PA Republicans propose "sin tax" on video games.

[Shadow Wolf]

Under a single payer system, smoking might actually
save society money because they die earlier in life.
(This assumes 2nd hand smoke danger is prevented.)
Ref....
Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows
LONDON — Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.
It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."
In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.
Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and nonsmoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.
The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

Reminds me of some newspaper funnies type cartoon where some very old guy was visiting his doctor, who was explaining to him all the aches, pains, and other problems are from all those years of healthy living to live longer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Under a single payer system, smoking might actually
save society money because they die earlier in life.
(This assumes 2nd hand smoke danger is prevented.)
Ref....
Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows
LONDON — Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.
It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."
In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.
Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and nonsmoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.
The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

It's complicated. Nonsmokers are also healthier during their productive years, not only learn my more and being taxed more, but also they will be buying goods and services. A heart attack can save the system money, but both strokes and cancer can lead to expensive long-term care.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's complicated. Nonsmokers are also healthier during their productive years, not only learn my more and being taxed more, but also they will be buying goods and services. A heart attack can save the system money, but both strokes and cancer can lead to expensive long-term care.

I've read of other studies in years past that their dying earlier
offsets their medical costs associated with smoking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read of other studies in years past that their dying earlier
offsets their medical costs associated with smoking.

That could be. It would be interesting to see another done that takes into account modern treatments that keep people alive longer.

 

[Stevicus]

I've read of other studies in years past that their dying earlier
offsets their medical costs associated with smoking.

I've heard about that, too. It makes sense, though. If smokers die earlier than they otherwise would have, then that would save a good deal of money.

On the other hand, if more people decided to engage in healthier behaviors, refrain from smoking, etc., then the amount of revenue from the "sin tax" would diminish, and people would live longer, have longer retirements - and that may lead to higher costs in the long run.

Then again, they could always raise the retirement age to 85.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've heard about that, too. It makes sense, though. If smokers die earlier than they otherwise would have, then that would save a good deal of money.

On the other hand, if more people decided to engage in healthier behaviors, refrain from smoking, etc., then the amount of revenue from the "sin tax" would diminish, and people would live longer, have longer retirements - and that may lead to higher costs in the long run.

Then again, they could always raise the retirement age to 85.

Retirement age varies greatly.
No one can fix it....at least not until OAC fully implements a socialist worker paradise.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Then again, they could always raise the retirement age to 85.

Considering the average lifespan isn't much longer than the retirement age, they really don't need to raise it any higher (most people will only get 6 years on average).

 

[Stevicus]

Retirement age varies greatly.
No one can fix it....at least not until OAC fully implements a socialist worker paradise.

Maybe, although in past workers paradises, they seemed to be okay with smoking, as well as drinking in moderation. They didn't even mind if you ate fatty foods.

The irony of the tobacco tax was that much of the revenue generated from the tax doesn't even go for smokers' healthcare or anti-smoking campaigns. It goes into other things, for the most part.

Heavy taxes on smoking (advocated by the likes of Rob Reiner) and other health-related sin taxes, such as proposals to tax sugary sodas and junk food, aren't really motivated by any desire to implement a socialist workers paradise. I think it's just a bunch of well-meaning do-gooders who want to encourage everyone to go on some kind of health kick.

My mother was a health nut. I remember having "wheat germ" and "tiger's milk" - things like that. She would go for every fad diet or health food craze that came along.

 

[Stevicus]

Considering the average lifespan isn't much longer than the retirement age, they really don't need to raise it any higher (most people will only get 6 years on average).

Yes, although my point was that if people really adopt all these healthy habits that these sin taxes are designed to encourage, then the average lifespan would likely increase. Add to that improvements in medical science, and humans could have much longer lifespans in the future. A lot of people in their 70s and 80s can still remain relatively fit and healthy, at least more than in the past. I remember reading an article in Time that suggested that 120 years might be a normal lifespan someday. That would mean 80 would become the new 40 - or something like that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, although my point was that if people really adopt all these healthy habits that these sin taxes are designed to encourage, then the average lifespan would likely increase. Add to that improvements in medical science, and humans could have much longer lifespans in the future. A lot of people in their 70s and 80s can still remain relatively fit and healthy, at least more than in the past. I remember reading an article in Time that suggested that 120 years might be a normal lifespan someday. That would mean 80 would become the new 40 - or something like that.

We probably can't extend it much further than what Japan already has. Not without some seriously radical developments and new approaches to medicine (we also need to stop focusing on immortality before we can consistently get the lifespan over 100, or trying to run a marathon before we can walk).

 

[Erebus]

To be serious for just a little bit, it is demonstrable that smoking is not only hazardous for one's own health, but for the health of the people that are around them. The price of cigarettes alone does not cover that cost. Taxation is not only just, but increasing taxation can also be a deterrent of a proven negative. That is hardly the case with video games. It is recreation.. It does not have the same causal relationship of harm. Punitive taxation of them, even if one does not play them, should be opposed. I have no problem with the same sales tax that other products have being placed on them. It is not the government's job to say "I do not like this particular form of recreation that is largely harmless (anything can be abused, I am ignoring the extremes) so I will tax Billy for his game.

While I can't prove this, I believe that most (if not all) of the politicians who propose increased taxation, censorship or outright banning of violent games know full well that it won't do anything to prevent school shootings.

There are issues of mental health, bullying, parental abuse and other sticky, difficult areas that can contribute to a student going on a killing spree. Tackling these issues isn't cheap and it isn't easy, so having a convenient Folk Devil makes for a good distraction technique. If you can raise a little extra money in the process, that's the cherry on the cake.

The big issue though is of course guns. Not every school shooter was bullied or abused, nor can their actions always be considered the product of a psychotic illness. What they all had in common was access to firearms and a lot of politicians seem very eager to downplay this fact.

 

[fantome profane]

 

[tytlyf]

This is why the majority of secular Americans have issues with christians. Americas secular constitution forbids religious law. If christians want to be left alone, practice in private and out of my government.

 

[SomeRandom]

This bill deserves to be ridiculed into oblivion. If they want to have a “sin tax” for games, how about taxing Bethesda? I mean greed and lying are sins according to the bible, right?

 

[Father Heathen]

Heh. How about a trade? The Republicans video game tax for the Democrats cigarette tax.

Wait. You don't like the cigarette tax? I thought you favored government action against harmful plants?