Does / Should The State Or Federal Government Have The Right To Punish Americans For What They Buy?

[easyt65]

Still waiting for my promised windfall of cheaper healthcare thru cig taxes

There are fewer places you can go now and have to sit through dinner inhaling 2nd hand smoke. That results in fewer trips to the doctor. That results in fewer medical bills.

You're welcome.

 

[depotoo]

s it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?

It is not intended to punish them. It is intended to save them from themselves. It also serves the purpose of keeping health care costs down - costs that we all bear.

No one needs to save us from ourselves, but that is typical prog/dem thinking “we know better”. No, you don’t.

 

[Skylar]

s it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?

It is not intended to punish them. It is intended to save them from themselves. It also serves the purpose of keeping health care costs down - costs that we all bear.

No one needs to save us from ourselves, but that is typical prog/dem thinking “we know better”. No, you don’t.

Smoking rates have dropped along with lung cancer rates as taxes on cigarettes have increased.

That's just a grand coincidence?

 

[depotoo]

So, tell me, is everything you do in your life considered safe? If not, I want to tax you exponentially so you will quit doing it.

s it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?

It is not intended to punish them. It is intended to save them from themselves. It also serves the purpose of keeping health care costs down - costs that we all bear.

No one needs to save us from ourselves, but that is typical prog/dem thinking “we know better”. No, you don’t.

Smoking rates have dropped along with lung cancer rates as taxes on cigarettes have increased.

That's just a grand coincidence?

I

 

[easyt65]

Smoking rates have dropped along with lung cancer rates as taxes on cigarettes have increased. That's just a grand coincidence?

'Interesting Tidbit'

It's not like smokers did not know cigarettes were bad and did all sorts of evil things to their bodies. they just DIDN'T CARE! All the warning labels - what they said, the size of the warning on the pack,, etc.. - did nothing to stop or even slow down the sales / usage. Someone put out cigarettes in a black package and called it 'DEATH STICKS' / DEATH Cigarettes' - they sold like 'hotcakes'.

It was not until the govt imposed the massive taxes raising the cost of cigarettes that started the decline....

Black lungs, cancer, death? No problem. Pay more for the cigarettes....'I'm done'.

 

[Skylar]

So, tell me, is everything you do in your life considered safe? If not, I want to tax you exponentially so you will quit doing it.

s it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?

It is not intended to punish them. It is intended to save them from themselves. It also serves the purpose of keeping health care costs down - costs that we all bear.

No one needs to save us from ourselves, but that is typical prog/dem thinking “we know better”. No, you don’t.

Smoking rates have dropped along with lung cancer rates as taxes on cigarettes have increased.

That's just a grand coincidence?

I

So tell me.....did imposing higher taxes on cigarettes for the express purpose of lower smoking rates have nothing to do with accompanying lower smoking rates and lower lung cancer rates?

Either you're arguing its a coincidence, or you're arguing that taxation policy can improve lives and save people from themselves.

Its one or the other.

 

[evenflow1969]

That new soda tax in Seattle is working out about as well as Chicago's - Hot Air

'Another year, another soda tax. This one was shoved through in the city of Seattle by the municipal government. As usual, its purported intent was to improve the health and lives of residents by “modifying their behavior” and having them drink fewer sugary beverages. And it’s definitely a muscular incentive for new behavior to be sure. The price of soda has nearly doubled overnight.'


Is it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?



"Behave ... conduct yourself in a way pleasing and / or acceptable to the STATE or punishment will be imposed upon you to force you to change...."


REALLY?

We do it with cigaretts and other tabacco products as well as alcohol. I feel it certainly singles out some consumers. I can not say it is wrong on soda with out including the others.

 

[easyt65]

We do it with cigaretts and other tabacco products as well as alcohol. I feel it certainly singles out some consumers. I can not say it is wrong on soda with out including the others.

Why tolerate something we know being sold to Americans kills them at alarming rates, makes them so ill, jacks up medical costs, etc.... Why not BAN them rather than just 'TAX' them?

