4 ms·
This general pattern is so dangerous, politically. Using taxes to shape behavior opens up a potentially very invasive, nanny-like attitude towards individuals,
by javajosh 3y ago
This general pattern is so dangerous, politically. Using taxes to shape behavior opens up a potentially very invasive, nanny-like attitude towards individuals, and ultimately codifying what is vice and what is virtue in law. The slippery slope here is obvious: fining people for not going to the gym enough, a screen tax to curb excessive computer usage, etc. But ultimately the issue is a combination of hubris and distrust: hubris because you have to think you know best to implement these policies, and distrust because you take that decision away from individuals. (And don't get me wrong, THAT argument is also abused by providers of outright poisonous products. I'm arguing for deep reluctance to do things like this rather than the libertarian position of never doing it.)
- Rygian 3y agoIndividuals are already subject to a very invasive, predator-like attitude, courtesy of corporations for whom a higher market cap is the only key metric, and the long-term impact on public health is a minor concern. We're already sliding down very fast down the private equity slippery slope.
- Philorandroid 3y agoDo you mean to suggest adding another predator would address the first? That somehow, because there's a legal writ behind it, it makes it any more morally right?
- Rygian 3y agoNo. I'm defending the need for a nanny-like actor, under public oversight, and with opposite financial incentives to reduce healthcare expenditure by improving public health.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoWhat about the opposite of paying higher taxes and health insurance premiums because you have to pay for other people’s type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease? Surely, those subsidies shape behavior just as much as a tax shapes behavior.