• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Taxes Be Raised On Citizens Who Smoke or are Obese?

Should Taxes Be Raised on Citizens Who Smoke or are Obese?

  • Yes for smokers, no for obese

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Yes for obese, no for smokers

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Yes for both

    Votes: 7 12.7%

  • No for both

    Votes: 46 83.6%
  • Total voters
    55
MarineTpartier

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I saw this article and thought it would be a good poll. Personally, I don't see an issue with taxing smokers more especially. The article even points out that the poor smoke more than the rich.........how stupid is that? If you don't have any money, why are you doing something that is totally detrimental to your health and costs an arm and a leg? Full disclosure, I was a smoker and I dipped. I quit cold turkey in Afghanistan. By choice, not by circumstance. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. But I'm so glad I did it.
As far as obesity, it would have to be a little to technical to work. Personally, I don't accept any excuse for obesity other than a medical condition such as thyroid problems. It doesn't matter what your physical capabilities are. If you manage calories effectively, you can lose weight or at least maintain your current weight. You can call that harsh if you want and it may be. But it's true.
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense? | Fox News
 
No, the government should not be meddling in the market to get the results it wants be that peoples buying decisions or anything else.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I saw this article and thought it would be a good poll. Personally, I don't see an issue with taxing smokers more especially. The article even points out that the poor smoke more than the rich.........how stupid is that? If you don't have any money, why are you doing something that is totally detrimental to your health and costs an arm and a leg? Full disclosure, I was a smoker and I dipped. I quit cold turkey in Afghanistan. By choice, not by circumstance. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. But I'm so glad I did it.
As far as obesity, it would have to be a little to technical to work. Personally, I don't accept any excuse for obesity other than a medical condition such as thyroid problems. It doesn't matter what your physical capabilities are. If you manage calories effectively, you can lose weight or at least maintain your current weight. You can call that harsh if you want and it may be. But it's true.
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense? | Fox News
Click to expand...

Taxes don't need to be raised on them. They just need to be charged higher healthcare premiums.
 
Why?

Actually, I suspect BOTH cost LESS to taxpayers. Because they don't live as long on average.

All the "studies" on "costs" of smokers and obsese conveniently leave off all the 2 decades+ of social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps and all the rest that people who live really old cost.

ALSO... the MOST anti-smoking people are ex-smokers. There is limited benefit in quitting along the way - so some. In short, a "smokers tax" should be against ANYONE who ever smoked a cigarette, a cigar or pot in the person's lifetime.

As for obsesity, even being 20 pounds overweight is a known great health risk. Thus, anyone more than 5% over optimum weight (which tends to be very low) also then should pay the "obsesity" tax.

In short, 95% of Americans would just be taxed more. Which, of course, again, is liberal control freakish - for which they alway search for ways to exempt themselves.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I saw this article and thought it would be a good poll. Personally, I don't see an issue with taxing smokers more especially. The article even points out that the poor smoke more than the rich.........how stupid is that? If you don't have any money, why are you doing something that is totally detrimental to your health and costs an arm and a leg? Full disclosure, I was a smoker and I dipped. I quit cold turkey in Afghanistan. By choice, not by circumstance. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. But I'm so glad I did it.
As far as obesity, it would have to be a little to technical to work. Personally, I don't accept any excuse for obesity other than a medical condition such as thyroid problems. It doesn't matter what your physical capabilities are. If you manage calories effectively, you can lose weight or at least maintain your current weight. You can call that harsh if you want and it may be. But it's true.
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense? | Fox News
Click to expand...

the answer is clearly NO because other tax payers shouldn't be taxed with caring for those who engage in unhealthy behavior. Rather they should pay insurance rates based on their risky behavior.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I saw this article and thought it would be a good poll. Personally, I don't see an issue with taxing smokers more especially. The article even points out that the poor smoke more than the rich.........how stupid is that? If you don't have any money, why are you doing something that is totally detrimental to your health and costs an arm and a leg? Full disclosure, I was a smoker and I dipped. I quit cold turkey in Afghanistan. By choice, not by circumstance. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. But I'm so glad I did it.
As far as obesity, it would have to be a little to technical to work. Personally, I don't accept any excuse for obesity other than a medical condition such as thyroid problems. It doesn't matter what your physical capabilities are. If you manage calories effectively, you can lose weight or at least maintain your current weight. You can call that harsh if you want and it may be. But it's true.
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense? | Fox News
Click to expand...

OBVIOUSLY you should pay a smokers tax.
Also, you should pay an Ex-military tax as on average ex-military have shorter life spans.
Finally, if you are 5% under or 5% over your optimum weight at any point in your life, you should pay a "wrong weight" tax.
And, of course, you should pay the "being male" tax surcharge too.
 
