3 ms·
It's an interesting problem, in the abstract. If a government could drastically improve the lives of its citizens by applying a negative incentive (an indirect
by pnathan 15y ago
It's an interesting problem, in the abstract.
If a government could drastically improve the lives of its citizens by applying a negative incentive (an indirect freedom limiter) to perform one particular act, should it?
Or should people make the right choice on their own, and/or let the market sort it out?
What if the act is so fun that people typically don't forgo it?
What about the Slippery Slope? Where do you draw the line and restrict the governmental power?
I don't know. I know there are ideological answers here, but I don't think those are the best answer.
Madison posed a similar question a long time ago.
Would it be wonderful, if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the Convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry, which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet, or in his imagination?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers/No._37 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers/No._37
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- potatolicious 15y ago> "What if the act is so fun that people typically don't forgo it?" Then the revenue goes towards mitigating the negative effects of the act.
- hartror 15y agoIt can also be looked in this manner. It costs a society to have sick members, by taxing products that cause sickness the government can use the money raised to offset the cost of the sickness.
- anamax 15y ago> It costs a society to have sick members, by taxing products that cause sickness the government can use the money raised to offset the cost of the sickness. Except that things aren't that straight forward. BTW - would you support a tax on child-bearing by folks who are likely to have "at risk" children? (It's pretty easy to identify those people.)
- 2muchcoffeeman 15y agoHmm, I might support your last idea. Especially if it was complimented with an effort to make adoption of children to suitable couples easier/cheaper.
- hartror 15y ago> Except that things aren't that straight forward. Such as? Re Babies: There examples of both tax being charged and bonus being paid for having children depending on what is needed by the society. China has the One Child Policy, a successful attempt to reduce their burgeoning population. Australia has a Baby Bonus which pays parents of middle income or less families when they have a baby. Babies are an interesting one as depending on the population growth they are either a public service or public menace.