WRITTEN BY JAMIE NEBEN
Don’t get me wrong. I believe that every American (and every world citizen) should receive health benefits. Does anybody have a problem with me saying that all children should be covered? Does anybody have a problem with saying that health care should be made affordable to everyone? What’s so complicated? Oh wait…how are we going to pay for it? Some of the options under consideration would hit us where it hurts, which is to say that we’ll have to pay more for the things we can’t live without. For instance, the following…
Smokers are not affected by the new law being proposed, but only after the largest federal tobacco tax increase recently went into effect, not to mention that one state after another is banishing them outdoors. Perhaps that means a ceiling was reached, if only temporarily. Combine that with the powerful tobacco industry and maybe that’s why even more taxes were not an option for this particular plan. Look, we know that there’s a link to cancer, but smokers are taxed enough already (and us non-smokers are receiving the benefit) so if we want to ultimately eliminate that “sin,” let’s put more energy into prevention.
And I’m sure you’ve heard about prohibition? Alcohol was made illegal in the U.S. by the 18th amendment and repealed by the 21st amendment. So why was it repealed? Was it the corruption and crime? Was it a political move for a lobby group? Maybe, it’s because Americans like to drink. In fact, many cultures enjoy “adult beverages,” going back thousands of years. I think we can all agree that responsibility is expected and required. We have strong laws to enforce against those people who don’t act accordingly. What about the rest of us? What about those who abide by the law and go to great lengths not to hurt anybody? Is that sinning? If not, why will alcohol be singled out for tax purposes? Our current economic climate is bad enough without further burdening the hard working man or woman who desires a cocktail after a long day, and the hard working bartender who serves it.
I like to have a sugary soft drink (ok it’s a Coke) every morning. I usually don’t even finish it. Would it be any better if I drank coffee or tea? Should I only drink freshly squeezed juice? Water?
Where will it end? I completely agree that we need to provide education and offer incentives to make us a healthier bunch of people. But for somebody (or group) to decide what’s good for us and what’s not, and then legislate those decisions, especially in economic terms, is taking us on a much different path than where our principles originated.
Jamie — I’m not sure what your main point is here. Is it the prevailing approach of paying for governmental services by way of taxes that are completely divorced from ability to pay and instead tied solely to one’s lifestyle? Or is it the use of taxation as a stick to force us away from our bad habits?
Irrespective of one’s ability to pay, I believe it’s in our own best interest to make lifestyle choices that promote good nutrition and fitness. Many people take their health very seriously. Many people don’t. You also have people like me who enjoy what some call “guilty pleasures” (although I’ve found no good reason to feel guilty about them). That would be the bad habits of which we speak. Would you punish those who want to eat cake at birthday party? And can I avoid the tax if I do twenty minutes on the treadmill after I finish my Coke? At the end of the day, we are accountable to ourselves. Don’t penalize us beyond that.
I don’t think the ability to pay should be left out of the discussion because it is related, but we can for now and I’ll follow your point. The sorts of taxation of which you speak do not, in my mind, have anything to do with promoting healthy habits or discouraging bad ones. Instead, it’s about selling a tax increase to pay for a program that is needed or wanted. For some 30 years, the public has been conditioned to believe that taxes are evil, especially income taxes (which gets us to the ability to pay part). The taxes have to be sold in some way and the current trend is to clothe them in the public interest by claiming to be encouraging healthier living. This also has the added benefit of making the taxes appear to be voluntary. If you don’t like the tax, the thinking goes, then don’t smoke, drink, eat birthday cake, drink soda, whatever. (We can get to the unseemly idea of capitalizing on individuals’ addiction, as is the case with many drinkers and most smokers, another day.) Another political advantage is that these sorts of taxes are levied against unorganized citizens. Although the manufacturers have their lobbyists, there’s no “Coke Drinkers Alliance” or other kind of group that can band together to mount opposition. So, really, what we’re dealing with here is less an intrustion into your lifestyle choices than it is a capitilization on them. What we need to do is see this in the larger context of a public’s willingness to pawn off on others the costs of programs from which it benefits.
Yes, we need to have the ability-to-pay discussion, as well as the capitalization of addiction, and those are worthy of their own topics. Meanwhile, I understand that any universal health care system is going to require our economic participation. I understand the psychology involved with taxing certain items that may put our health at higher risk. Yet, shared benefits should equal shared responsibility. The smoker and non-smoker, drinker and non-drinker, and home cooker and fast food eater will all likely need medical assistance someday. So let’s share the load equally, or find another way to acquire funds. But don’t allow our leaders and representatives to start deciding what’s good for us and what’s not.
