This week, I happened to notice a series of ads running in my local paper (The Philadelphia Inquirer) for Derrie-Air airlines. There were two features that distinguished Derrie-Air from, say, USAirways and United. One was the method of determining fare:
The magic comes from our one of a kind “Sliding Scale”—the more you weigh, the more you’ll pay. After all, it takes more fuel—more energy—to get more weight from point A to point B. So we will charge passengers based on how much mass they add to the plane. The heavier you and your luggage are, the more trees we’ll plant to make up for the trouble of flying you from place to place.
The other is that the airline is fake:
The Derrie-Air campaign is a fictitious advertising campaign created by Philadelphia Media Holdings to test the results of advertising in our print and online products and to stimulate discussion on a timely environmental topic of interest to all citizens. All names, identities, characters, persons, whether living or dead, companies, situations, offers, products, services, and other information appearing in this campaign and the associated website are fictitious. Any resemblance to real or fictitious names, identities, characters, persons, whether living or dead, companies, situations, offers, products, services, or other information, is purely coincidental and unintentional. In other words, smile, we’re pulling your leg.
Funny? I don’t know.
Ethical? Meh. I think it’s in poor taste to track advertising with fake ads but I’m not sure it’s unethical.
But what really struck me was this notion of linking costs (both environmental and actual) to behavior. Merchants rarely do this. With few exceptions, you don’t pay more for a size 2 dress as you do a size 14. You don’t pay more for a car (gas and maintenance excepted) that you’re going to drive 20 miles as 200,000 miles. It’s an interesting concept.
I was wondering how this might translate to tariffs and taxes in the real world. It seems that every society that has a tax system has some kind of sin tax – Australia taxes alcopops, the UK taxes snack foods and here in the US we keep trying (and trying) to tax porn.
But what about instead of a sin tax, we called it a “consumption tax” and taxed and tariffed folks on their lifestyles?
It’s an interesting idea from a tax policy perspective and we do it in other capacities (sales tax, for example).
Why not tie more behaviors to tax based on usage? Why not base your cable tax on how much cable TV you actually watch (I think Time Warner wants to meter this anyway) or the tax on internet by how much you actually use the web (as opposed to the “package” you select from your provider)?
Why not base tariffs and taxes associated with cab fare, airline fare, train fare and public transit on weight – as suggested in the fake ads?
Why not take it a step further and pay on a “per use” basis for public services like fire and police – in Philadelphia, I pay a tax for the privilege of having an alarm system in my building and if I have a certain number of false triggers on the alarm, I’m fined – why not do that for individuals?
It may seem far-fetched but perhaps it’s not. In theory, while taxing behavior (which we already do in limited amounts in the form of sin taxes) feels wrong, most opponents of various taxes (as documented on this site) tend to have a beef with the idea that they don’t use services that require tax dollars. While I don’t think this is true across the board (infrastructure, military, individual usage of those things can’t be easily measured), there are certain behaviors that we can pinpoint and tax based on usage. Weight was an easy one for Philadelphia Media Holdings, LLC to target because it’s not subjective and it’s easily linked to costs – it is true that increased weight adds to the cost of air travel.
I’m not a skinny girl despite all of my activity (thanks, genetics and cheese, I really appreciate it) and I will say that I loathe the idea of stepping on a scale to determine how much I need to pay the bus driver. But I do *get* the idea behind it – it’s part of the equation that determines that kids ride for free. That doesn’t mean that I like it.
What about you? Would you be interested in being taxed on your lifestyle? Should things like weight, TV watching patterns and internet usage be determinative of how much tax you pay? What about the usage of public services? I’d love to hear your input!
the idea has some merit. As resources become more scarce (and expensive) we (as a country) need a method to promote more efficient use of those resources. If it is a governmental provided resource, then those who are efficient are subsidizing those who aren’t. Of course there could be exceptions for temporary circumstances, but overall it is and has been a fair method for directing public policy.
While I actually support usage based fees I strongly disagree with lifestyle taxes. Fairly charging someone for the services they consume is completely fair and you see it every day in utility bills for example.
Using the main example of the more you (and your luggage) weigh adjusting the cost of your airfare then a sales tax type % tax would be feasible since you are really buying a service.
However taxes such as the Sin Taxes I feel are inappropriate as they favor one behavior over another and as is evidenced by the numerous times eggs have been good or bad for your diet, there are very few cases of clear cut, black and white good vs bad behavior.
The per use charge for public services is just….
Put it this way what good does it do to hire the firemen after the city has burned to the ground?
In the long run, wouldn’t taxes like these just add another 500 pages to the tax codes? I use a lot of internet services, it’s always on. But I use it for work and work from home so is that deductible? What if I use it for job hunting or education. What if I am using one of my cable channels for course work?
A weight tax? You have got to be kidding! It is the skinny “beautiful” people who have all the money.
When America stops charging a buck for a hamburger and six dollars for a salad (and that’s only at the cheapest establishments), then maybe you can start talking about a weight tax.
Until then, if you are for it, consider yourself in the likes of Leona Helmsley who said “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”
Sin taxes? Ridiculous. I think we all know who gets to decide what’s a sin. Tobacco – beautiful sin to us, sacred religious to many tribes in North America. Yeah, I’m sure Christians would love it if we started taxing communion wafers.