'It's all about the Benjamin's!

 

[depotoo]

We do not know for certain. It could be from better education of its harmful effects.

Now tell me, is there anything you consume that could be considered harmful? Now let me tax it so you won’t consume it.

How about we start taxing butter, or anything with sodium/salt. Anything that is processed. How about pasta or bread? Or maybe anything with bleached flour in it. All those in excess can be harmful.

Or how about adding a ten cent tax on enough marijuana for a joint, seeing as its long term effects on health can be damaging.


I prefer to live with freedom of choice. Not a nanny state.

So, tell me, is everything you do in your life considered safe? If not, I want to tax you exponentially so you will quit doing it.

s it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?

It is not intended to punish them. It is intended to save them from themselves. It also serves the purpose of keeping health care costs down - costs that we all bear.

No one needs to save us from ourselves, but that is typical prog/dem thinking “we know better”. No, you don’t.

Smoking rates have dropped along with lung cancer rates as taxes on cigarettes have increased.

That's just a grand coincidence?

I

So tell me.....did imposing higher taxes on cigarettes for the express purpose of lower smoking rates have nothing to do with accompanying lower smoking rates and lower lung cancer rates?

Either you're arguing its a coincidence, or you're arguing that taxation policy can improve lives and save people from themselves.

Its one or the other.

 

[Skylar]

We do it with cigaretts and other tabacco products as well as alcohol. I feel it certainly singles out some consumers. I can not say it is wrong on soda with out including the others.

Why tolerate something we know being sold to Americans kills them at alarming rates, makes them so ill, jacks up medical costs, etc.... Why not BAN them rather than just 'TAX' them?

'It's all about the Benjamin's!

And to a certain degree, choice. Making something illegal requires a standard of acceptable and unacceptable harm. Anything *more* harmful than this standard would be illegal. Anything *less* harmful than this standard would be legal.

We've set our benchmark rather high with alcohol. Its quite dangerous, but acceptably harmful. Logically, anything less dangerous than alcohol should be legal.

....but you can tax the shit out of it.

 

[depotoo]

Because, as you and I know, it has everything to do with revenue, rather than its health effects. More dough for those govt officials to play with.

We do it with cigaretts and other tabacco products as well as alcohol. I feel it certainly singles out some consumers. I can not say it is wrong on soda with out including the others.

Why tolerate something we know being sold to Americans kills them at alarming rates, makes them so ill, jacks up medical costs, etc.... Why not BAN them rather than just 'TAX' them?

'It's all about the Benjamin's!

 

[Skylar]

We do not know for certain. It could be from better education of its harmful effects.

We've had education for decades with very little change. They were known as 'cancer sticks' in WW2. We increase the price and the rates of consumption actually dropped. That's an overwhelming indication of causation to a rational person.

So you're on the record with the 'grand coincidence' theory? That lung cancer rates and smoking rates 'just happened' to drop after taxation dramatically increased the price?

Did prohibition keep people that really wanted to drink, from drinking?

We're not talking about prohibition. We're talking about taxation. You can buy cigarettes. You just have to pay more. You can buy alcohol. You just have to pay more.

 

[Skylar]

Because, as you and I know, it has everything to do with revenue, rather than its health effects. More dough for those govt officials to play with.

We do it with cigaretts and other tabacco products as well as alcohol. I feel it certainly singles out some consumers. I can not say it is wrong on soda with out including the others.

Why tolerate something we know being sold to Americans kills them at alarming rates, makes them so ill, jacks up medical costs, etc.... Why not BAN them rather than just 'TAX' them?

'It's all about the Benjamin's!

It can be both. More revenue AND health benefits.

 

[evenflow1969]

That new soda tax in Seattle is working out about as well as Chicago's - Hot Air

'Another year, another soda tax. This one was shoved through in the city of Seattle by the municipal government. As usual, its purported intent was to improve the health and lives of residents by “modifying their behavior” and having them drink fewer sugary beverages. And it’s definitely a muscular incentive for new behavior to be sure. The price of soda has nearly doubled overnight.'


