CreateDebate


Debate Info

9
5
Affirmative Position Negative Position
Debate Score:14
Arguments:19
Total Votes:17
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Affirmative Position (9)
 
 Negative Position (6)

Debate Creator

Hypothetical(68) pic



Tax the preventatively unhealthy?

To move forward and advance as a society, you must do your part. To do your part, you must be healthy and able to do so. By partaking in activities that voluntarily lower your quality of health, i.e. smoking, taking illicit drugs, etc., you are detrimenting the advancement of society and should be required to pay more in taxes for such behavior. This would require mandatory health check-ups either annually or semi-annually, but the cost can easily be made up by the taxing. Estimated costs yearly from smoking alone average in the $300 billion range; and upwards of $200 billion for obesity-related health issues. We spend less on keeping the unhealthy alive(because either they voluntarily get healthier or pay the tax) and will definitively see more people paying attention to their health, which benefits society as a whole. Yay or nay?

Affirmative Position

Side Score: 9
VS.

Negative Position

Side Score: 5

Keep in mind many of these costs aren't on the unhealthy person alone. About half of the $300 billion from smoking is actually from the effects of second-hand smoke. And employers lose around $4 billion yearly from job absenteeism due to obese workers.

Side: Affirmative Position
1 point

Tax the preventatively unhealthy?

Guess the left will have to reverse those new pro marijuana laws.

https://luxury.rehabs.com/marijuana-rehab/effects-on-the-brain/

Side: Negative Position
excon(12966) Disputed
1 point

Guess the left will have to reverse those new pro marijuana laws.

Hello Y:

Your link is SELLING luxury marijuana treatment.. You're not gonna SELL many beds if you say marijuana is safe..

E're.. Smoke some of this..

excon

Side: Affirmative Position

I don't agree with anything that impairs cognitive function at all. In my perfect society, there is no alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, marijuana, junk food; none of it has a place in an advancing, developed society.

Side: Affirmative Position
Hypothetical(68) Disputed
1 point

Please stay on topic if you wish to remain in my debates as well, thanks.

Side: Affirmative Position
1 point

If we do that, can we tax the oil and coal companies that are polluting our air and water making MILLIONS sick? The Chemical companies that were just given permission to use harmful fertilizers?, The corporations who just received permission to pollute as they wish?? Maybe tax Trump for deregulating health protective (and accident protective), regulations that cause sickness and injury?? Let's not be one way about this!

Oh, and what about the pre and post natal health care that often PREVENTED sick babies and helped mothers to be healthy … Planned Parenthood! (Enter FromWithin with his "After they are born, let'em be malnourished, don't worry about the brain damage from lack of medicines that could have prevented "the unhealthy"! SHUT DOWN the only place some mothers could go to get the help to have a healthy baby! Damned PP, anyway!)! Yep, TAX'EM (whether we caused it or NOT!) :-p duh....

Side: Negative Position
Hypothetical(68) Disputed
1 point

To your point on oil and coal, yes absolutely. Both are completely outdated sources of energy, and there should be substantially more investment and advancement in clean, renewable energy. You're straying from the point to attack what I'm guessing are your assumptions on my stance on other topics? And the part about PP looks more like a rant that I don't even understand the point of. Neither of which do I see as relevant, so stay on topic if you wish to remain in my debates.

Side: Affirmative Position
AlofRI(2805) Clarified
1 point

I consider what I said to be "on topic" and relevant. If you don't see it that way, so be it. I am giving an opinion on this topic and I am making NO assumptions. I go topic to topic.

This topic was about taxing the preventable unhealthy. What PP does (did), is prevent the unhealthy, for the most part. I don't think taxing those, many of which can't even AFFORD to get healthy, can't afford healthy food or living quarters, would pass Constitutional muster. That would be punishing, in too many cases like the ones I mentioned, to be something America would do! It would be somewhat like the reason our settlers left Europe/England, the church AND politicians taxed those who could not afford it, their health condition was not even considered. They left to get away from that. We're going to start it here, again? I think not. I think that is relevant.

Side: Affirmative Position
-1 points

All valid points, and I am not against taxing luxury items. However, keep in mind that the ideas presented will put much of the burden on the poor. After all, what demographic is more likely to smoke cigarettes?... Eat regularly off the dollar menu?...

Side: Negative Position
Hypothetical(68) Disputed
1 point

A system such as this would push especially the poor to not buy into those habits. Buying simple ingredients in bulk and cooking at home is actually cheaper than filling up on "the dollar menu". The missing element is drive, and effort. Allowing the poor to stay poor will do nothing but hinder our advancement as a society.

Side: Affirmative Position
AlofRI(2805) Clarified
1 point

"ALLOWING" the poor to stay poor? I admit there are those who take advantage. I've known the poor and I've seen it in other countries. The ones who wish to stay in that situation are an uneducated minority that don't know HOW to get out! Over 80% (at least a few years ago) of OUR homeless are veterans! I don't think much has changed.

Side: Affirmative Position
Amarel(4987) Disputed
1 point

It’s hard to find time to cook if you are busy juggling multiple part time jobs to keep things afloat. Arbitrarily charging them more for their less healthy, but more opportunity-cost effective choice isn’t going to help them. When they do have time to cook, will Ramen or hotdogs no longer be an inexpensive option? I say keep your sin tax.

Side: Negative Position
TheDevil(6) Disputed
-1 points

The theory makes sense, but in practice, people will complain about the price of cigarettes and then keep buying cigarettes. Have you ever heard someone say that you can often determine a person's wealth in opposite proportion to the cost of their shoes? Take Air Jordan sneakers. An absolutely horrible investment. No better or possibly worse than normal sneakers, nor do they appreciate in value. Economically and practically, they make no business sense to purchase to someone with a rudimentary understanding of the dollar. But often they're purchased by the lower class to be paraded as a status symbol. In other words, if the poor had better understanding of money, in most cases, they wouldn't be poor. I agree that allowing the poor to stay poor hinders society's advancement, but this requires mass reeducation on the value and function of money rather than merely making an item more expensive.

Side: Negative Position