TurtleDude said:
the answer is clearly NO because other tax payers shouldn't be taxed with caring for those who engage in unhealthy behavior. Rather they should pay insurance rates based on their risky behavior.
Click to expand...

Medical care costs versus total-life costs to the government are not the same at all. A smoker dying in age 60s of a smoking disease is a big medical expense. BUT a person dying of "natural causes" in their 90s cost the government/taxpayers a whole lot more - including 3 decades of social security and medicare/caid, plus their other old age ailments.

Thus, under this theory of costs-per-costs-of-the-person, really there should be an old-age tax in which a person's tax rate goes up every birthday.
 
So the premise is that if you tax people more, they'll lose weight or quit smoking. So the addition of a tax can discourage a behavior? Then when we tax the rich, we are discouraging people from being rich. Let's take it farther, when we tax everyone but the poor, are we not discouraging people from being anything but poor?
 
ksu_aviator said:
So the premise is that if you tax people more, they'll lose weight or quit smoking. So the addition of a tax can discourage a behavior? Then when we tax the rich, we are discouraging people from being rich. Let's take it farther, when we tax everyone but the poor, are we not discouraging people from being anything but poor?
Click to expand...
You make a great point. I view it as someone who may be on the gov't dime later for their own unhealthy habit should pay more into it ie more taxes on smokes, dip, alcohol (minus wine). I'm still iffy on the obesity thing. I honestly don't know what we would tax for that. Not everyone who stops into McDonalds, for instance, is fat. Everyone who smokes, dips, or drinks alcohol is hurting themselves though. I don't see an issue with taxing those things further.
 
well, If the public ends up paying everyone's healthcare, then I say absolutely. Seems like we are going down that road so... yea that's the only fair thing to do, people who smoke and are obese have more health problems and require more expensive surgeries than everyone else.

I think in Japan, it's illegal to be fat haha, at least that's what I heard.
 
joko104 said:
OBVIOUSLY you should pay a smokers tax.
Click to expand...
This guarantees poor health. There is NO benefit to smoking.
joko104 said:
Also, you should pay an Ex-military tax as on average ex-military have shorter life spans.
Click to expand...
Being in the military does not guarantee poor health.
joko104 said:
Finally, if you are 5% under or 5% over your optimum weight at any point in your life, you should pay a "wrong weight" tax.
Click to expand...
Same thing. This does not guarantee poor health.
joko104 said:
And, of course, you should pay the "being male" tax surcharge too.
Click to expand...
Same thing. This does not guarantee poor health.
 
celticwar17 said:
well, If the public ends up paying everyone's healthcare, then I say absolutely. Seems like we are going down that road so... yea that's the only fair thing to do, people who smoke and are obese have more health problems and require more expensive surgeries than everyone else.
Click to expand...
My point exactly.
 
joko104 said:
Medical care costs versus total-life costs to the government are not the same at all. A smoker dying in age 60s of a smoking disease is a big medical expense. BUT a person dying of "natural causes" in their 90s cost the government/taxpayers a whole lot more - including 3 decades of social security and medicare/caid, plus their other old age ailments.

Thus, under this theory of costs-per-costs-of-the-person, really there should be an old-age tax in which a person's tax rate goes up every birthday.
Click to expand...

Being old isn't a negligent act. Smoking is. There's nothing else to debate about that.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I saw this article and thought it would be a good poll. Personally, I don't see an issue with taxing smokers more especially. The article even points out that the poor smoke more than the rich.........how stupid is that? If you don't have any money, why are you doing something that is totally detrimental to your health and costs an arm and a leg? Full disclosure, I was a smoker and I dipped. I quit cold turkey in Afghanistan. By choice, not by circumstance. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. But I'm so glad I did it.
As far as obesity, it would have to be a little to technical to work. Personally, I don't accept any excuse for obesity other than a medical condition such as thyroid problems. It doesn't matter what your physical capabilities are. If you manage calories effectively, you can lose weight or at least maintain your current weight. You can call that harsh if you want and it may be. But it's true.
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense? | Fox News
Click to expand...

I'm somewhat torn by this article. On the one hand, it's slightly clever how they did the bait-and-switch thing, going from "should we tax smokers and the obese?" to "Obamacare pretty much operates under that reasoning, because it allows insurance agencies to charge extra for smokers" (and we'll just gloss over the fact that every insurance agency already does this); but on the other hand, this article appears to have been written so that it's easily digestible by your average retarded 7th grader. Hmm. Is this manipulative, or merely pandering? I just cannot decide.
 
