It is not the role of government to shape its citizens. It is the role of the citizens to shape their government.
But we have reached a point at which elected officials believe it is within their powers to dictate — or least provide incentives or disincentives for — human behavior of every kind.
According to the Las Vegas newspaper, Assemblyman Harvey Munford, a Las Vegas Democrat, has introduced a bill that would impose a 5-cent tax on fast-food menu items containing more than 500 calories — a fat tax. Munford told the paper’s reporter the additional cost would prompt parents to patronize fast-food establishments less often and thus fight obesity, especially among children.
Under the guise that individual behavior can raise the collective cost, elected officials think they have the right to impose a tax to discourage eating fatty foods, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes and going to tanning salons. There are outright legal prohibitions against shower heads and toilets that use too much water and light bulbs that use too much electricity. There are tax breaks for installing efficient appliances. Mortgage interest is deductible to encourage homeownership. There are government loans and tax breaks for sending your children to college. There is a subsidy for buying an electric car. There are tax breaks and subsidies for building “green” power plants. The government dictates the miles per gallon cars must achieve. There are helmet laws and seat belt laws and no talking on cell phones while driving laws. There is a tax deduction for having children.
This is downright Orwellian: The individual is merely a cell in the collective organism.
“And I don’t think that government has a role in telling people how to live their lives. Maybe a minister does, maybe your belief in God does, maybe there’s another set of moral codes, but I don’t think government has a role.”
— Clarence Thomas
If these politicians spend half as much time trying to bring private sector businesses to the state as they do trying to pick our pockets, we’d ALL be better off.
You missed the one about walking across a highway while texting. I think the real way to make this one work would be to not ticket a driver who hits someone who is not paying attention while crossing, even in a crosswalk.
But that makes me heartless, another one of those words liberals use to support their nanny statist laws like ticketing people for walking. But all I propose is a variant on the jaywalking law which they have almost eliminated via the media. Notice how drivers now stop for jaywalkers waiting in the middle lane? The worst I saw was a person with one foot off the curb and all 4 lanes both directions came to a screeching halt.
Why be specific to texting anyway?
Make it law to pay attention when crossing the street just as it is a law to pay attention when operating a motor vehicle.
That should please everyone, the nanny staters get a law they can interpret, the cops get the same, and the defense lawyers get a whole new area they can exploit.
So you think taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are “Orwellian”?
Nah, not the taxes. The expansion and redefinition of the term “sin tax” is Orwellian.
I like your jaywalking idea, Steve, and think it could be expanded. What if our justice system actually recognized that a “victim” may be partly to blame for an unfortunate incident in all such instances, not just while jaywalking. That way, Mcdonald’s might still have to pay for serving super hot coffee, but the amount might be much less, because “victims” should be smarter than to spill coffee in their laps.
If you want to discourage something, tax it; if you want to encourage something, subsidize it. Our largest tax is on people’s labor. Why do we want to discourage labor? For that matter, why should people who own property pay more tax than those who do not? Almost all taxes can be perceived as unfair, but the bills have to be paid. I see nothing wrong with a reasonable tax on cigarettes, alcohol, fat, and sugar, gambling, prostitution, or marijuana and possibly other drugs, but certainly the first step should be to stop subsidizing the fat and sugar. We subsidize corn and therefore all animals that eat corn and their attendant fat. We also subsidize peanuts and sugar, but not broccoli or carrots. Why?
As an investment in health care, it may be cheaper to encourage consumption of nutritious food and discourage consumption of alcohol, etc. than to continue practicing fire engine medicine as we do now. How to accomplish that is debatable, but taxing fat and sugar may be cheaper than taxing income to pay for the diabetes, etc that follows.
Taxes should pay for government services not to change people’s habits. Government should also get out of the insurance business.
