Wheem 说:
Lets pretend for a moment that you were on software stamps, and they were your only (or at least, primary) way to get software of any type. Then the government decides that the software stamps should be used only on Operating Systems, Anti-Virus programs, or some form of productive/business software. Would you be willing to spend ~$200 worth of your software stamps on Windows 7, and trade it for say...three $50 games?
Software is a one-off thing though. If I already have Windows 7, why would I need to spend any more money on that? I think a more accurate analogy would be, say, utility coupons, and electricity/water bills vs. broadband Internet/cable subscriptions. And yeah, if I already have enough to pay for my electricity and water bills, and I had coupons left, I would certainly consider trading them with a family member or neightbour in exchange for broadband/cable. But then arguably I wouldn't actually need those coupons, so me getting them in the first place would already be a misallocation of resources.
Wheem 说:
Poor doesn't mean stupid, and if they really want their junk food, they're going to get it. Bartering with people - especially friends or family - would be a very easy way around the system.
That's true. Do they
really want it though? Or is it just because it is cheap or convenient? Speaking from personal experience as a student: I eat a lot of junk food. But if the government (or the store, whatever) were to make junk food more expensive in relation to normal food, I'd probably reconsider, say, actually getting a pie or something instead of another bag of chips.
Of course there will always be a group of people that will exploit every loophope they can find. What I'm saying is that most people will go 'meh' and just switch to the less expensive option.
Wheem 说:
Government really shouldn't be providing food or medical care. Those are things which should be handled by the market, with private charity providing for those too poor to afford what they need. When the providers are acting voluntarily, there's no good argument for trying to control what someone else eats and drinks. Under the current system, there's only one way to keep those on welfare programs from using government resources to acquire junk food; provide the food directly, and make sure that it's as bland as possible. 'Course, pushing for that will get you called heartless, among other things.
Because it is. What you're suggesting is rosy in principle, but I'm fairly sure there isn't a single non-hypothetical instance of a society where private charity actually keeps up with the demand for social welfare. People are selfish bastards, given the choice, not nearly enough of us would give nearly enough of our incomes to charity. At least not of the non-stripper variety.
Your approach seems to be to deride the middle ground as ball-less and cowardly, and then attack the extreme on the other side as ridiculous - "makers of medium-sized televisions are just trying to weasel out of making huge TVs, which they would if they had any balls", then "hundred-inch televisions are an exercise in awful excess", which leads to the apparently incontrovertible conclusion that "only small, five-inch televisions are acceptable". While pretty much everyone agrees that hundred-inch televisions would be just ridiculous, medium-sized televisions sound reasonable as an alternative to your small-TV fetish, so you polemicise against it instead. But most of the time the middle ground is better than the extreme opposite, even if it may still be an unattractive proposition.
Wheem 说:
Blackfish 说:
I see what you're saying, but I don't think it applies in this particular instance. Banning junk food is ridiculous, clearly, and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. Placing a 'sin tax' on junk food represents a more reasonable middle ground.
Why is it reasonable? Why should the government be allowed to arbitrarily decide that Good-X and Service-Y should cost more than the providers are selling them for? And if we're going to go that route, why stop at junk food?
There are those who claim a doomsday is coming because of CO2 emissions, so lets raise taxes on gasoline and electricity, and start subsidizing blankets, tank tops, and bicycle manufacturers.
It's claimed that too many people have a sedentary lifestyle, so lets jack up taxes on software, electronics, books, cable/satellite TV providers, internet services, chess boards, and comfortable chairs and couches.
And since everyone knows that teenage girls spend way too much time on the phone, all cell and land-line phone plans need an extra tax beyond what other electronic services get.
Also keep in mind that the government is not always going to be controlled by people who agree with you. If you support any sort of social engineering via the tax code, you really can't complain if it ever comes back to bite you in the backside under a different administration. After all, sin taxes got their name and popularity from moral crusaders that wanted to stop (or limit) people from doing naughty things like drinking beer; and something like $0.60 of every dollar spent on alcohol in America is taxation.
Amusingly enough I don't actually think any of the examples you cited are actually bad, even the alcohol example. As long as they're not outright banning things I'm reasonably okay with these kinds of taxes.
Wheem 说:
Blackfish 说:
I agree with you basic premise that it's a form of social engineering, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially in this case - I'm assuming you agree that too much junk food is bad. People respond to monetary incentives, and these taxes are a way of influencing public behaviour without excessively draconian laws banning this and that.
Eating too much (even if it's not junk food) and not exercising enough is bad for a person, that's not really arguable. Our disagreement comes down to the role of government. I do not support giving the government the legal authority to meddle with market prices, and view such actions as overbearing and immoral. If some person wants to live an unhealthy lifestyle, then that's their business, not mine, yours, or the government's. 'Course, they should also be the one to bear the full costs of their own decisions, or rely on the kindness of others who
willingly shoulder some of the burdens (ie, increased medical costs, paying extra for the XXXL shirts, or whatever).
Yeah, but the only people who'll be hit hard by the tax would be people who eat a lot of junk food, exactly the demographic the tax is targeting. Just as the tobacco tax hits heavy smokers the hardest.
I agree to a point that people should be allowed to make, and shoulder the responsibility, of their own decisions. But this reasoning really falls apart when taken to the extreme - I'm sure you're not bemoaning the government restriction of drugs like cocaine, or heroin. A certain amount of government regulation is clearly not only a good thing, but necessary for the continuation of our society (or at least our current high standard of living). Where we differ is merely the extent to which we believe this laissez-faire doctrine holds true. So you don't get to call my views overbearing and immoral from a high horse.
Wheem 说:
Blackfish 说:
Keep in mind that any tax would probably be... what, three percent? Five percent? Even if you're buying fifty bucks of junk food (which you really shouldn't), that's an extra $2.50. As for limiting the amount of junk food one can afford, you say that like it's a bad thing.
If the tax is small enough that it doesn't really do anything, what's the point? Thumbing noses at people the government doesn't like? Besides, it's quite possible that the tax would end up fairly high, even if it started out low. As I said earlier, more than half of the cost of alcohol in the US is taxes.
Aye, you got me there. I concede this point.
EDIT: I realise I might have come off as a little hostile, if so, that was not my intention. :]
they'll go for the cheapest and fastest solution. So a tomato paste, butter, "parmazan" mix and a cube of frozen Parsley is best case scenario for most.
