3 ms·

Who is going to decide which activities are "non-essential" ? How will they go about determining whether there are more benefits or costs associated with a part

Who is going to decide which activities are "non-essential" ? How will they go about determining whether there are more benefits or costs associated with a particular activity? Rock climbers can fall - they also build physical and mental fitness as well as learn to work together with and trust others in a high pressure environment. Motorcyclists can crash, but they're choosing a form of transport that is far more efficient than a single passenger vehicle in many ways (fuel consumption, parking requirements, traffic impact). People are already incentivized by nature to sort out on their own what sorts of activities will allow them and their communities to flourish. Let them. We will all be better for it.

gruez 6y ago
>Who is going to decide which activities are "non-essential" ? A nonpartisan government panel of scientists. I realize with the current political climate in the us, that might be a tall order, but that doesn't immediately mean the idea should be dismissed. >How will they go about determining whether there are more benefits or costs associated with a particular activity? Cost benefit analysis based on empirical evidence? >People are already incentivized by nature to sort out on their own what sorts of activities will allow them and their communities to flourish. Let them. We will all be better for it. The examples you've listed lie on a spectrum. Indoor rock climbing probably isn't too negative, all things considered. OTOH motorcycles is much harder to defend. You're really going to risk your life to save a few grand a year on gas and parking? Like I said before none of this is new. The government has already deemed tobacco to be more harmful than good. As such, it's heavily taxed. I don't find it outrageous to tax things that are similarly obviously more harmful than good.
- Reelin 6y ago
  What you describe is the polar opposite of freedom. It should be immediately dismissed not due to the current political climate but instead because it would establish the ultimate nanny state full of red tape and bureaucracy. No one should be arbitrating personal activities unless they directly and immediately impact those around you. (And for the record, I vehemently disagree with sin taxes such as those for alcohol and tobacco. Legally requiring health warnings on the packaging, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense to me. Also note that alcohol and tobacco have much more consistent and severe health impacts than, say, refined sugar.)
creato 6y ago
Why does anyone even need to decide? Just look at the amortized costs for any activity, whether it is "essential" or not. Essential things still cost money. The only thing you might want to do is provide a rebate for taxes on "essential" activities. This still provides the market pressure for people to minimize costly activities (but doesn't ban it), while being net zero impact to revenue. Someone mentioned there are 200 climbing accidents a year. Figure out how much that costs, and bake it into the cost of some climbing specific requirement (climbing permits? equipment? gym memberships?). I doubt the cost will be significant. And if it is, maybe we should rethink climbing as an activity. Same with sugar. Figure out how much added sugar actually costs in terms of health impacts, and tax sugar appropriately. A key point of this strategy is that if you aren't consuming a large amount of e.g. soda, as a parent post claimed, then the tax is negligible anyways. > Motorcyclists can crash, but they're choosing a form of transport that is far more efficient than a single passenger vehicle in many ways (fuel consumption, parking requirements, traffic impact). Motorcycles aren't actually that efficient. A prius gets better gas milage than many (most?) motorcycles: https://www.latimes.com/news/la-hy-throttle2apr02-story.html https://www.latimes.com/news/la-hy-throttle2apr02-story.html At least a prius has a chance of carrying more than one person.

gruez 6y ago

>Who is going to decide which activities are "non-essential" ? A nonpartisan government panel of scientists. I realize with the current political climate in the us, that might be a tall order, but that doesn't immediately mean the idea should be dismissed. >How will they go about determining whether there are more benefits or costs associated with a particular activity? Cost benefit analysis based on empirical evidence? >People are already incentivized by nature to sort out on their own what sorts of activities will allow them and their communities to flourish. Let them. We will all be better for it. The examples you've listed lie on a spectrum. Indoor rock climbing probably isn't too negative, all things considered. OTOH motorcycles is much harder to defend. You're really going to risk your life to save a few grand a year on gas and parking? Like I said before none of this is new. The government has already deemed tobacco to be more harmful than good. As such, it's heavily taxed. I don't find it outrageous to tax things that are similarly obviously more harmful than good.

Reelin 6y ago
What you describe is the polar opposite of freedom. It should be immediately dismissed not due to the current political climate but instead because it would establish the ultimate nanny state full of red tape and bureaucracy. No one should be arbitrating personal activities unless they directly and immediately impact those around you. (And for the record, I vehemently disagree with sin taxes such as those for alcohol and tobacco. Legally requiring health warnings on the packaging, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense to me. Also note that alcohol and tobacco have much more consistent and severe health impacts than, say, refined sugar.)

creato 6y ago

Why does anyone even need to decide? Just look at the amortized costs for any activity, whether it is "essential" or not. Essential things still cost money. The only thing you might want to do is provide a rebate for taxes on "essential" activities. This still provides the market pressure for people to minimize costly activities (but doesn't ban it), while being net zero impact to revenue. Someone mentioned there are 200 climbing accidents a year. Figure out how much that costs, and bake it into the cost of some climbing specific requirement (climbing permits? equipment? gym memberships?). I doubt the cost will be significant. And if it is, maybe we should rethink climbing as an activity. Same with sugar. Figure out how much added sugar actually costs in terms of health impacts, and tax sugar appropriately. A key point of this strategy is that if you aren't consuming a large amount of e.g. soda, as a parent post claimed, then the tax is negligible anyways. > Motorcyclists can crash, but they're choosing a form of transport that is far more efficient than a single passenger vehicle in many ways (fuel consumption, parking requirements, traffic impact). Motorcycles aren't actually that efficient. A prius gets better gas milage than many (most?) motorcycles: https://www.latimes.com/news/la-hy-throttle2apr02-story.html https://www.latimes.com/news/la-hy-throttle2apr02-story.html At least a prius has a chance of carrying more than one person.