![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI am of a mixed mind on this.
1: I favor expanding healthcare. I think, honestly, it would be a good thing to have Medicare tweaked, and converted to a national health care (given that we already subsidise the present system with 200 billion in tax credits, to pay more, get less and have tens of million with no health care..., but that's all a different topic).
2: I am glad to see most people agree that kids ought to be covered (if for no other reason that a quick fix when the problems show up, and maybe the establishment of good habits both saves, and makes, money later).
3. It doesn't hurt that the veto/votes against make the present regime in the White House look more like the bastards they are.
But (had to be a but, because of that mixed mind): I don't think the present funding is the way to do it.
I have problems with sin taxes (honestly, I have problems with using the tax code to perform micro managements. Housing... Ok, because that's a leveller. Education, same thing. Encouraging the non-growing of soybeans... Not so much). If someone wants to buy booze, let 'em.
A tax to cover the costs of making sure the distillery is safe, no problem. A tax to discourage people from drinking by making it more expensive, not so much.
S-CHIP is built on a different idea. Smoking is bad (I'll grant that). Society, as a whole, is down on smoking (this isn't so bad). So we can soak the smokers to pay for something we want.
It's that last which bothers me. One, it's morally wrong to say, "we don't like what you do, so we're going to take your money; while leaving the thing you do legal."
Two, if this does what such taxes usually do (decrease the number of smokers), then the money will have to come from somewhere else.
There is a way the second can be avoided: the Government does things to keep the number of smokers, at least, constant.
I'd like to see someone just stand up and say, "We need to help kids. It will take money. "X" susbsidies/incentives/loopholes, are worth less than this is." Or just bite the bullet and say, "If we want this, we have to pay for it, the tax bite will go up by 5 cents per person."
Otherwise, we have to encourage smoking, accept that this is going to have rising costs, and diminishing revenues, or make smoking something the gov't encourages; for the sake of the children.
1: I favor expanding healthcare. I think, honestly, it would be a good thing to have Medicare tweaked, and converted to a national health care (given that we already subsidise the present system with 200 billion in tax credits, to pay more, get less and have tens of million with no health care..., but that's all a different topic).
2: I am glad to see most people agree that kids ought to be covered (if for no other reason that a quick fix when the problems show up, and maybe the establishment of good habits both saves, and makes, money later).
3. It doesn't hurt that the veto/votes against make the present regime in the White House look more like the bastards they are.
But (had to be a but, because of that mixed mind): I don't think the present funding is the way to do it.
I have problems with sin taxes (honestly, I have problems with using the tax code to perform micro managements. Housing... Ok, because that's a leveller. Education, same thing. Encouraging the non-growing of soybeans... Not so much). If someone wants to buy booze, let 'em.
A tax to cover the costs of making sure the distillery is safe, no problem. A tax to discourage people from drinking by making it more expensive, not so much.
S-CHIP is built on a different idea. Smoking is bad (I'll grant that). Society, as a whole, is down on smoking (this isn't so bad). So we can soak the smokers to pay for something we want.
It's that last which bothers me. One, it's morally wrong to say, "we don't like what you do, so we're going to take your money; while leaving the thing you do legal."
Two, if this does what such taxes usually do (decrease the number of smokers), then the money will have to come from somewhere else.
There is a way the second can be avoided: the Government does things to keep the number of smokers, at least, constant.
I'd like to see someone just stand up and say, "We need to help kids. It will take money. "X" susbsidies/incentives/loopholes, are worth less than this is." Or just bite the bullet and say, "If we want this, we have to pay for it, the tax bite will go up by 5 cents per person."
Otherwise, we have to encourage smoking, accept that this is going to have rising costs, and diminishing revenues, or make smoking something the gov't encourages; for the sake of the children.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-05 07:38 pm (UTC)I don't have a problem with using the governments power of taxation to destroy a market-in this case.
And I agree with you the politicians haven't defunded government spending on smoking care so they can replace that money with the smoking tax stream.
You also end up in the weird position of saying "Smoking bad, don't do it! Its so bad we'll make you pay more for it. Oh and by the way, here is the free health care that you paid for while smoking while you are sick from smoking." Must be a moral hazard or something.
I like your last point in theory, I haven't thought about it enough in practice to be willing to give up specific taxes for the public good.