Great New Blog
Greg Mankiw has a blog now, and if you are interested in economics, it is a great daily read. Here is a great post on sin taxes. Naturally Mankiw, because he wants to educate his students on the economics, refrains from dismissing Kristoff's sugar tax as the lightweight nannying obnoxiousness that it is. As I stated in a previous post somewhere, "maybe liberty means the freedom to be a fat, artery-clogged slob...if one so chooses." The discussions of externalities are all very interesting but such "liberal" policy proscriptions cut deeper. They impinge on the very founding ideals of this country, individual rights. Who cares about the subtle externalities when the Nick Kristoffs of the world are running your life, telling you what you can and cannot do? (cue the Hillary quote here: "we are going to take things away from you...") Who is Nick Kristoff to say that I can't enjoy a Snapple? Does he understand my particular molecular biology and my ability to absorb with/without health effects the ingredients contained in that Cherry Coke? Doubtless. Who is anybody for that matter? Again, here we have the fundamental divide in our country today, faith in rules versus faith in people.
Finally, I have always believed in the 'offset' of the negative externalities of smoking that Mankiw mentions, namely that cigarettes, by killing off people earlier than they normally would live, save society money. I am sure that there are similar 'offsetting' effects of the negative externalities of drinking sugary drinks. Maybe the existence and popularity of sugary drinks causes busybody elitists to tip their hand as to what they really think of us all and how they would govern us, causing us to be ever vigilant and protective of our liberty. That is worth having a few extra fat kids in my book.
Finally, I have always believed in the 'offset' of the negative externalities of smoking that Mankiw mentions, namely that cigarettes, by killing off people earlier than they normally would live, save society money. I am sure that there are similar 'offsetting' effects of the negative externalities of drinking sugary drinks. Maybe the existence and popularity of sugary drinks causes busybody elitists to tip their hand as to what they really think of us all and how they would govern us, causing us to be ever vigilant and protective of our liberty. That is worth having a few extra fat kids in my book.
posted by Donny Baseball at 10:47 AM
2 Comments:
All good points indeed. I don't like cigarette taxes because the 1) social engineering aspect of it is distasteful, 2) it is a despicable way for politicians to take advantage of the weak. As you say, addicts can't quit adn pols routinely abuse this frailty to plug up budget holes. 3) Cig taxes put a bandaid on a problem whose source lies elsewhere. If we had a more free market healthcare system, the same risk-based pricing that favors your cautious mother over a drunk driver would prevail in the heath insurance market adn non-smokers would not be subsidizing smokers. The sudsidy stems from the social pooling of medical costs.
You don't mind subsidizing the poor or the elderly but you probably DO mind subsidizing the (deliberately or indeliberately) irresponsible who could be poor, elderly, young or rich. By not smoking and by always buckling my seat belt I am reducing my risk for two main causes of injury, but social pooling does not reward me financially, it overcharges me to subsidize the guy who wasn't wearing his seat belt and now has cracked ribs.
The way our current system works with 'mandates' you are subsidizing all manner of behavior that you way or may not approve of. As a single male you are subsidizing child birth, both by my educated, salaried wife and by the 16 year old, unwed mother. With these mandates it is hard to separate the politics, you may want to subsidize obstetrics for poor unwed mothers, but for not for middle/upper class women. But you can't. In a more free market system, the white 30ish married guys who don't smoke and always buckle will absorb a high proportion of the societal obstetrics costs and a low proportion of the lung cancer and cracked ribs costs.
Post a Comment
<< Home