The prospect of that enrages me, far more than my opposition to tax increases in general.
The prospect of that enrages me, far more than my opposition to tax increases in general.
It doesn't bother me to force her to internalize some of the costs she is inflicting on me.
Similarly, I don't mind taxing polluters in proportion to the pollution they emit.
(As of 2014, this argument applies to all Americans.)
I wonder how retirement costs compare to lifelong cost of being obese. According to stats cited by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html) about 9.1% of medical costs can be attributed to treating conditions associated with being overweight or obese.
To make a larger point, the problems of others are your problems as well. If I never have kids, an education system isn't something I should be concerned with by this logic, yet I'd hate to live in a country without a public one.
With health insurance where costs are regulated (such as obamacare or our current employer provided health care), both people will pay $2000.
She's not inflicting those costs on you. You're offering to pay. That offer doesn't obligate her to make things cheap for you.
If you don't like what it costs for you to feel good about yourself, that's your problem.
I don't want to get all "uphill both ways" with this, because I really don't feel that I was deprived--I just think a tiny step toward a healthy lifestyle like that shouldn't be reserved only for the wealthy.
If it were up to me, taxes like this would be based on the same modelling that insurance policies are. People would choose what they lived like and the price would reflect the risk they are undertaking.
I actually agree with you that we're rushing headlong into a mistake; I just think it's a lesser mistake than the one we're rushing headlong from.
In the "pay for yourself" dystopia, the poor and uneducated continue to eat poorly and die early, horrible deaths. [I know this is hyperbole, but is somewhat supported by literature on type II diabetes risks etc]
In the "tax the risk" dystopia, the poor and uneducated are essentially given a prodding to make better choices, while still leaving that choice as an option.
In the current system the true cost of poor choices is deferred onto the rest of the population. We currently all pay the tax for poor choices of individuals. This gives no real incentive to change behaviour, and given what we know about ego:willpower interactions doesn't help a large portion of the population.
Non-diet soda is almost as bad as cigarettes and we should tax the freaking hell out of it.
I am guessing that the elasticity of soda is a lot higher than cigarettes so it would take a lot smaller of a tax to change behavior. And to be honest most sin taxes are really not there to change consumption they are their to make money because they know people will pay for it.
Look at the recent increase in the cigarette tax that is supposed to pay for S-Chip. They don't want smokers to smoke less, because that would reduce revenue and prevent them from paying for the program. They set the taxes at a level that will maximize revenue and not greatly affect consumption.
Update: I just read here http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/137417-wall-street-strateg... that the new england journal of medicine says that the price elasticity of demand for soda is -.8. What that means is that demand for soda is inelastic. This means that soda is just like any other sin tax. It is not meant to actually reduce consumption. It is meant to create revenue. Yes some people will consume less, but the vast majority will not consume less. So I hate to say it, but this isn't a tax for the health of the American public, but a tax for the wallet of government.
If a soda drinker inflicts $0.03 / soda on society, the perfect sin tax would also be $0.03. In such a regime, I don't care how much soda you drink since you are paying for your own health care via the sin tax.
Which brings us to the entire problem of a government run health care program. Anything deemed bad for us will be taxed and pitched as the fact that it is for the health of the people instead of to cover the costs of your choices on society.
And yes, I realize that a person who drinks a soda in a free market healthcare system still affects the cost of my insurance, however it is to a far less extent than when I am the one paying for my neighbors drink.
I'd have guessed a big enough tax might make natural juice more competitive. I don't think you have many people who'd prefer Fanta over a natural, carbonated juice - at the same price.
Non-diet soda is almost as bad as cigarettes
Now that, my friend, is hyperbole.You are 1.6 times more likely to become obese if you drink soda.
You are 10-20 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke cigarettes (CDC website)
I don't know anyone who would think an order of magnitude is "almost."
I'm currently slightly overweight at 220lb (6'4", BMI 26), and my current lifestyle exactly maintains my weight (varies from 220-225). If I drink 1 8 oz soda/day (I currently drink none), I would become obese in less than 3 years.
Granted, if I also eat brownies, soda won't be solely responsible. Doesn't mean that soda didn't contribute.
Actually diet soda (artificially sweetened and artificially flavoured carbonated water) is shown in studies to be unhealthy too:
"Although these observational data cannot establish causality, consumption of diet soda at least daily was associated with significantly greater risks of select incident metabolic syndrome components and type 2 diabetes." [http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688.abstract, "Diet Soda Intake and Risk of Incident Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)"]
and more recently has been fingered as a cause of increased obesity.
Google "diet soda obesity".
See whether you can find any example in the wild of a "sin tax" that actually reduces consumption of what it targets.