Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
I like the idea of a fat tax, in concept. If you eat more fast food, you're more likely to need medical care, and you're most likely to need it when you're 65 and on Medicare (heart trouble), which the government pays for with our tax dollars. So if you're more likely to make use of the government's healthcare plan, you should be paying more to the government.
|
I don't know whether those who live unhealthy lives actually end up costing taxpayers more than those who live healthy lives. The people who exercise, eat right and who don't drink or smoke are likely to live longer lives than those who do not and, therefore, put a bigger strain on our Social Security Systems. Moreover, it might be less costly for someone to suffer mild health problems and die of a Big Mac-induced heart attack at 60, than live to be 95 and encounter many of the ailments that tend to affect the elderly.
I'd like to see some independent studies conducted into these kinds of economic issues. I read one a few years back that indicated that smokers actually SAVE taxpayers money by dying young. I have no problem with the government taxing goods that are costly to taxpayers. I have a serious problem with the government taxing goods that are unpopular and unhealthy (e.g., cigs) but end up saving taxpayers money. Why the hell should the government encourage me to live a certain life (e.g., by taxing and not taxing goods) if the net impact of my lifetsyle doesn't adversely affect society?