Comments on: Hey Congress, Why Don’t You…? Tax Bad Behaviors

By: David J. Conklin

David J. Conklin — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:54:42 +0000

>Research shows that if you raise taxes on tobacco, alcohol, etc the net effect is more tax collection — not enough people quit or cut back to offset revenue gain.

When the raised the taxes on cigarettes so that young people couldn’t afford them, they quit smoking. They gained better health and in the long run our medical costs will drop.

By: noni

noni — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:34:56 +0000

Besides, fatty foods don’t make people fat; over-indulgence and lack of exercise does.

By: noni

noni — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:26:25 +0000

Ok, then we tax people who engage in homosexual acts and those heterosexuals who have more than one partner as well because of the dangers of picking up AIDs and STDs.

The problem with taxing soda is that it’s also a tax on people suffering from nausea going through cancer treatment, migraines, flu, post op, etc.

By: carrepossesseion

carrepossesseion — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:08:59 +0000

Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?

By: cecil

cecil — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:40:35 +0000

Let them eat carrots!

By: JBruce

JBruce — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:27:06 +0000

I say tax cigarettes, alcohol and (after you legalize them) “recreational drugs. Why? Because it’s a good way for the government to get money. Research shows that if you raise taxes on tobacco, alcohol, etc the net effect is more tax collection — not enough people quit or cut back to offset revenue gain. Also, it gives you a “choice” about paying taxes. Don’t smoke, don’t drink — and you don’t pay those taxes.
Taxing hamburgers, McNuggets, ice cream and french fries might not have that effect. Frankly, I’m a little nauseated by the idea of gov’t trying to control “behavior” with taxes. Some behaviors are illegal (murder, theft, etc) and are “controlled” by the judicial system. In a mlot of places, so is smoking. My campus just went smoke-free — I mean indoors and out. I’m sure the wellness freaks are strutting like turkeys about their “success” with this new policy, but I think it’s overreaching.

By: garagefather

garagefather — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:25:15 +0000

It is amazing the short shrift given to our freedoms in this day and age. I could examine anyone’s life and find unhealthy or dangerous things they do. Whether it is driving too fast, eating too much fast food, having unprotected sex, or sky diving, people do things because they are free, that others would find objectionable. Human nature is what it is but many Americans think we can legislate out human nature and somehow create a utopia. Years of freedom ending legislation have been past to control behavior but we always have some issue that has to be addressed because the previous freedom ending legislation put uncle sam in charge of it and then it begins costing them too much money which leads to new legislation to control further behaviors the government deems costly to itself. The productive citizens who pay for all of this nonsense get angry because they have to pay for it and want to stop rewarding bad behavior. Citizens end up promoting more legislation to curb the behaviors they don’t want to pay for any more. Don’t you see that it is a never ending spiral towards dictatorship? The more items our government takes control of, the more behaviors the government will need to regulate in order to control costs.
Currently they are targeting junk food. What happens when they target your “bad” behavior. There is undoubtedly something you do that others would find unhealthy or dangerous.
All we need to do is force people to be responsible for themselves. No matter what arguments you make or what false logic you use, if everyone was personally responsible for themselves, then there would be no reason to care what someone does to themselves. Until then, the welfare state will continually tell us how to live and force us to pay for how others live.

By: Jill

Jill — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:52:47 +0000

“let’s tax things that make us sick”…OK, following that logic, let’s also tax anyone with a sidewalk – people do fall down on them and get owies. And anyone with a tree should pay a tax because random children do fall out of them and clunk their heads from time to time. And we should tax irons, toasters, pots and pans and anything else that gets hot and may burn someone. Oh! And I want to tax people that choose to wear perfume and aftershave since the smell makes ME sick. If we tax everything and anything that’s “bad” or makes us “sick” where will it end? The tax code is messy enough. At some point we need PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If I can limit myself to one soda a day – why should I be lumped in with the gal that chugs them nonstop?

By: Philip Miles

Philip Miles — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:42:16 +0000

“[T]he power to tax involves the power to destroy.” – McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). You are advocating that Congress wield the power to destroy lifestyles it deems inappropriate. That’s not a power I feel comfortable giving them.

By: David Schneider

David Schneider — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:48:48 +0000

I understand the plan… We tax these things so high that only those making $100,000 or more a year can afford them and that way we kill off all the rich people because we can only afford to live “healthy” , and those that have money can afford the health care needed for such non-healthy living. (unless the insurance companies have made “breathing” a pre-exsisting condition by then and deny your claim) That’s a great idea! By the way, hasn’t it been proven that too much sun is unhealthy… how are we gonna tax that?