[suifbwish]

Whoever agrees with the philosophical idea of “Sin taxes” deserves whatever fascist world they end up creating. The idea that I owe someone because I decide to indulge in something unhealthy for me implies that other people own me.

[panta]

In an unregulated system there are strong "sin incentives" created by (some) market forces. In a way people are manipulated to become passive couch potatoes craving trash food and sugary drinks, staying awake to binge watch some netflix series. It seems fair that governments take some corrective measures.

[suifbwish]

So it would seem you are suggesting we have no free will/agency? If so you cannot take credit for any achievement you accomplish or lay blame on anyone for anything no matter the deed because we would be nothing but products of our environments

[fsckboy]

so-called "sin taxes" are morally neutral but economically efficient. Explanation: one of the problems with taxation is that taxes distort the economy by changing prices which change consumption; "sin goods" have inelastic demand functions--smokers still want their cigarettes--so taxation doesn't change consumption, which lessens side effects of the taxation, for example not increasing unemployment of cigarette workers.

They can also be popular with the electorate ("first they came for the smokers, and I didn't complain because I was not a smoker..") because people make moral judgments which is what you are complaining about, but that's not the reason economists favor them when it comes to advising politicians on tax policy.

[suifbwish]

I suppose the logical question is what defines justification for any tax on anything; if this can be defined perhaps we can establish reasoning for what items should be taxed and not be taxed.

[jodrellblank]

The idea that you "decide" to indulge in something unhealthy for you, and it was a free decision and companies had nothing to do with it, is a complete joke. We know humans are biased, we know we evolved to like fats more than salad and sugar more than water, we know advertisers influence us, we know companies spend tens of thousands of people's work and billions on advertising and that vastly outpowers a single person's ability to "choose freely", we know companies wilfully mislead and take advantage of our social nature (look at that respectable admirable sports star associated with our product! Look at the work of Edward Bernays and 'Torches for Freedom' getting women to start smoking cigarettes by associating them with the women's liberation movements) and take advantage of our judgement of colour and contrast and intensity (the same product in a cheap box looks less desirable than it in a bright stylish box - and both product, box and brands might be the same company behind the scenes), and our human decision fatigue and temptation for convenience by putting sweets near checkouts. We know companies specifically target children for their suggestibility with methods like adding toys to cereal boxes, advertising during Saturday morning cartoons or loot boxes in games. We know companies lobby for regulations which help them or hurt their competitors. We know society is organised so the big get bigger - McDonalds can outspend a startup Salad bar by millions to one. We know companies pay scientists to lie about the safety and efficacy of their products, and to hide results that say the opposite.

To then whine that fighting back is 'facist' or to suggest that you're so smart you are magically not influenced by any of this is an embarassment. Companies are permitted to operate in society by the collective will of the people, not by divine right. And the people collectively see that a company is taking the piss, they can change the arrangement to improve it. Saying "company, your behaviour is hurting people's collective health, you need to pay some more taxes to cover it" is one way of doing that. If the company then passes the tax increase to you in the form of higer prices, instead of lower profits, that's up to them.

The very framing of it as "sin tax" as if it's a personal failing and not a deliberate corporate abuse of our biological desires and limits, is a kind of victim blaming that anyone "immune to advertising" oughtn't be falling for.

[suifbwish]

Are you implying that we have no free will and that we lack the agency required for responsibility of our action? Dangerous doctrine there if so; it would imply that all criminals no matter how heinous the crime are victims of the system and thus cannot be punished without said punishment being just an emotional expression of vengeance. It would also mean that you could never take credit for anything you have done because it is just a reaction to your environment. These are only a few implications of a lack of free will/agency

[jodrellblank]

I'm implying that people who dismiss the effects of the environment (advertising) on them by saying they Ayn Randian free-will themselves above it all, are either deluded or malicious. And that instead of systems which are openly hostile to humans which everyone must constantly burn free-will to defend against, we're a lot better acknowledging the predatory nature of advertising, and the limits and fallibility and weakpoints of free will, and en-masse building pro-people systems instead of pro-profit systems.

[elzbardico]

We are social animals. You derive a lot of benefits from living in society, it has a price.

Get over it and stop following libertarian religious sects, their teachings are only going to make you feel miserable and turn you into the annoying libertarian everybody dreads to meet in a party.

[suifbwish]

Are you implying that just because a question is raised, one must be “following” some teaching or sect?

[Wyoming23]

Isn't this a natural aspect of any system of government run "universal" healthcare?

If the state is paying for and controlling your access to healthcare, it seems obvious that restricting unhealthy food or behavior as preventative healthcare would go hand in hand.

[tsimionescu]

No, because most states with a state-run healthcare system simply recognize that health is a basic human right. It's not about incentives, or efficiency, it is about basic human decency.

Even a drug addict who practices unsafe sex and riding motorcycles to do mountain climbing and ski down the slope deserves Healthcare when something bad happens to them, exactly as much as the fitness yoga guru.

[kwijybo]

As a counter example, look at how many countries have state funded healthcare with restricting unhealthy food or behaviour. By my count 66 countries have state funded health care and 0 have restrictions on unhealthy food or behaviour, (I admit my count was limited)

[jodrellblank]

> "0 have restrictions on unhealthy food"

We do have those restrictions. Consider the UK's Bradford Sweet Poisoning of the 1858 when the standard of putting gypsum as cheap filler in sweets instead of more expensive sugar lead to an accident of using arsenic instead, and lead to regulations on danerous behaviour by chemists and on the adulterations of foodstuffs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning

Trans fats have been regulated, e.g. in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat_regulation#Canada

The UK has a sugary drink tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax#United_Kingdo...

And of course there are regulations on insect contamination, mould and fungal contamination, on use by dates, on permitted/banned additives and preservatives, on quality of packaging material, on preparation and handling of eggs; the most egregious "unhealthy food" that causes serious sickness and death quickly has been restricted. What's left is a lot of "compounds over a lifetime of it" kinds of things.

And, of course, public smoking bans are an unhealthy behaviour restriction, so are drug bans.

[Wyoming23]

So in the 66 countries you're referencing, none have restrictions on alcohol or tobacco? No warning labels, taxes or restrictions on sale?

None have different tax rates for staple foods than for packaged snacks or fast food? None have regulations about labeling of food for health claims or disclaimers?

Because all of those things are common throughout all the European countries I'm familiar with, but maybe your list didn't include any European countries

[zo1]

It can occur in free, capitalist societies too. And not in the sense that they "restrict" like an omnipotent government, instead they discourage what is bad and promote what is good. E.g. we have private medical health care here in SA and one of the biggest providers offers all sorts of free goodies and incentives and discounts. They literally partner with stores to get you discounts and points on healthy food choices. Now, I know they also use this data for other purposes but they also happen to help the health of the market. If we can keep it up without having the profit motive distort the benefits too much then its a win win.