________________________________
Who thinks if the taxes achieve the stated goal of stopping cigarette smoking the tax will simply disappear? Our government becomes reliant on these taxes and they would be forced to find something else to tax. This could be the very thing occurring today with the redefinition and expansion of the “sin tax”.
So you are against cigarette taxes?
How do you feel about the government giving special tax preferences to people who donate money to tax-exempt organizations?
Is it also Orwellian to tax people who earn a living from salaried employment at a higher rate than people who make money by playing the stock market?
Selective redefinition won’t get you what you want.
Selective redefinition or not, nyp has a good point. If we should not try to modify behaviour through taxation, then the reasoning for many tax deductions goes out the window.
There is also an unanswered question. Since fat people cost society dearly when they become old (or middle aged) and helpless, how do we charge them for the extra costs they generate? A fat and sugar tax not only motivates people to eat better food, it is a fair way to charge the fatties that will inevitably cost us a fortune in the future.
Nyp is being absurd, get real.
Look, once a tax is in place the government becomes dependent on the revenue. If these taxes actually achieve the stated purpose they will sunset with nothing to replace the revenue. What will replace the revenue next time? Tanning bed tax? Oh wait….
What is actually being said is we hope these people keep on consuming at least the last one of these products so the revenue keeps rolling on in.
Get real yourself, Steve. The Reagan and Bush years proved that government continues to spend whether the revenue is there or not. The bill has to be paid. Taxation is not the problem; spending with insufficient revenue is.
“The Reagan and Bush years…..” Yep. That just about says it all. It’s all Bush’s fault, unless you’re old enough to remember Ronnie Ray-gun.
‘Course, nothing clown Bøzø is doing, with his merry band of helpers (Harry and Nancy) have ANYTHING to do with where we are today, right?
And you can tell people to “get real yourself”??
Thank you for the late night chuckle. Liberalism IS a mental disorder!
Hey petey. When you commies take over, are you going to be a member of the Food Police?
If you do, can you sneak me some onion rings?
What about laws that ban smoking in public places. Are those also tyrannical?
Tax exemptions also try to manipulate, Petey.
________________________________
You charge people for the services they use, Rincon. Risk pools are what insurance is for. The government shouldn’t be in the insurance business either.
________________________________
If those laws banning smoking apply to privately owned businesses, yes, Petey.
________________________________
“spending with insufficient revenue is.”
Exactly.
Once the government is out of the insurance business I will be interested in seeing how all those 75-year olds go about obtaining medical coverage.
Considering your tendency to insult and berate, you have a thin skin, Athos. Reagan and Bush both cut taxes and yet government spending did not even pause, confirming my statement.. The fact that they were Republicans is not the issue nor is my general opinion of either President.
I would think that you would be against socializing the extra costs we all pay because of overweight people. I refer to Medicare and Medicaid expenses in particular. Unless you get rid of these programs, the fat people are being subsidized. Same thing with workman’s comp. In addition, insurance companies and airlines should be allowed to bill fat people at a higher rate. Fat people should pay for a large proportion of the back injuries that are common with health care, nursing home, and home care personnel. They should also pay for all extra costs associated with oversized wheelchairs, beds.gurneys, people cranes, x-ray tables, MRI and CAT scan platforms.
According to my architect, several changes including hallway width requirements were made in the building code in the 1990′s due to oversized Americans. (this actually forced negative changes in the floor plan of my building because the building we desired became slightly larger than the lot size would allow). They also cost medical facilities large amounts of money due to the awkwardness and excess time required to handle them. Moving them often requires teams of people. Even placing catheters, and taking blood take much longer than in normal individuals. They should even pay for their share of the handicapped parking requirements. They should also pay for higher seat width requirements in public venues such as stadiums and movie theatres. Even home furniture, autos, ladders, bicycles, and the like have had to be reengineered to account for the large numbers of fat people using them, but we all share the costs.
Sounds like too many laws, Rincon.
________________________________
I have to say I kinda like the fact that smoking is banned in restaurants. I had no idea that a sensible public-health regulation was actually a form of communist tyranny.
