can't afford the treatments they need? That path seems equaly dystiopian to me.
  - gyardley 16y ago
    If we agree that both scenarios are equally dystopian, perhaps this suggests that we as a society need a far more creative solution than the ones we're currently squabbling about - instead of trying to implement one or another path to a dystopian outcome. No need to rush headlong into a mistake.
    - khafra 16y ago
      They aren't equally dystopian, they're dystopian to vastly different degrees. The current situation is an unsustainable disaster for millions of people, which is why many of us aren't content to let things stagnate while we think about it for another 3 presidential terms. I actually agree with you that we're rushing headlong into a mistake; I just think it's a lesser mistake than the one we're rushing headlong from.
    - corruption 16y ago
      I definitely do not agree they are equally dystopian. In the "pay for yourself" dystopia, the poor and uneducated continue to eat poorly and die early, horrible deaths. [I know this is hyperbole, but is somewhat supported by literature on type II diabetes risks etc] In the "tax the risk" dystopia, the poor and uneducated are essentially given a prodding to make better choices, while still leaving that choice as an option. In the current system the true cost of poor choices is deferred onto the rest of the population. We currently all pay the tax for poor choices of individuals. This gives no real incentive to change behaviour, and given what we know about ego:willpower interactions doesn't help a large portion of the population.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Then they die. I don't see anything dystopian about natural selection in action. It's been happening for the last four billion years, and we wouldn't have gotten anywhere without it.
    - corruption 16y ago
      Natural selection is directionless, therefore it makes no difference under any scheme. What happens happens.
- khafra 16y ago
  Medical treatment for everyone who needs it paid for by taxes on the people who make lifestyle choices which will require more medical treatment makes sense to me.
  - corruption 16y ago
    Absolutely. Then people have a choice, and if they still have the condition after making good choices society looks after them, so we aren't penalising for genetics/random effects. Win win.

gyardley 16y ago

To me, this sounds like a pretty good argument for not unnecessarily burdening society with costs to the individual - like healthcare. A future where the government evaluates all your behavior and taxes you accordingly seems a little dystopian, no?

thalur 16y ago
If healthcare is all paid for by the individual, what happens when people can't afford the treatments they need? That path seems equaly dystiopian to me.
- gyardley 16y ago
  If we agree that both scenarios are equally dystopian, perhaps this suggests that we as a society need a far more creative solution than the ones we're currently squabbling about - instead of trying to implement one or another path to a dystopian outcome. No need to rush headlong into a mistake.
  - khafra 16y ago
    They aren't equally dystopian, they're dystopian to vastly different degrees. The current situation is an unsustainable disaster for millions of people, which is why many of us aren't content to let things stagnate while we think about it for another 3 presidential terms. I actually agree with you that we're rushing headlong into a mistake; I just think it's a lesser mistake than the one we're rushing headlong from.
  - corruption 16y ago
    I definitely do not agree they are equally dystopian. In the "pay for yourself" dystopia, the poor and uneducated continue to eat poorly and die early, horrible deaths. [I know this is hyperbole, but is somewhat supported by literature on type II diabetes risks etc] In the "tax the risk" dystopia, the poor and uneducated are essentially given a prodding to make better choices, while still leaving that choice as an option. In the current system the true cost of poor choices is deferred onto the rest of the population. We currently all pay the tax for poor choices of individuals. This gives no real incentive to change behaviour, and given what we know about ego:willpower interactions doesn't help a large portion of the population.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Then they die. I don't see anything dystopian about natural selection in action. It's been happening for the last four billion years, and we wouldn't have gotten anywhere without it.
  - corruption 16y ago
    Natural selection is directionless, therefore it makes no difference under any scheme. What happens happens.
khafra 16y ago
Medical treatment for everyone who needs it paid for by taxes on the people who make lifestyle choices which will require more medical treatment makes sense to me.
- corruption 16y ago
  Absolutely. Then people have a choice, and if they still have the condition after making good choices society looks after them, so we aren't penalising for genetics/random effects. Win win.