So you're of the opinion that people who engage in voluntary activities for personal pleasure that put a higher burden on the health system, that those who are more wise about their choices have to use, should not have to pay thier way?
Or are you of the opinion that someone should be denied emergency medical care because they had some sodas on the regular?
You're missing the point. Those who pursue voluntary activities that "burden the health system" don't "pay their way".
Those who pay are everyone else. Healthcare t's a tragedy of the commons unlike other taxes where it's more difficult to abuse the common resource such as roads and other infrastructure.
Of course! I mean, yeah, sure, taxes on unhealthy products may increase the average health of a population, which results in reduced healthcare costs, greater economic productivity by reducing worker sickness, and may save thousands of life-years across the population and increase their quality of life. But does that really justify the state taking a percentage of the price I pay for a pack of cigarettes?
So your gripe is with the type of state intervention?
Non-sugary foods and drinks are already heavily subsidized - like all agriculture - and that's something necessary to maintain food security. People still choose the unhealthy stuff.
And yet many alcoholic products are full of sugar and a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics.
I'm not disagreeing we have problems, but my original question was why the solution is a tax. It's very clear who that benefits and it's also very clear those same people control marketing and education. This is insanity.
this just means taxes are too low, not that taxes don't work. In a normal way the tax for these should offset the healthcare burden that these produce in treating diseases/accidents caused by alcohol/tobacco consumption. The same way a sugar tax should at least cover all govt diabetes expenditure, but there are other factors that can be covered too.
> a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics.
... Wait, how are you defining 'alcoholic'?
Even by the 'regularly exceeds recommended intake' definition (which most medical professionals would not read as 'alcoholic' on its own, btw), this is not true.
> Is this tax sized to cover for that externalities
No, nothing like it. The final costs to the state of excessive sugar consumption are _vast_. This levy is primarily to discourage people from consuming loads of sugar.
> Is the collected money exclusively used to counter the externalities
While I don't know, I'd be very surprised. That sort of bucketed approach to tax collection/use is _extremely_ inefficient; the only place it can possibly be justified is social insurance.
Cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed. A similar racket?