Interesting conversation

Went to a coffee house for a quick caffine fix and sat down and overheard an interesting conversation. A group of what I assume were college types were discussing the positive points of a new proposed additional tobacco tax. I listened as the stated that they needed to protect smokers from themselves. At that point I chimed in with how 'vice' taxes have always been a 'backdoor' tax on the poor, and always for thier own good. One stated that tobacco is bad for health and needed to be taxed. I then stated what if a "Starbuck's Tax' was impossed on expensive coffee drinks, caffine is also known to present health risks. The looks from these people was a classic, 'What tax me for my behavior' look as they responded that was 'stupid'. I asked why they were willing to pay $4-5 dollars per coffee specialty drink but to have an additional tax on those drinks to help society was 'stupid'.

I love the coffee shops of Oneonta, a college town full of what appears to be self-rightous college types, more than willing to tax anyone but themselves. And this is not the first conversations of this type I have listened to as I have 1ea standard 16oz coffee with 2 sugar for $1.25 at these coffee shops.

Smug on both sides of a conversation.

Nice

mbro wrote: Smug on both sides of a conversation.

Word. Apparently it isn't self-righteous to eavesdrop, then interject and impose oneself onto the conversation,  provide a counterpoint (that isn't logically parallel, mind you; the disparity between caffeine and tobacco as far as addictiveness and effects on health is huge, and caffeine is healthy in moderation while tobacco offers no benefit whatsoever), then go on the internets and post about how one made a group of college kids look stupid.

All the while having been nanny'd by the state for a significant portion of your life (you are entitled, yes, but is a baby not entitled to care from its caregivers?). Nice.

Gatyr wrote: mbro wrote: Smug on both sides of a conversation. Word. Apparently it isn't self-righteous to eavesdrop, then interject and impose oneself onto the conversation,  provide a counterpoint (that isn't logically parallel, mind you; the disparity between caffeine and tobacco as far as addictiveness and effects on health is huge, and caffeine is healthy in moderation while tobacco offers no benefit whatsoever), then go on the internets and post about how one made a group of college kids look stupid. All the while having been nanny'd by the state for a significant portion of your life (you are entitled, yes, but is a baby not entitled to care from its caregivers?). Nice.

I agree that you can't say caffeine is just as dangerous as tobacco but the comparison OS made isn't making that point (at least I hope). What he's trying to convey is the idea that the government shouldn't be making the choice to use that substance for you. They should certainly inform people of the dangers and even discourage its use but why tax it? And if you do, why stop there? Why not tax everything else that could be dangerous? Who gets to decide what is dangerous enough to tax and how much? I'm not trying to say that this is a sign of the apocalypse but I also don't think it's a good thing. I just don't think the government needs to intervene when people are only hurting themselves. If people know the consequences but they do it anyway (and only they are affected) then let them hurt themselves. It's their choice and sometimes natural selection needs to be left to do its job. Although, the shift from private health care insurance to public will make these people more of a burden on society than before so maybe you can sort of make the argument now that they are indeed hurting others in a way. I think this was part of the reason so many people opposed the recent reforms.

The effects of coffee and nicotine on the body are in no way comparable, health-wise.

If it's so bad that we have to tax it to protect people from it, why not just ban it?

Mack wrote: If it's so bad that we have to tax it to protect people from it, why not just ban it?

OK, this is only mildly related, but in my head I got from one to the other.

Why not stop subsidizing fuel costs so that Americans are pressed towards alternative fuels?

Simply put, if people are forced to see issues as "pay more, or pay less", they will generally head towards the cheaper option.

Why they've gone for vice taxes instead of telling the FDA to ban tobacco, I don't know.  OK, that's not true, I do know: because the tobacco lobby makes a ton of money, and the US government can get some money off of it too.  It's stupid.

oldsoldier wrote: 'vice' taxes have always been a 'backdoor' tax on the poor, a

Oh really? How?

jmac3 wrote: oldsoldier wrote: 'vice' taxes have always been a 'backdoor' tax on the poor, a Oh really? How?

A general explanation is related to the percentages of income that the wealthy spend on such vices compared to the less wealthy.  While they may use the same amount, it tends to affect the poor more.  Other factors such as socio-economic indicators that certain vices are actually more prevalent among those with low-incomes are also a factor as well.  (However, as was pointed out above, if someone chooses to spend money on such things, then it is their choice.  So in effect, they are choosing to be taxed.)

(My apologies, not the best explanation, but it does cover the basics.  I am just not motivated to go into the whole thing right now.)

I can actually see OS's point here. While there may be huge differences in the effects on your health between caffeine and cigs, it's the attitude that "I don't use this or have any need for it, so let's tax it". Rather than attacking the issue at hand, I think he's attacking their logic.