Since you’ve raised issues of taxation and government intrusion into individuals’ lives, it would be interesting to see A.C.’s take on your blog post.
I just want to point out that the best prevention of smoking that I’ve seen is good examples. I’ve never seen my mother or father smoke even though over 90% of my dozen or so aunts and uncles did. Taxing people is not as effective. All 7 children my parents had do not smoke.
One thing I would beg to differ about (and I feel reasonably confident that you may agree) is the statement that all expect and require responsibility, when dealing with drinking alcohol. Thanks to M.A.D. D. (Mother’s against Drunk Driving), laws were put in place to force better responsible behavior because people did not expect or require people to act responsibly, and to this day we all still don’t. Not even some of our judges who let the chronic abusers off with punishments that are not adequate for the crime.
You also make a point about how a sin tax can be an unfair burden on those who act lawfully and go through great lengths not to hurt anybody. I am happy to say I have actually witnessed people like this, but sad to say it is rare. I would agree it is not fair for the truly responsible people, but this is a time when a minor few will need to sacrifice for many. Now hold your horses! I want to make it perfectly clear that I am addressing the principal and not the actual idea of the tax. Please know that I am normally on the side towards a tax-less society. I would rather have money go from the alcohol beverage companies to an organization like M.A.D.D. to monitor the costs of alcohol problems; collect that amount from the companies; and fund, manage, and help victims and criminal with rehabilitation, counseling, and health costs. I know M.A.D.D. is not set up for this. I am just using them for an example. I do not want any more money going through the government because of how they manage it.
And for the record, I do not think alcohol is being singled out when we pay things like CRV for recycling.
Thanks for the topic and I love the title! Very catchy!
Now for Cady. 😉 Hi!
Thanks for your interest in my opinion about taxes.
I originally responded to Jamie’s blog before quickly glancing over the other comments, but here is just some of what I would like to say at this time.
I HATE TAXES!
And if you would like to know how I really feel.. With all that is in me.. I HATE TAXES!
Now since I got a little bit of that out of my system, let me add a bit more.
I totally agree with the definitions of tax and taxing in the dictionary. Tax/Taxing is a burden, exhausting, strenuous, wearing, and a strain on the people.
I live in an association. I pay $135-$150 every month. I do not make/have the time to use the amenities as much as my neighbors but I know I still have to pay the full amount. I have no problem paying because it was my choice to live in this area and if I did not like something, I have a direct chance to get the neighborhood together to change it. If taxes were set up in a similar way, we would be heading in a better direction. As of now, I really do not believe we have the necessary say-so for how tax money is being spent. For example, the majority of the people say that we should not use government money to bail out failing businesses, but we are doing it.
The government and the funds that we contribute are too big for the government to manage any abuse or waste.
Most of America is saying government should not be running businesses or bailing out bad companies that made bad decisions. I would go further and say, why are we running people’s lives and giving money to those who are not trying to be a benefit to society. I see it as being similar.
I am not talking about the people who are giving their all by staying law abiding citizens and trying to make ends meet. That is another subject for another day. My years of observations show me that we are getting little lazy; do not want to take responsibility for our own actions; and are so willing to give up our own rights in a free country to the power to the few who do not know better.
My question would be, why do we want to give more money and power to anyone who has not shown they are responsible and discipline with our money and our lives?
A huge problem respecting your comments, A.C., is that the public discourse uses terms like “the government,” “taxes,” “pork barrell spending,” “government bureaucrats” and the like without any context at all. I’ll grant that the bailouts get used a lot right now, but that’s about as useful as having no context because the talking heads on radio and television have all along been interested in serving agendas rather than getting good information to the public so that we can make intelligent decisions. Moreover, egged on by those same talking heads, the public is asked to view the bailouts through a partisan lens despite significant similarities in the actions of the Bush and Obama administrations. This same problem plagues virtually all discussion of government programs and spending and this will quite logically get us nowhere. And it’s clear why this tack is taken, especially by those on the right — when people are asked about specific programs (e.g., schools, libraries, environmental protection), they support government involvement, and when something bad happens, like miners getting trapped deep underground, the public sees dedicated professionals whose paychecks happen to come from the government emerging as the heroes. Stirring up political agitation is good for ratings, but not for reasonable discourse.
Hi, very nice post. I have been wonder’n bout this issue,so thanks for posting
Hi. I like the way you write. Will you post some more articles?