Aderleth said:
I'm somewhat torn by this article. On the one hand, it's slightly clever how they did the bait-and-switch thing, going from "should we tax smokers and the obese?" to "Obamacare pretty much operates under that reasoning, because it allows insurance agencies to charge extra for smokers" (and we'll just gloss over the fact that every insurance agency already does this); but on the other hand, this article appears to have been written so that it's easily digestible by your average retarded 7th grader. Hmm. Is this manipulative, or merely pandering? I just cannot decide.
Click to expand...

Meh, don't focus on the article so much as the OP. It's a Fox News article, or course it says something against Obamacare lol.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Meh, don't focus on the article so much as the OP. It's a Fox News article, or course it says something against Obamacare lol.
Click to expand...

Okay. Fair enough. To answer your question:

Somewhat ironically I think Fox actually brought up the right solution (although for utterly moronic reasons) - let insurers charge extra for risky health behavior. If that's folded into an individual's insurance liability, they have direct reasons to change their behavior, and the rest of us are at least somewhat financially reimbursed if they don't. This "solution" (that's in quotes because insurance companies already do this, so it's not like I'm suggesting a new policy) also avoids the obvious and ongoing problem of government punishing addiction, which is both historically expensive to police, and totally useless as a prophylactic measure. Also, it bears mentioning that if you're serious about government taxing things because they create increased health risks, and thereby cost the public money, you probably shouldn't just be talking about cigarettes and overeating. You should also be talking about excessive tanning, and "extreme" sports, and people who drive a lot, etc etc. Of course that would be patently crazy, but it'd also be logically consistent.
 
Smoking is a personal choice thing while obesity is a bit more complicated. Many obese people are poor. They do not go and buy up fatty foods because they want to be fat, but rather because it is cheap. (Unhealthy Food Is Cheap Food.) (The Checkup - Junk food cheaper than healthful) Now, why are unhealthy foods such as McDonalds cheap? That's because the US government subsidies the meat, corn, rice and several other industries, thus lowering the price of the food. (For a Healthier Country, Overhaul Farm Subsidies: Scientific American) So you have poor people eating unhealthy foods and becoming obese because it is cheap and a government that enables this by subsidizing the essential ingredients in those unhealthy foods. Thus, if we want lower obesity, I think that we should end subsidies.

EDIT: Please note, this does not mean that personal responsibility is not involved, but rather acknowledges the how such an issue is complicated and how circumstances beyond a person's control can somewhat force them into bad situations.
 
They should pay more for health insurance though, with a rebate if they lose the weight, or quit smoking. Carrots work better than sticks.
 
iguanaman said:
They should pay more for health insurance though, with a rebate if they lose the weight, or quit smoking. Carrots work better than sticks.
Click to expand...

then why shouldn't drinkers and drug addicts pay more too--addiction is addiction?
 
Tanning has a Health tax. Passed with Obamacare.
Smoking is already heavily taxed. It could be taxed more as long as they don't get absurd about it.
Alcohol is "sin taxed"
A Junk Food sin tax would probably work without too much pain.
The only major class that has escaped are drug users. We're to stupid to tax drugs for some strange reason.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Smoking is a personal choice thing while obesity is a bit more complicated. Many obese people are poor. They do not go and buy up fatty foods because they want to be fat, but rather because it is cheap. (Unhealthy Food Is Cheap Food.) (The Checkup - Junk food cheaper than healthful) Now, why are unhealthy foods such as McDonalds cheap? That's because the US government subsidies the meat, corn, rice and several other industries, thus lowering the price of the food. (For a Healthier Country, Overhaul Farm Subsidies: Scientific American) So you have poor people eating unhealthy foods and becoming obese because it is cheap and a government that enables this by subsidizing the essential ingredients in those unhealthy foods. Thus, if we want lower obesity, I think that we should end subsidies.

EDIT: Please note, this does not mean that personal responsibility is not involved, but rather acknowledges the how such an issue is complicated and how circumstances beyond a person's control can somewhat force them into bad situations.
Click to expand...

Losing weight is all about caloric intake, not the food you eat. A doctor recently lost 20lbs in two months eating nothing but Twinkies and the like. Granted, I'm sure he didn't feel too good, but it illustrates the point.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Losing weight is all about caloric intake, not the food you eat. A doctor recently lost 20lbs in two months eating nothing but Twinkies and the like. Granted, I'm sure he didn't feel too good, but it illustrates the point.
Click to expand...

That's true, but eating Twinkies isn't gonna make you healthy, now is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom