Indian Economy

[jayakris]

I see no advocate here. Only
You guys behave like you are back to college. Pick up a topic with few bottles of cheap beer/whisky/rum/vodka(basically whatever you can get hold of) and shred it tho threads.

Haha... you are right!

[prasen9]

All of these things apply to drinking carbonated drinks, eating chocolate, not exercizing, etc. Losing productive time applies to people who watch movies, cricket matches etc (probably 2 or 3 years of productive time in their lives?)... Why aren't you asking these questions on all those activities that do not have positive impact except the individual's enjoyment and happiness?

I said I am not against taxing carbonated drinks. There is some research that says cocoa is actually good for you. How exactly can you add tarrif to not exercising? It is not an imported product. If you can establish significant public health costs related to chocolate, I am fine putting a high tariff on that. In order to streamline it, add a tariff to sugar imports. No problem. That will take care of carbonated drinks, chocolate, etc.

Yes, if it is a country with Government health insurance paid for by taxpayers, of course, go after smokers. And in countries like USA where people pay for insurance, add the cost in the insurance premium, and don't give any breaks to smokers. But then I will ask for different rate for everybody who drinks Coke/Pepsi too. Maybe not as much health damage but not insignificant.

Jay, please check your facts. The U.S. is the world's biggest spender on health insurance/costs on its citizens on a per-capita basis. It is another story that individuals also have to pay through their nose. That is because the health sector and the pharma companies extort us. Smokers already pay a different rate I think.

1. However, the U.S. government picks up the tab if people go to hospitals in an emergency. Everyone must be treated. The government sends large checks to the hospitals to pay for these people who come to the hospitals and don't pay because they can't pay.
2. In employer-based group healthcare, the premium is set to be the same for all employees - for the overwhelming majority of employers I think.

So, my tax payer dollars are going to pay for the smoker's health care costs. And, my hard-earned money is going every month to pay for these people's health insurance when they work for my university. They don't pay the fair amounts for all their bad deeds.

If they want to live in their own island, by all means let them have no tariffs on their islands.

If no smoker is allowed to be treated in hospitals during an emergency or get any government-subsizided healthcare in the U.S., and is asked to pay more in employment plans, I am fine with them doing whatever they want and not having tariffs or sales taxes on cigarettes. Are you proposing that we should tell them to go die on the streets if they come to the hospitals and rack up huge bills? Or are you going to ask them to pay up front to prevent losses?

In that fictitious world where the smoker just harms himself, I agree with you. Unless you change the U.S. health system, I would support putting tariffs to snuff out this nuisance where you and I are paying for these folks. Or to reduce it to the extent we can.

I agree with you about tariffs on sugar. 100%.

[prasen9]

I see no advocate here. Only
You guys behave like you are back to college. Pick up a topic with few bottles of cheap beer/whisky/rum/vodka(basically whatever you can get hold of) and shred it tho threads.

Haha... you are right!

SF, you have been here long. You know. That is what we do. Jay and I have argued over everything under the sun for over 25 years now. I don't think we will change. It is fun. I have profound respect for the man. But, this is just friendly fun.

[jayakris]

In that fictitious world where the smoker just harms himself, I agree with you. Unless you change the U.S. health system, I would support putting tariffs to snuff out this nuisance where you and I are paying for these folks. Or to reduce it to the extent we can.

I agree with you about tariffs on sugar. 100%.

Yes, I was only talking about the fictitious world of perfectly individual payment for healthcare.

If there is healthcare costs borne by the state, then the society has a right to dictate terms to individuals who smoke. But then I would want to know what fraction of the Government spending is due to carbonated drinks and unnecessary sugar consumption, or red-meat consumption - and start a national campaign against Sugar. A campaign has been there over red meat, but people continue to say, "go to hell; we eat what we want to" and there is no stigma attached to say beef.

The fraction of Government healthcare spending caused by Cigarette smokers is about 10 percent, from what I remember seeing. I would bet that at least 10 percent is because of carbonated drinks, the effects of which are much tougher to isolate, whereas the smoking is binary (people smoke or not) while sugar-drink and red-meat consumption are not. Why is there no campaign to put an end to this horrible habit people have developed, of drinking Coke/Pepsi?

That is why I said what is being done to smokers is unfair. My main complain is on the lack of fairness and social castigation of smoking, while many other negative habits that are there purely for personal enjoyment are glorified.

[prasen9]

Now, we fully agree. I would be very happy if there is a tariff on sugar.