If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
How about a virtue tax... we could tax someone every time they go to church, adopt a dog from the humane society, volunteer at a homeless shelter... the possibilities are endless.
"Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%)."
I used to disagree with "sin taxes" in general for reasons already mentioned (they tax the poor at a higher rate).
However, I believe that those things or activities that when consumed or done do increase the burden on the health care system in the long run such as motorcycle riders w/o helmets, drivers w/o seatbelts, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. should be taxed such that the revenue collected pays for the extra cost that would normally be covered by all taxpayers.
So go ahead and apply a sin tax but only use it to pay for the health care, emergency services, etc of those engaging in risky behaviours that the taxpayer would normally end up paying for.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. – Christopher Hitchens
I for one am sick of the "health" lobby trying to blame smokers and fat people for increased health care costs. It just isn't true. While being fat or smoking can cause their own costs if you look at the whole picture it is the "healthy" people that cost the most, spending vast sums on altimers disease, strokes, extented managed care and so on, eating up vast sums the whole way. Check out this Dutch article that looks at total lifetime costs.
"On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000."
Looks like the anti-smoking lobby has been blowing smoke up the rear ends of the legislature and the public for some time by showing health cost "snapshots" and not true lifetime costs. Why? The article covers that as well.
"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas and changing science."
Sin taxes? I'm ok with them. A cigarette tax wouldn't affect me but a liquor tax would. If it becomes financially problematic then I stop enjoying a glass of wine. I've long believed that taxing unhealthful habits is not a bad thing.
During the early 1980s, I wrote my then state representative about my thoughts on this subject. I also included legalizing pot and prostitution, regulating and taxing the heck out of 'em!
And, yes, I'd like to see a lottery that would benefit our school system.
I’m with you, Tutu! At least on the state level, the budget crisis has led Governor Lingle to do some really stupid things. Like trying to take federal stimulus money specifically earmarked for education, and use it balance the general fund. If Duke Aiona is this “moral crusader” that he purports to be, he should be pushing sin taxes! As far as your lottery idea, I don’t know how much traction it would get since the majority of gambling (or at least what we know of) by Hawai‘i residents occurs in Las Vegas. So technically speaking, politicians have managed to avoid “importing” that “sin” (even going so far as to eliminate it from the Akaka Bill, which I don’t think is legal. But that’s another thread ).
Finally, about pakalolo — we already allow medical marijuana in Hawai‘i. The problem is U.S. Attorney Ed Kubo who is enforcing federal law. Two presidential candidates would have ended the war on drugs — Ron Paul (R) and Bob Barr (L). Until we get someone of the caliber of these two gentleman in office, the “sin” of illegal drugs will continue to be a billion$-dollar drain on federal coffers.
We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans. — U.S. President Bill Clinton USA TODAY, page 2A 11 March 1993
I for one am sick of the "health" lobby trying to blame smokers and fat people for increased health care costs. It just isn't true. While being fat or smoking can cause their own costs if you look at the whole picture it is the "healthy" people that cost the most, spending vast sums on altimers disease, strokes, extented managed care and so on, eating up vast sums the whole way. Check out this Dutch article that looks at total lifetime costs.
"On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000."
Looks like the anti-smoking lobby has been blowing smoke up the rear ends of the legislature and the public for some time by showing health cost "snapshots" and not true lifetime costs. Why? The article covers that as well.
"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas and changing science."
I had to scroll back a ways to figure out the issues.
If you look at the tax table, you can clearly see that some people pay more taxes then others. If you make an exemption for poor people, then you shift the burden to the richer people. Equal is equal and the tax table is not.
So yes, we do treat people differently. That was the point I was making.
As for your link, it has to do with the fact we treat different sources of income differently. The ultra rich get it through capital gains, not salary.
I for one am sick of the "health" lobby trying to blame smokers and fat people for increased health care costs. It just isn't true. While being fat or smoking can cause their own costs if you look at the whole picture it is the "healthy" people that cost the most, spending vast sums on altimers disease, strokes, extented managed care and so on, eating up vast sums the whole way. Check out this Dutch article that looks at total lifetime costs.
"On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000."
Looks like the anti-smoking lobby has been blowing smoke up the rear ends of the legislature and the public for some time by showing health cost "snapshots" and not true lifetime costs. Why? The article covers that as well.
"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas and changing science."
BUT health care is just ONE element of the problem of the cost of obesity and smoking. Also to be considered is: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...ese-cost_N.htm "The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs."
There is also the cost of a shortened life: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=1248234 "Their results tell us that that life expectancy from age 20 is reduced by 5 years for obese people and 7 for smokers".
Additionally: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=1248234 "Moreover, quite apart from health-care costs, the other costs to society from obesity are also greater because of absences from work due to illness and employment difficulties; these costs amount to considerably more than health-care costs. It is not clear that these extra costs are intrinsically related to health-care costs, but they are currently estimated to be around four times as great in obese than in lean people."
Lean people and non-smokers live longer, so have more years to rack up health costs. But they also have more productive work years, and a better quality of life due to good health. I'll take that choice, the healthiest life possible and for many good quality years.
Comment