Hey, how about we continue this regressive taxation plan and start taxing people based on their profession as well ... After all, why should a banker who has little environmental factors that lead to him being less healthy pay the same in taxes as a janitor who is constantly exposed to harsh chemicals which are (often) linked to a wide variety of illnesses (and also is the one who is most often exposed to biological hazards which can often spread diseases).

MontanaHatchet said: Trim down on the massive military budget?

america would never do that,theres still loads of oil ridden countries out there which could be democrazised or conviently have weapons of mass destruction

NKAJ said: MontanaHatchet said: Trim down on the massive military budget? america would never do that,theres still loads of oil ridden countries out there which could be democrazised or conviently have weapons of mass destruction

Well, the Military Budget in the United States was a little over $500 Billion in 2006 and Healthcare costs were $2.2 Trillion in 2007 so I doubt that cutting the Military Budget would have the effect that some (uninformed) people believe it would

HappySqurriel said: NKAJ said: MontanaHatchet said: Trim down on the massive military budget? america would never do that,theres still loads of oil ridden countries out there which could be democrazised or conviently have weapons of mass destruction Well, the Military Budget in the United States was a little over $500 Billion in 2006 and Healthcare costs were $2.2 Trillion in 2007 so I doubt that cutting the Military Budget would have the effect that some (uninformed) people believe it would

Every little helps

HappySqurriel said: ... Well, the Military Budget in the United States was a little over $500 Billion in 2006 and Healthcare costs were $2.2 Trillion in 2007 so I doubt that cutting the Military Budget would have the effect that some (uninformed) people believe it would

How about military budget = zero? I see no reason to have one. Britain too.

Kasz216 said: highwaystar101 said: HappySqurriel said: irst off, did you ever consider that these people would make more money if they weren't given income support from the government? Its easy to become complaisant in a job, or to pay people 'Crap', if the government is willing to ensure that they have a living wage. Beyond that, why isn't it an individuals responsibility to provide their own healthcare by making choices about what is important to them? If you look at your example and assume that these couples are smoking (roughly) a pack a day each, by simply quiting smoking or the government eliminating the tax on smoking, 70% of two income families on income support in the UK would have a massive portion of the money they needed to pay for healthcare; and they would have the choice to spend it on healthcare or to (potentially) put it towards something which might be worth more in the long run (like education to get better paying jobs). Finally, obesity has been estimated to cost in the range of $1,500 per person in additional healthcare costs, do you believe that it is reasonable for the government to start charging households $1,500 tax for every member of the house who is obese? First point, I think you've picked up on a small detail there, of course I acknowledge that if welfare didn't exist they could have more earning potential because the motivation exists. It was just a minor detail in the example. Even if welfare didn't exist you would still have poor people with little disposable income who unfortunately would damage their bodies without taking into account how they would eventually pay medical bills. It's not an individuals responsibility to provide healthcare for two reasons in my opinion. 1. Healthcare should be a right wherever available and not a commodity, 2. People who live in 'poverty' are unlikely to seek out healthcare as pro-actively as a rich person because they would see it as a large cost which can be avoided. This second point goes further in that if the tax was reduced or they stopped smoking alltogether, then the money they save 'could' go on healthcare. But these people are poor so they probably have other costs to take into consideration outside of healthcare such as housing and food which may not have been adequate before because they were living on such a tight budget. Obesity is a problem, admittedly not in the same way as smoking is a choice (albeit an addictive choice), where as obesity is sometimes an unfortunate consiquence, my dad is obese but it's part of a glandular problem he developed in his 40's. However, it could be feasable that some tax on unhealthy foods could go towards treatment of the people that eat high in fat foods anyway. So it doesn't go to just treat obese people but people who develop other conditions such as heart disease due to unhealthy diets. We do it with alcohol in this manner already and it would suprise me if we do it with unhealthy food. Taxing a household direct due to obesity though is very unfair and I would rebel against such a move. So you admit that taxes on cigarretes take money that some poor people need for food. Which was one of my points earlier everyone seemed to glaze over. Since these taxes are in fact very regressive since the poor are more likely the smoke. The poor are more likely to eat junk food too actually so Rath's tax would hit them harder. Hey the poor are just more likely to be sick in general. Since we're making people who cost the system more pay more money perhaps they should pay a higher tax.

Perhaps with the 15% extra disposable income they would choose to eat more healthily, a luxury not available to them on a small budget because junk food is cheap and subsequently inadequete food. You know, like I said.
Perhaps if there was some way to tax the unhealthy food and loosen tax on healthy food so that the healthy food is an alternative they can afford, hmmm.

And yes the poor are more likely to get sick, and that's a good reason to support national health if you ask me.

Soleron said: HappySqurriel said: ... Well, the Military Budget in the United States was a little over $500 Billion in 2006 and Healthcare costs were $2.2 Trillion in 2007 so I doubt that cutting the Military Budget would have the effect that some (uninformed) people believe it would How about military budget = zero? I see no reason to have one. Britain too.

