3 ms·
The answer is in the very title of the article; it works. This is "whataboutism" at it's finest; taxing soda results in health gains so we should do it. Maybe
by Ensorceled 6y ago
The answer is in the very title of the article; it works.
This is "whataboutism" at it's finest; taxing soda results in health gains so we should do it. Maybe we should also tax those other things but no health gains have been show (at least in this article).
- zajio1am 6y agoIt is not "whataboutism", it is basic fairness. If we know (or can reasonably assume) that both A, B and C is unhealthy in similar level, then taxing A selectively is fundamentally unfair, regardless of whether it works or not.
- Supermancho 6y ago> taxing A selectively is fundamentally unfair, That's not an objective value. If it's relatively simple to tax and direct funds from 'A' to treatments...like cigarettes. We can (and do) tax lots of sources of cancer, but convenience is relevant to forming public policy.
- zajio1am 6y agoDifferent sources of cancer are much harder to compare w.r.t. their effect and ease of taxation, so it is irrelevant comparison (as taxing all foods based on sugar content is not much harder). More apt comparion would be taxing cigarettes and not taxing cigars and loose tobacco.