I agree taxing luggage, but there’s no way you can ethically charge somebody more for their body type. A great deal of size is genetics, and there’s no way you can ethically tax somebody for an accident of birth. Besides, how in hell are you going to enforce something like that? Weigh-in before take off? That will make already congested airports many times worse. Doctors information? Against privilege, and not everyone has a doctor. You see we’re I’m going.
In the western world, the market has a great of power, and often creates culture as much as it arises from it. Charging more for certain lifestyle choices is discrimination that will cause dissent in their practitioners, and if such taxes are too much and to difficult to avoid, even effectively outlawing it. This is not something a free society would do. This mean people are equal under law, except where money’s involved. Ridiculous.
If you’re paying for more or less of a service, like shipping something heavy, or surfing more internet, sure, base it on use. But this is not the same as lifestyle choices like smoking, drinking alcohol, eating certain foods or being heavier-than-doctors-say-you-should be. These latter things in general are choices adults make for ourselves, and were we actually free, they wouldn’t be looked down upon and taxed heavily in some cases.
Taxes should be reserved for raising revenue and not social engineering.
Kelly, I think this is an awful idea. I’m biased, though, because as a motorcyclist, I’ve HAD IT UP TO HERE (gesturing overhead) with social-engineering do-gooders who want to legislate motorcycles off the road in the name of safety. When people who’ve never been on a bike, have no idea how to ride one, and are completely ignorant of the safety issues try to write legislation, it really rings my gong. “Lifestyle” taxes — e.g., taxing people for what social-engineering do-gooder legislators THINK is healthy — is an equally bad idea. Just stop it right now.
Urb
PS: Yeah, when riding, I always wear a helmet, jacket, gloves, and boots — AND a reflective vest. None of which is required, here in Rhode Island. I don’t need a nanny state telling me how to be safe — nor do I need one telling me how to eat healthy!
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
No cable. No car. (Proud member of PhillyCarShare) Lost 40 lbs. since 2001. People in this day and age think things are necessities that are not. And will pay a lot for them, viz. people still buying gasoline at $4.00/gal.
I am an advocate of taxing consumption more than income. I previously posted that large gas guzzling vehicles should be taxed perhaps as much as $5000 when new as well as $500 annually to license. I also believe that your dwelling should be taxed according to the square footage (or appraised value). State and local Property taxes already are based on this but I’m talking about a federal tax.
The simplest way to tax consumption would be a national sales tax or value added tax. The more you consume, the more tax you pay.
Of course, income taxes should be de-emphasized with tax rates reduced and the minimum income amount that is taxed raised. This would have the effect of taxing consumption more and income less.
All this being said, good luck with getting Congress to act without all the partisan bickering or adding all the pet projects that always go with legislative change.
As for being taxed for being overweight, I believe that this would be unduly discriminitory and cruel. Being overweight is it’s own punishment we don’t need Big Brother to point fingers at us on this.
I just had to reply to this one more time. I keep reading it and seeing 2 different arguments.
1. Sin or Lifestyle Taxes
2. Charges based on usage.
Following, I think we see in the replies a general dislike of targeted sin/lifestyle taxes but some disagreement about the charges.
I like several who replied here am not a small person. At over 250lbs I would not be offended to pay more than my wife (~120lbs) to fly from point a to point b. No matter how you cut it the carrier has to spend more to move me. However it would offend me if my wife and or my children didn’t pay less than average in the same situation.
So lifestyle taxes bleh but fair usage charges and the %based taxes that go with them are within the realm of reason.
The idea of charging more to transport heavier weights is sound. This is not a ‘tax’, but a usage fee. Does your FedEx agent charge you the same to send your 50# box as the next guy in line with a 25# box? No, you pay more. Is this fair? Yes. Do you complain? No, because you understand why.
Commercial airlines are scrambling to increase fees to stay afloat against the skyrocketing costs of jet fuel and the extra weight of the American public. A CDC website shows 34% of Americans are obese now.
This idea in Derrie-Air’s fictional ad is based on fairness. This argument should be acceptable solely because it IS fair.
Mmmmm…great idea. I wonder who will pony up the dough for the trillions of dollars it would cost to install the meters, the scales, the metrics. Along with paying for people to check the meters, the infrastructure. Not to mention the lawsuits resulting from angry obese people or twitchy internet nerds who don’t want to pay extra to check their RSS feeds every couple of seconds. And for the tall people who, sadly, can’t diet to lose height and will be stuck paying extra. And then there’s the inevitable corporate abuse that will be entailed to strangle the minority of people who use/rely on things much more than the others. They’re not vocal after all, so who cares?
The whole obese-people-are-driving-the-airlines-out-of-buisness thing is ridiculous. Let’s run through the numbers. Filled with passengers, luggage, and fuel, a Boeing 747-8I weighs 970,000 pounds. It’s empty weight is 410,000 pounds. Add on the 64,225 gallons of fuel it requires (at 8.34 pounds per gallon that’s about 535637 pounds) and you have an airliner that weighs 945637 pounds already that’s 97.5% of it’s total weight, without the added fatties. Take away luggage and all average weight passengers and the obese only account for a tiny variance (0.01% according to the FAA) in total weight. So if we are to scale it according to the averages (an average weight person pays the standard fee, an obese person pays the extra fuel required to ship their ass to Detroit or wherever they’re going divided by the total number of pounds of all passengers multiplied by their weight) comes out to be, even for a 500 pound person, less than a dollar.
Even summing that over every flight, it doesn’t even come close to bailing out the airlines catastrophic losses. Let’s think things through people.