Is it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?



"Behave ... conduct yourself in a way pleasing and / or acceptable to the STATE or punishment will be imposed upon you to force you to change...."


REALLY?

I say YES to your question . But I’m not crazy about the soda thing as I am wh say cigarettes.

Smokers often come down wh major health issues that end up on the taxpayer dime .

Obecity and diabetes will do a number on you too. Not to mention all the Americans walking around dehydrated because they never drink water. I was talking to a buddy the other day in his mid fifties and he was telling me he never drinks water just soda. I thought to my self how the fuck are you still alive. I wish it were as simple as Skylar is trying to make it. Cigaretts, tabaco,alcohol any way you slice it, it is social engeineering. I am not goin gto sit here and say that there is no benifit to it. There is some. How ever should we social engineer and where should it end. I purposely picked those items to add in as they are social engineering too. If it is ok to engineer for those items but not soda, where do we draw the line. It is not an easy question in my head.

 

[depotoo]

Where does it stop and who gets to decide?

Because, as you and I know, it has everything to do with revenue, rather than its health effects. More dough for those govt officials to play with.

We do it with cigaretts and other tabacco products as well as alcohol. I feel it certainly singles out some consumers. I can not say it is wrong on soda with out including the others.

Why tolerate something we know being sold to Americans kills them at alarming rates, makes them so ill, jacks up medical costs, etc.... Why not BAN them rather than just 'TAX' them?

'It's all about the Benjamin's!

It can be both. More revenue AND health benefits.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Constitutionally speaking, states do have the power to tax certain behaviors for any reason, as long as the reason does not have a facially discriminatory intent, or if it its facially neutral, it does not have a disparate impact on a desecrate and insular minority.

So, it is stupid, but constitutional.

The real noodle cooker is whether a state, in the interest of maintaining a healthy populace, can fine fat people?

 

[evenflow1969]

Where does it stop and who gets to decide?

Because, as you and I know, it has everything to do with revenue, rather than its health effects. More dough for those govt officials to play with.

We do it with cigaretts and other tabacco products as well as alcohol. I feel it certainly singles out some consumers. I can not say it is wrong on soda with out including the others.

Why tolerate something we know being sold to Americans kills them at alarming rates, makes them so ill, jacks up medical costs, etc.... Why not BAN them rather than just 'TAX' them?

'It's all about the Benjamin's!

It can be both. More revenue AND health benefits.

You see I do not know the answer to either question. If it were easy to answer some of these issues we could not argue on here all day. At least we are asking the right questions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And those companies do damage to the citizens of the usa.

Yeah, but to punish those companies is hardly fair. They are not producing a dangerous product. There is an element of personal responsibility and moderation. It's not like those companies are hiding very serious and important health information, like the tobacco companies were.

Under that standard, the beef industry could be held responsible for heart disease when people eat nothing but steak for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Or, taco bell could be liable for the same thing, when irresponsible fatties make too many runs for the boarder.

Individuals have a much superior duty to engage in healthy eating habits. Otherwise, why don't we just go ahead and ban sodas, and cheese, and bacon, etc.

 

[Timmy]

What about encouraging? Why should couples get a tax break for having more and more children ?

Talk about 'encouraging'...Why do single mothers get paid for each additional child they irresponsibly have out of wedlock... Good point, though...all good points....

....but we are getting away from the main point about 'soda taxes', though...

They don’t . They only get extra food stamps .

 

[Timmy]

What about encouraging? Why should couples get a tax break for having more and more children ?

Talk about 'encouraging'...Why do single mothers get paid for each additional child they irresponsibly have out of wedlock... Good point, though...all good points....

....but we are getting away from the main point about 'soda taxes', though...

They don’t . Not since bill Clinton welfare reform .