A large portion of the security of the world can be directly linked to the United States' Military being so dominant that it acts as a deterrent. Without the United States Military (and NATO's combined military) many nations around the world would be far more willing to engage in acts that lead to wide-spread genocide or war (potentially including chemical, biological and Nuclear weapons) and do damage to the security and stability of the world that would have a negative impact on everyone.

Basically, just because you're mislead to believe that there are no threats anymore does not make it so; and one of the key ways to make these threats a real problem would be to eliminate your military

highwaystar101 said: Kasz216 said: highwaystar101 said: HappySqurriel said: irst off, did you ever consider that these people would make more money if they weren't given income support from the government? Its easy to become complaisant in a job, or to pay people 'Crap', if the government is willing to ensure that they have a living wage. Beyond that, why isn't it an individuals responsibility to provide their own healthcare by making choices about what is important to them? If you look at your example and assume that these couples are smoking (roughly) a pack a day each, by simply quiting smoking or the government eliminating the tax on smoking, 70% of two income families on income support in the UK would have a massive portion of the money they needed to pay for healthcare; and they would have the choice to spend it on healthcare or to (potentially) put it towards something which might be worth more in the long run (like education to get better paying jobs). Finally, obesity has been estimated to cost in the range of $1,500 per person in additional healthcare costs, do you believe that it is reasonable for the government to start charging households $1,500 tax for every member of the house who is obese? First point, I think you've picked up on a small detail there, of course I acknowledge that if welfare didn't exist they could have more earning potential because the motivation exists. It was just a minor detail in the example. Even if welfare didn't exist you would still have poor people with little disposable income who unfortunately would damage their bodies without taking into account how they would eventually pay medical bills. It's not an individuals responsibility to provide healthcare for two reasons in my opinion. 1. Healthcare should be a right wherever available and not a commodity, 2. People who live in 'poverty' are unlikely to seek out healthcare as pro-actively as a rich person because they would see it as a large cost which can be avoided. This second point goes further in that if the tax was reduced or they stopped smoking alltogether, then the money they save 'could' go on healthcare. But these people are poor so they probably have other costs to take into consideration outside of healthcare such as housing and food which may not have been adequate before because they were living on such a tight budget. Obesity is a problem, admittedly not in the same way as smoking is a choice (albeit an addictive choice), where as obesity is sometimes an unfortunate consiquence, my dad is obese but it's part of a glandular problem he developed in his 40's. However, it could be feasable that some tax on unhealthy foods could go towards treatment of the people that eat high in fat foods anyway. So it doesn't go to just treat obese people but people who develop other conditions such as heart disease due to unhealthy diets. We do it with alcohol in this manner already and it would suprise me if we do it with unhealthy food. Taxing a household direct due to obesity though is very unfair and I would rebel against such a move. So you admit that taxes on cigarretes take money that some poor people need for food. Which was one of my points earlier everyone seemed to glaze over. Since these taxes are in fact very regressive since the poor are more likely the smoke. The poor are more likely to eat junk food too actually so Rath's tax would hit them harder. Hey the poor are just more likely to be sick in general. Since we're making people who cost the system more pay more money perhaps they should pay a higher tax. Perhaps with the 15% extra disposable income they would choose to eat more healthily, a luxury not available to them on a small budget because junk food is cheap and subsequently inadequete food. You know, like I said. Perhaps if there was some way to tax the unhealthy food and loosen tax on healthy food so that the healthy food is an alternative they can afford, hmmm. And yes the poor are more likely to get sick, and that's a good reason to support national health if you ask me.

Healthy food isn't taxed... at all.  At least not in the United States.

So if we applied this in the US.  Junkfood would be more expensive and the poor couldn't afford food. 

Although healthy food is actually cheaper then junk food.  Poor people buy junkfood because they work a lot and don't have the same luxuaries to be able to go to a market weekly to pick up fresh food.

Well they do but it'd take up even more of their time and they tend to already feel pretty time crunched.

lower the military budget, but i cant possibly see America without the image of war in mind so it wont happen.

Smoking costs the Government and society are far more than just in health-care bills. What about education costs? Or the cost of clearing up the excess litter produced by smoking?

What about the costs to society that you can't put a price tag on? Like the cost smoking does to the environment? Or the cost of the social effects that it has when people lose family members/friends much earlier than they should? Or the almost impossible to count figures of the amount it costs in treating illness from passive smoking?

All of these costs, as well as the cost of the health-care, are not paid for by the cigarette firms, and so cigarettes are being sold for too little, it's up to the Government to try and fix that gap, and taxation is one of the ways of doing so.

Also, in a world of raising demand in food produce, is it really wise to be devoting so many resources to the growth and nurturing of tobacco plants? To decrease the cost of food, you need to increase supply, discouraging smoking means a drop in the amount of cigarettes produced, means a drop in demand on tobacco plants, means growing cereals, fruits and veges more profitable for farmers, means a greater supply of foods.

A lot of people on these boards seem to know the price of everything, and yet the value of nothing.