Communist tyranny? No, more of a fascist tyranny. The private owner is still there, but has no final say on how the business is conducted. It might be a Fifth Amendment taking if business declines due to smokers staying away.
________________________________
The only laws I referred to are the Americans with Disabilities Act and Medicare/Medicaid. You didn’t address the numerous other costs I mentioned. In addition, I consider it foolish to only look at some idealized view of how the world should be. There will always be laws and programs that we don’t like. Your world view should take into account the way things are, not how you would like them to be. At present, the thinner people are subsidizing a large number of increased costs generated by the obese.. Again, I’m surprised that you believe in socializing these costs.
Who believes in socializing costs?
________________________________
OK, well, there we have it. Banning smoking in restaurants and casinos is “fascist tyranny.”
There you have it.
________________________________
I note that we have focused on food taxes to the exclusion of the other things that you railed about. You didn’t state how we should make up for the loss of revenue now generated by tobacco, alcohol, and gambling taxes. Raise the income tax? Cutting spending is not a fair answer until we get our debt paid off.
One weakness of capitalism is that when resources are limited, the motivation is for each individual to use those resources as fast as they desire, with no regard to the longer term consequences. There is an inherent unfairness when the rich guzzle resources that eventually raise the prices paid by the poor and middle class.
I agree however, that most tax deductions should be eliminated and the tax rate should be lowered.in a commensurate manner. A prohibition against talking on cell phones should be eliminated only if we raise the legal limit for alcohol as research shows that talking on a cell phone leads to a reaction speed similar to that with use of alcohol.
MPG dictates are wrongheaded and should be replaced with a fuel tax that actually pays 100% of road construction and maintenance costs. At present, it isn’t even close.
Sorry, I cannot agree with this at all: “Cutting spending is not a fair answer until we get our debt paid off.”
As for fuel taxes — that include electric cars? — paying for roads, the concept is user pays.
________________________________
What part of government edicts, that carry the force of law (and therefore can FORCE free men to do the bidding of some basement bureaucrat) don’t you libs understand?
Just because YOU deem it to be beneficial, what right do you have to FORCE everyone else to do it? That’s the REAL problem you have with the free market AND capitalism. You can’t make us knuckle dragging conservatives conform to your Utopia.
Of course, Kings of old had the God given right to rule as they saw fit (the old “direct pipeline to the Big Guy”) which was the reason so many fled to the new land across the water. And wrote a Constitution to protect us against you know it all, wanna bees.
Here’s another inconvenient piece of truth that you libs don’t want made public knowledge –
There are now 11 states where the welfare roles are larger than the work force.
How can that be????
Because all of those states have Democratic majorities, perhaps?
________________________________
Buzzer sound.
Politifact has the answer. Pants on Fire to that 11 state thing.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/11/chain-email/chain-email-says-11-states-have-more-people-welfar/
I can see why welfare might be preferable to work in some states.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.
State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii $17.50
Alaska $15.48
Massachusetts $14.66
Connecticut $14.23
Washington, D.C. $13.99
New York $13.13
New Jersey $12.55
Rhode Island $12.55
California $11.59
Virginia $11.11
Depends on your definition of welfare.
From the Forbes article that launched that chain email about those 11 states:
“Two factors determine whether a state makes this elite list of fiscal hellholes. The first is whether it has more takers than makers. A taker is someone who draws money from the government, as an employee, pensioner or welfare recipient. A maker is someone gainfully employed in the private sector. …
“Let’s say you are a software entrepreneur with 100 on your payroll. If you stay in San Francisco, your crew will support 139 takers. In Texas, they would support only 82. Austin looks very attractive.
“Ranked on the taker/maker ratio, our 11 death spiral states range from New Mexico, with 1.53 takers for every maker, down to Ohio, with a 1-to-1 ratio.”
