h a l f b a k e r yI like this idea, only I think it should be run by the government.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I think a yearly physical, proving you to be wihtin a healthy weight and a non smoker, should get you a substantial extra tax credit for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
The advantages to us are the extra money for being healthy, and of course the money as an incentive to get in shape if you are unhealthy.
The
government benefits as the person will be a lesser strain on the health system, and will likely live a long and healthy life, paying taxes until they day they die.
The disadvantage I see would be the larger number of senior citizens, but at the same time there should be a healthier, less system straining group of young'ns bringing up the rear.
People witg legitimate medical conditions that make them unhealthy but are healthy otherwise (non smoker) would get the credit as well.
[link]
|
| |
I'm unsure about that last paragraph. If I happen to be in a high risk group for skin cancer purely because my family have a tendency towards it, what happens? |
|
| |
This is indirectly baked where I live. We pay something like a 100% tax on cigarettes. |
|
| |
I think a similar situation exists with automobiles. |
|
| |
First, the sick or injured person as a taxpayer liability is a myth. Second, it would be much more economical to kill all of the unhealthy people. Third, when was the last time you ate fast food? We are up to our asses in "Sin Taxes" already, and are hellbound for more as we speak. The tobacco tax and the gas guzzler tax are prime examples of extra taxes for "unhealthy" activities. The junk food tax and the too much television tax can't be too far away. |
|
| |
Keep your nose on your own face, or someone might knock you off that high horse. Have a dead fish. |
|
| |
Reward people for keeping healthy = punish people for being ill. This idea makes sense at first glance but has some rather unpleasant implications. |
|
| |
I like the idea of a tax credit for people who kick smoking, drinking, drugs, or internet addiction. It symbolizes society being behind them. Same for obese people who lose a lot of weight. (not for anorexics) The recovering addict could only get the credit once. |
|
| |
And second, not everybody who smokes or drinks is unhealthy.
Third, we would all have to enjoy a longer pension period which the government would effectively counteract by making every healthy, long living person work to an older age. |
|
| |
p.s. have you ever wondered why governments don't forbid drinking and smoking, since they claim it costs so much? |
|
| |
I guess it all comes down to the fact some of us are lucky enough to live in a free society. I fully support people doing whatever they want to themselves, so long as it doesn't infringe on my life. |
|
| |
Obviously... people inflicted with a disease would be exempt, as it not their fault for catching a disease. This includes HIV, as we can't fault everyone for making a mistake. |
|
| |
Since some of us are lucky enough to live in a free society, going for this credit would be entirely up to you. If you are unhealthy, nothing will change for you. |
|
| |
I'm not on a high horse BTW, since I am a smoker trying to quit, and I do enjoy my cheeseburger from time to time. |
|
| |
Governments have forbidden alcohol before. Prohibition. Same goes for Marijuana. It was also prohibited way back when. So it is within our governments mandate to tell us what we can and can not ingest. |
|
| |
Smoke cigarettes, and eat cruddy food. You just won't be able to get the credit. |
|
| |
That "prohibition" thing... Went well, did it? |
|
| |
All very well if you don't live in a place where the government has to pay a state pension after the retirement age.
BTW I dare the UK government to ban the sale of cigarettes. Betcha can't!. |
|
| |
Well, it must be a Dutch thing then. Tax income from cigarettes and alcohol are still much higher then health cost for the eledged smoking related diseases. Hence no ban on the aforementioned articles. |
|
| |
This idea is somewhat baked though; There are already insurancecompanies that give you a refund if you live 'healthy' (meaning you don't go see a doctor and if you do you do not claim) |
|
| |
hey this is great! yes it does already
exist in some forms, and it would never
make it through because nobody likes
higher taxes [tax break for some means
higher taxes for others]. |
|
| |
but it would make the message clear;
your health is most important. capitalist
society listens to nothing but money. |
|
| |