3 ms·
It 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 selectiv
by zajio1am 6y ago
It 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.