Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I'll never understand this line of thinking. The exact same thing was said about taxing cigarettes.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that. They have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, hypertension etc. etc. etc.IC FBGCav said:
You never understand how people view food differently than cigarettes?
I'll never understand the "it'll require new blah blah blah" and then the slippery slope arguments. It's the same crapola that prevents common sense gun regulation.
And they define the rich who should be taxed more as anybody making 25% more than them.
Well, please share. Yes, they have lower life expectancy, but they still have high claims while alive. Actually, they tend to have higher claims (much higher claims), but as you point out they do so for a shorter period of time. The kicker is that they also pay into the system a shorter amount of time. A dead guy isn't paying Medicare taxes.Chaka said:
Maybe our elected reps could actually do something about setting a much better standard for food quality we are bombarded with in the form of fast food chains.
Yes, I understand that, but consumption of those products have an impact on said person's wallet even when they don't use them.
Actuarially not. I sell life insurance. I have a carrier that actively discounts life insurance rates for distance runners. That's just one (of many) factors, but it is one. And they have the numbers to know.
I wouldnt try and steer them. Thats how.
Absolutely. I didn't say they were lower users just that ultimately it is probably closer to a push than most people think.
You say this as though you believe that healthier people = lower healthcare insurance premiums. That's surely a false assumption.
Just for kicks, I did the math. For this plan to work, everyone (including old people and babies) has to qualify for the 25 cent tax 28,132 times a day.
I buy beer. I like beer. I'm cool with them taxing it (more). I also buy gasoline. I'd be cool with a (higher) tax on it....would make me think even harder about a Tesla or similar vehicle (which is the point of the tax, right?).
In order of my preference for attacking this it would be:
England is way ahead of you: https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/online-porn-laws-uk-changing-14191021
According to my personal source of economic theory, Monopoly, Luxury Tax was once a thing. Like it. $100 tax on anything that calls itself porkbelly instead of bacon is a good start.
Two things.
Not at all. Health insurance premiums are simply set by the carrier as projected health care expenses, plus some amount of overhead, divided by the number of people in the pool. This is even more true now in the age of the ACA (where in large group 85% of premiums have to be paid in claims, or overage refunded to insured, 80% in the individual market). If a group of say 2k people was projected to have $10m of health care expenses, the carrier would want to collect say $11.5m or so from that pool - which is $5,750 per person annually, or about $480 a month. If that same group was healthier and only projected to have $5m of health care expenses, they carrier would (and with the ACA could) only collect $6.25m from them (assuming their assumption of expenses was correct), which breaks down to $260 per person per month.
hence, my opening paragraph. aren't the hipsters all about porkbelly & mead & ####?
Aren't these sin taxes more to change behavior rather than to generate revenue? The individual mandate tax in the ACA (the "sin" of not having health insurance) wasn't meant to generate funds, it was meant to get people to buy coverage.
One of the issues about taxing gasoline is that tax income is supposed to be used for infrastructure. If gas usage drops due to less driving, more efficient vehicles, or electric vehicles, where is the money for safe roads and bridges going to come from? Overly taxing consumables such as tires could create safety hazards (wait until those tires are REALLY bald before replacing). Taxing license plates would be an issue due to paying at once instead of smaller payments over time.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
"If that same group was healthier and only projected to have $5m of health care expenses ..." This is a faulty assumption imo. There's no way that the health care and pharma industries allow revenue to drop just because people are healthier. They will have 10 year old kids on statins and sleeping with cpap machines if that's what it takes.
Studies have shown that roughly half of our countries health care expenses are from lifestyle choices (smoking, obesity, yada yada). You're correct in thinking that if there is less demand for certain health care items, that the producers will just up the prices for the still remaining customers to make up the difference, though.
Would be the same, in theory. If they up gas tax by 10% and it causes a 10% drop in gasoline vehicles (and thus a 10% drop in gas consumption), it's a wash.
If everybody buys a Tesla and quits drinking beer there will be no tax revenue coming in. Then healthy things like gym memberships, kale and oatmeal will have to be taxed.
I'd say they are for both. And that's why they are dumb. Philly instituted a Soda Tax because it will help fund the schools that are in desperate need of money. But the tax was put on soda because they feel that too many people are drinking sugary drinks and it's bad for the health of people.
