But you playing videogames instead of doing something more meaningful is just an opportunity cost. It doesn't *cause* bad things to happen. It goes without saying that eating poorly stacks the odds against you in terms of the burden you will become on society (or something, depending on who is funding your healthcare) at some point in the future.

Really, though, we've crossed the rubicon for penalizing negative inaction with the Obamacare decision

Flatten and widen, i say (cut rates across the board, but introduce more people at the bottom who might currently be exempt, meanwhile shutting loopholes all around), but my vision would also introduce a VAT that would replace the corporate income tax, making it impossible for anyone who actually provides their product or service to Americans to dodge corporate taxation.

I don't think I really see the difference.  Playing vidoegames stacks the odds against you in terms of being a burden on society too as your more likely to need welfare or unemployment.  By not working harder you are increasing the chance you'll get fired. 

Videogames also are a cause of obesity in excess just like eating, because it makes our sedimentry lives even more sedimentry when we could be getting activity.  That and people are much more likely to snack while watching tv or playing videogames then say... playing a game of pickup basketball.

If we're argueing indirect consquences i don't think there a difference.  Even if they were it seems particularly weird logic that we should focus on how people are going to indirectly cost others for their choices, but then say we can't regulate people for indirect things that lead to the indirect cost for others.

Additionally, not all fat people are unhealthy, nor do all people who eat junk food, eat poorly.

and again, i'd bring up the social justice aspect of it, and how such things weigh more heavily on the poor since it's essentially a flat tax and the poor are more likely to take part in the unhealthy things in the first place.

I mean... That's crazy... and i'd hazard to guess a Junk food tax would be way worse and way more regressive with less effect

Why?  People need to eat, and people don't want to raise the energy to cook.

Most people would just resign to eat the food at a more expensive price then try quitting.

Those who did, would be those with more time.  Which are generally those who aren't poor.... and generally the people who don't each must junk in the first place.  With what i believe is a wider divide then smoking.

Just consider...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/straw_poll_income_divides_soda_drinkers_b0nhA4gYebA90skuybfKvI

Also, fast food somewhat gets a bad name.  Everyone is blaming fast food restruants for obesity, but the truth is, fast food correlates positivly with income.  Whille Obesity correlates negativly with income.

The real problem is more unhealthy snacks, tv dinners and lack of exercise.

Sorry, but taxpayers don't get to decide where their money is spent; otherwise welfare wouldn't exist. I incur no additional taxation as a result of others' poor health. My tax rate is only affected by my income level and filing status. Operative word "my".

And you have failed to address people who snack occasionally - they will be paying more for the same food simply as a result of some fat person's irresponsibility. That isn't remotely logical. It's the same story with weapons. Some insane, socially-retarded, infantile derelict shoots up a school and suddenly it's the weapon's fault. 

I disagree... if you went with taxpayer based budgeting model... (That is the taxpayer decides what his taxes will pay the next year).   I bet most Welfare would be one of the first things that filled up... espiecally stuff like WIC

Various farm subsidies where we pay farmers, price supports and the like would probably go pretty quickly though, assistance to help poor people get home loans would likely go, stuff like that.  

The "mid level" welfare that's less about taking care of the poor and more about trying to elevate the poor.  That stuff that doesn't actually focus on the poor.

A LOT of government employees salaries would likely take huge hits, and specific unpopular military stuff would be gone. 

Lol wtf. You take one sentence out of that post and go off on a tangent. 

You're welcome to disagree, but your argument isn't remotely compelling. Why would I, Joe Tax-payer, support the welfare program if I don't require it and find it unnecessary? There was a time before food stamps and society functioned just fine, if not better than it does today.

And hey, LOOK! Americans support a Work over Welfare mentality! Astonishing!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/march_2013/americans_favor_work_over_welfare_as_response_to_poverty

Additionally, 64% think too many are dependent upon government aid:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/march_2013/64_think_too_many_are_dependent_on_government_aid

51% think government spends too much on poverty programs:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/october_2012/51_think_government_spends_too_much_on_poverty_programs

And you think taxpayers would support these things?

Idealism at its finest. Joe-Taxpayer probably isn't on food stamps and doesn't care to support the welfare leeches.

Joe taxpayer overestimates the number of leeches versus the number of actual victims of an uncaring economy.

Lift corn subsidies.

You're deluding yourself if you think other Americans' health doesn't impact your taxes. US government spending on health is 70% higher than spending on defence, that comes out of your income tax, and that's before we account for the increased cost of private health insurance premiums. The collective paying for the bad circumstances of the individual is the very nature of insurance. 

Yes, people who snack occaisionally will also see a tax, but since they aren't subsisting on a diet of Snickers bars, it won't be a susbstantial barrier to their occaisional enjoyment of bad food. That's the great thing about consumption taxes, they scale based on how heavy a consumer you are.

Perhaps another contrast would help you see how you'd be better off paying for fat people's health with a consumption tax rather than on your income tax and insurance premiums.

There are two taxes which largely pay for roads where I live, property taxes to the city, and fuel taxes to the province. I rarely drive, so I don't have much use for roads, so you can see I might have an objection paying taxes for a good I rarely use. With the fuel tax, a consumption tax, this is not a problem. I don't drive, I don't burn gas, I don't pay tax to maintain roads. Even better, if I did drive, the tax scales based on what kind of vehicle I drive. A light, efficient hatchback burns less gas and causes less wear on the road than a huge SUV, so it's fair that the gas-guzzling SUV driver pays more tax to maintain roads.

But my property taxes pay no attention to whether I use the road or not, and has no regard for whether I'm using it lightly in a small sedan, or heavily in a large truck. That leaves me subsidizing the folks in my town who drive large vehicles. Not a very fair tax for me.

Right now, fat, unhealthy people are costing you money in income taxes and insurance premiums. Why should you be subsidizing their poor eating habits when a shift to a consumption tax would have individuals paying for their own unhealthy choices?