The statement “There are now 11 states where the welfare roles are larger than the work force.” is not true.
Does it mean those states are not in bad shape? No it does not, but that statement is also not defensible.
Don’t be a Nyp.
You will find the median wage in those states is quite a bit higher than the welfare compensation. Though welfare would be better than minimum wage… in Massachusetts the median wage is 6 dollars higher than welfare and the mean wage is 11 dollars higher.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ma.htm#00-0000
I read your article, Steve. I amend my earlier statement. While I am a “maker”, I support 3 children which could be classified as “takers” (any parents out there know what I’m talking about, eh?)
But the very fact that our nation approaches 100 million “takers” is a system that can’t sustain itself, is it? I contend that our current system of welfare is evil, not benevolent. Read Vinny’s article in today’s RJ and weep at the gross untruth behind SS and Medicare. Would all people have saved the same amount for their “golden years” as was taken by our masters in DC?
The smart ones, yes. The slow learners – maybe 1 generation. The permanent “takers”??? Ever hear of the Darwin Principle?
Yes, if the trend continues big trouble rapidly approaches.
Always read Vin. Want to see some second amendment action? Just try and stop the payouts from Social Security.
I think we all agree, except possibly nyp, that our welfare system is out of control.
All vehicles, including electric cars should pay for the roads.
“Sorry, I cannot agree with this at all: ‘Cutting spending is not a fair answer until we get our debt paid off.”
Getting rid of existing taxes before paying the debt is like quitting your part time job when you are unable to pay your existing bills.
Actually, “Athos” is a taker. He decided not to pay for health insurance and then, when he got sick, stuck the rest of us with the considerable costs of the treatments that brought him back to health.
He is definitely a taker.
Nyp, I would say Athos is a reformed “taker” and one of the very few. Most (Like Angel Adams) learn how to stay on welfare and teach their children how to do it too, becoming generational takers. This is the trend I worry most about on this issue.
Rincon. All that is needed for the road tax is annual odometer reports. We have those now for smog checks, simply reporting the odometer at registration renewal would be enough to generate the tax bill and it could be paid in any number of ways. But creating yet another big brother invasive GPS based anti privacy system is what Nyp’s peeps seem to wish and prey for.
The “welfare system is out of control”???
That is absurd.
Ah. So Athos is a former taker. But we know for a fact that he is “reformed” and will never take again.
Unless he finds himself disable and in need of dual-eligible status for Medicaid. Or receiving SSI. Or unemployed and without health insurance benefits.
That was easy Rincon, shootin fish in a barrel.
Nyp, so predictable.
By what standard can you conceivably assert that “the welfare system is out of control”?
Cost.
Notice? Show Athos some info that corrects his statement and he responds with a post correcting his own original statement.
That is a conservative.
Liberals do one of two things. Spin the hell out of it trying to make it true or they ignore it hoping it goes away.
Generational welfare.
Angel Adams!
prove it
I’m still waiting for the evidence that “the welfare system is out of control”.
Nothing any of us post will prove it to your satisfaction Nyp. Google it for yourself.
Odometer reports are OK with me, Steve. A fuel tax does have the advantage of exacting a greater tax more those who contribute more to our fossil fuel woes, which have been and will continue to be very costly.
I’m glad I excepted you, nyp. I would include corporate and agricultural welfare in the mix for what it’s worth. Cost is a major indicator as Thomas said, Complexity is another. There are so many programs that it is difficult to assess what total benefits a person receives. A third is the presence of cheating. The impact of that is hard to determine. As I’ve said in the past, people deserve food, shelter, and reasonable medical care, but no one should receive these without working for them.
there is nothing relevant on google.
The statement is completely wrong.
As predicted nothing meets your definition of what we see.
Search “Angel Adams”?
Nyp has been ignoring this one for most of the last week! (hoping it goes away)
Good thing about odometer readings is they can be tied to the weight of the vehicle. Smaller cars cause less wear and tear so they would pay a lower rate. Currently they pay the same as large SUV’s and semi trucks as far as fuel taxes go.
