[peterlk]

This is not a very compelling argument. Things already cost money. We wouldn’t oppose a water tax because we were worried people might refuse to hydrate themselves once water was marginally more expensive. It might marginally exacerbate an existing problem, but the benefit of solving the target problem (funding roads fairly), even if imperfectly, is a much greater good

[Imustaskforhelp]

respectfully sir, I think that their argument might be a bit compelling. The reason why a water tax works but a tire tax wouldn't work is that well.. you can't live without water but you can live with bad tires until you don't (with accidents)

but people will simply just say, oh this wouldn't happen to me, life already has so many complications and people would simply postpone the tires.

Now granted, all of this depends upon the amount of taxes, the financial situations and greater analysis of the argument but I wouldn't throw mint5's argument completely.

It is funny but people will buy vice even if it might be taxed but people are simply less likely to do actual preventive measures depending on how much they cost.

I think its because we all have this belief that nothing bad might happen to us until it does and we take things for granted. There must be an effect named after it (survivorship bias? or we think we are the main character or something similar, superman effect?, not sure.)

[mint5]

Water tax is different in many ways, and a bad comparison. Also that water tax phrasing is bizarre, like saying people in famine areas are being silly for refusing to buy food on the moral principle of high cost.

Ignoring the other flaws with analogy, not drinking mostly affects the person and their family. Car accidents affect the primary party. But often also a person chosen at random in a second car. Does a person choosing to not drink, ignoring the other flaws of the analogy, make a random second person die of thirst?