The article seems to be shittily written in my opinion but I figure if you watch the video (about a minute) it will get the point across.

My question lies in, do you think this will benefit the health of the people moving forward, or do you fear it being weaponized to endorse or threaten companies to comply with the mention of Kennedy being tied to its future as mentioned in the end of the article

  • b34k@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think sin taxes are absolutely acceptable if the government is also fully paying for the healthcare of all citizens (which we should totally be doing).

    The combination of the two would make America a much healthier place overall.

    • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m in the UK, we have the NHS, and several “sin taxes”, and they still pretty much exclusively penalise the poor (as does the NHS which has been defunded to oblivion in favour of rampant privatisation, so those who can’t afford to go private are left with the ruins), while those selling the “sinful” products (and private health insurance) continue to rake it in.

      There is no taxing or legislating or regulating our way our of capitalism, which is exclusively responsible for those in power exchanging the health and well being of the population and the planet for profit, and they will never allow any tax or legislation or regulation to pass that would put them at any kind of disadvantage. The fact that some people still think they would, is frankly quite terrifying.

      • DancingBear@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Yes… these kinds of taxes are regressive, in that they cost poor people more than they do wealthy people

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      The government is not the arbiter of morality, only legality, and I definitely don’t want a government of whatever the fuck the GOP has become deciding what’s affordable and what’s not.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        To be clear, not literal “sin”, which is why I prefer the term “vice tax”. A vice is perfectly legal and we all have them, but they’re bad in some way. A “vice tax”, is just an extra nudge to choose the vice less often

        For example, I sometimes drink alcohol. I know it’s bad for me, but it helps relieve stress and lets me briefly relax in ways I don’t otherwise do. I don’t if it would give me enough nudge toward healthier habits, but I fully support higher alcohol taxes in case it does and despite the direct impact on me

        I would never support a return to prohibition nor more restricted access (despite that I know how to make my own beer and have all the supplies)

      • b34k@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Right… and your comment was in reply to someone merely proposing taxes that don’t exist yet either…

          • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            So you’re supportive of Canadian sin taxes on sugar? Obviously America is broken as shit but let’s look at a less fundamentally awful example. Canada has a (granted smaller) issue with obesity and the costs of supporting long term care for it - a sin tax on sugar that helps support the Canadian healthcare system due to the outsized costs obesity causes.