Best thing is we can use the existing smog stations to plug the fully electric cars in, or if charging stations become available then those could incorporate a cost that would include at least a part of the road taxes and send the odometer readings back as part of the charging process.
With more alternative vehicles on the horizon, it sounds like odometer readings may be the fairest way to go.
Interesting comment about 2nd amendment action if SS and Medicare are taken away, Steve. Actually, it’s only a matter of time before they are curtailed. I can’t speak for anyone here, you know your own situation, but let me give you one that I do know….
In ’92 (can that REALLY be 20+years ago??) Ross Perot peaked my interest with his incredulity about a Social Security System that pays HIM! He was worth 7 billion $$ and drawing a monthly Social Security check. He said something was wrong back then, does anyone here think it’s improved over the last 20 years??
My own mother receives SS checks every month. She is NOT a millionaire but is comfortably off, so that if she were to never receive another SS check (or if she never got any to start with) she would not miss a meal…. or a show…. or a night playing bingo with the girls.
Why am I paying 15.3% off the top, so that my mom can get a check she doesn’t need? Because she deserves it? Because my dad paid into the system for 60 years before he died? This makes NO sense.
And there is a generation coming that will say “enough”. Means testing, or total annihilation, there is no sound argument to strip younger workers of their money, so their parents can enjoy country club living. Is there anyone out there that thinks 15.3% is the top this tax will go???
It’s welfare for the rich and middle class.
Oh, and petey (“I’m still waiting for the evidence that “the welfare system is out of control”.) you’re SUCH a tool!
US debt, February 17, 2013…. $16.529 Trillion and growing. US unfunded liabilities, same date, $122 Trillion and growing.
Is that your idea of being “in control”?
Although I agree that welfare is out of control, by your argument, our Defense Department is also out of control. Is that the case?
I agree that Social Security is way larger than it should be, but its purpose was to take care of the huge number of people that fail to adequately save for their dotage. How would you propose to replace it?.
Chilean model.
________________________________
Overall the average payout is 36% of wage in Chile compared to 25% for US Social Security. A very big difference is the government cannot block or change the benefits, if one saves more they get more. If one works till death the investments are left to survivors and relatives.
The Chilean system is much better but still has real government oversight and control.
Here is a fact check on Cain’s ideas based on Chile’s retirement system.
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-closer-look-cains-retirement-model-172348908.html
I’m OK with that, but there would still have to be a provision for the inevitable investors that screw up their investments. We may also have a problem because the workers of today aren’t paying into their eventual Social Security payments, but are paying for the present older generation so that if we stop SS withholding today, the fund would run dry long before the present retirees and those soon retiring die off. I also wonder if we could sell enough T-bills to continue funding the government if the money they have been borrowing from SS withholding suddenly becomes unavailable. I think we have a house of cards which needs careful dismantling rather than being allowed to suddenly collapse.
And therein lies the rub, doesn’t it, fellas? Nobody in DC wants to do anything about reforming SS. Harry THE CROOK thinks it’s just fine! Left on it’s own, SS will collapse, at some point, in the future.
It’s only a question of when. And Ross Perot’s question of “Why should billionaires receive SS?” is ignored.
The Chileans did it.
Chile used its 5.5% budget surplus to pay for the transition. We could never do that. They have also experienced a period of fast economic growth since its inception. We cannot expect the same.
.http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v59n3/v59n3p45.pdf
That being said, the Chilean model is promising and deserves close scrutiny.
We’re Americans, Rincon. We expect the Moon and get it.
That’s how we role (and will again once we clean the stables of all the filth that’s inhabiting DC).
[...] wave their magic tax wand and make everything better — tax breaks for film makers, tax hikes for fatty foods and exempting the wages of newly hired workers who have been out of work for six months from the [...]