3 ms·

The problem is that "having a glass of wine every now and then" is okay and doesn't come with many (if any) external costs. Why should I pay through the nose fo

The problem is that "having a glass of wine every now and then" is okay and doesn't come with many (if any) external costs. Why should I pay through the nose for alcoholics who abuse it? Plus, I happen to be a fairly well-paid software dev who can afford the occasional beer, but if you're a low-income earner then this occasional beer or glass of wine becomes a luxury, which doesn't strike me as entirely fair either. I don't think "science" can really help all that much here, because a lot aspects surrounding this aren't really scientific questions. Yes, you can be informed by science to answer questions like "how addictive is this?" and "how harmful is this in what dosages?", but that doesn't really answer the question of who should pay for what, what is "fair", or what should or should not be allowed. (and the answers to these questions aren't always clear either: is cycling a net-negative or net-positive? Health benefits from exercise, but higher risk of injuries – and why should we tax alcohol to account for all external costs but not cycling or other activities where risk is higher than some others?) > Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking. Definitely agree with this. If I say "no" then I mean "no", and trying to "oh come, just have a drink"-me is a very quick way to end up on my shit list. I've seen people do this even with people who never drink alcohol even when they know this.

novok 5y ago
Usually these high health sin taxes also help fund health systems in the majority of developed countries with socialized medicine, so it does shift the tax burden. So for high bad-health-behavior taxes you get lower income taxes for example. They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example.
- Beltalowda 5y ago
  In the Netherlands at least it's just added to the general funds, rather than being ear-marked for health care. Also, it turns out smoking actually saves on overall health care costs because smokers die younger; I only looked at the Netherlands, from [1]: "On a yearly basis smokers have higher health care costs (€3.5 billion) and use more caregivers. Over the complete life-span non-smokers use more health care, especially elderly care (€8.6 billion) and care givers (€1.4 billion). This is because life expectancy is longer. In a smoke-free society health care costs will be higher per capita" The overall gist of the article is still that smoking is bad and that a smoke-free society would be good (I agree), but health care costs don't actually seem a strong argument, in the Netherlands at least. And aside from lower health care costs, there are also less pensions to give, which saves money. The costs of alcohol were estimated to be "€2.3 tot 4.2 billion"/year[2] (2013), which also includes police, damage, loss of productivity, etc. Health care specifically is about €450 million. The income from alcohol tax was about €1 billion, which certainly covers the health care costs, though not all of them. I'm not sure if they should: that a small group of people destroy things when drinking doesn't really need to be paid by other alcohol consumers, IMHO. Anyway, turns out it's not as simple as "smoking = costs society money". Details may differ per country; I just looked at the Netherlands because that's where I'm from. > They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example. I'm not sure we have this kind of thing here. Besides, what if I stay healthy by running or cycling? What if you're genetically pre-disposed to high blood pressure? You can market it as a "discount", but it's really a "premium" for people who don't do this IMHO (reminds me of getting a "discount" at some camping sites if you arrive by foot, which isn't really a "discount" but just a way of packaging "you pay for parking"). [1]: https://www.ntvg.nl/artikelen/de-rekening-van-roken#lb-3 https://www.ntvg.nl/artikelen/de-rekening-van-roken#lb-3 [2]: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2018-0146.pdf https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2018-0146.pdf
sdoering 5y ago
> "If I say "no" then I mean "no", and trying to "oh come, just have a drink"-me is a very quick way to end up on my shit list." I could not agree more. "I've seen people do this even with people who never drink alcohol even when they know this." I habe been on the receiving side of this more often than I like.
14 5y ago
The latest research I saw, sorry don’t have a source at this time and about to go to work, states that even small occasional drinks are bad for health. Alcohol is a known carcinogenic and I believe the latest stance is there are no known benefits that outweigh the risks.

novok 5y ago

Usually these high health sin taxes also help fund health systems in the majority of developed countries with socialized medicine, so it does shift the tax burden. So for high bad-health-behavior taxes you get lower income taxes for example. They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example.

Beltalowda 5y ago
In the Netherlands at least it's just added to the general funds, rather than being ear-marked for health care. Also, it turns out smoking actually saves on overall health care costs because smokers die younger; I only looked at the Netherlands, from [1]: "On a yearly basis smokers have higher health care costs (€3.5 billion) and use more caregivers. Over the complete life-span non-smokers use more health care, especially elderly care (€8.6 billion) and care givers (€1.4 billion). This is because life expectancy is longer. In a smoke-free society health care costs will be higher per capita" The overall gist of the article is still that smoking is bad and that a smoke-free society would be good (I agree), but health care costs don't actually seem a strong argument, in the Netherlands at least. And aside from lower health care costs, there are also less pensions to give, which saves money. The costs of alcohol were estimated to be "€2.3 tot 4.2 billion"/year[2] (2013), which also includes police, damage, loss of productivity, etc. Health care specifically is about €450 million. The income from alcohol tax was about €1 billion, which certainly covers the health care costs, though not all of them. I'm not sure if they should: that a small group of people destroy things when drinking doesn't really need to be paid by other alcohol consumers, IMHO. Anyway, turns out it's not as simple as "smoking = costs society money". Details may differ per country; I just looked at the Netherlands because that's where I'm from. > They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example. I'm not sure we have this kind of thing here. Besides, what if I stay healthy by running or cycling? What if you're genetically pre-disposed to high blood pressure? You can market it as a "discount", but it's really a "premium" for people who don't do this IMHO (reminds me of getting a "discount" at some camping sites if you arrive by foot, which isn't really a "discount" but just a way of packaging "you pay for parking"). [1]: https://www.ntvg.nl/artikelen/de-rekening-van-roken#lb-3 https://www.ntvg.nl/artikelen/de-rekening-van-roken#lb-3 [2]: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2018-0146.pdf https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2018-0146.pdf

sdoering 5y ago

> "If I say "no" then I mean "no", and trying to "oh come, just have a drink"-me is a very quick way to end up on my shit list." I could not agree more. "I've seen people do this even with people who never drink alcohol even when they know this." I habe been on the receiving side of this more often than I like.

14 5y ago

The latest research I saw, sorry don’t have a source at this time and about to go to work, states that even small occasional drinks are bad for health. Alcohol is a known carcinogenic and I believe the latest stance is there are no known benefits that outweigh the risks.