Punishment

[Triple Zero]

WHY DO YOU HATE SOCIALISM

[Fredfredly ⊂(◉‿◉)つ]

they ought to tax fat people, its not the poor sodas fault that people drink it too much  and dont know how to brush their fault

I PROPOSE A FAT PEOPLE TAX

actually my dads job is really into healthy living and they send nutritionists to check out all their workers and overweight unhealthy people get their bonuses cut 

anyway.... FAT TAX!!!

[Faust]

his underlying point, perhaps, is that punishment is out of step with the goals of society. Punishment may succeed as a prohibitive factor, but rarely as a re-formative one. If the goal of punishment is emotional satisfaction, it is very functional. If the goal is the reform of society, well, it might not be the best solution...

Sorry to hone in on a sliver of what's being discussed here but I find the concept of legal punishment really complex and overwhelming when what everyone wants from it is different.
The areas that try to reform generally end up with lower crime rates not because they are doing better at reform not because they are doing a good job of it, but because it becomes part of the psyche of the society in the vicinity, the idea of reform of being a better person and all that hooha.
In areas that demand retribution, and well... vengeance for a crime have the opposite effect, the society of the area now reflects a mentality of accepted balance of crime and punishment, it actually becomes socially acceptable to vilify a criminal which on some dark level within us a potential criminal can relate to, being demonised is easier then being viewed as a social failure and thus crime rates increase.

Ever get a feeling when standing on the edge of a roof that some part of you really wants to just jump off. Having a death penalty doesn't prevent more elaborate violent crime, it encourages it, it adds a thrill to the danger and raises the stakes, it gives a death urge.

If this all seems nuts I'll shut up now.

[Elder Iptuous]

Faust,
your words have iron in them.....
that plucked my brain, and i will dwell on that for a while.
thanks....

[Telarus]

Faust,
your words have iron in them.....
that plucked my brain, and i will dwell on that for a while.
thanks....

Agreed.

You've also cut through all the crystal waiving and newage BS and laid out the old Sanskrit definition of Karma (which is about the NOW and not imaginary future/past incarnations).

to the whole thread.

[Placid Dingo]

Actually, why not give tax breaks for joggers and vegetarians?

People respond to incentives, we might as well have some that help out society. And nothing stops you making your own/paying the extra, whattever.

(I'm on the soda here not the punishment)

[AFK]

Actually, why not give tax breaks for joggers and vegetarians?

People respond to incentives, we might as well have some that help out society. And nothing stops you making your own/paying the extra, whattever.

(I'm on the soda here not the punishment)

Because the only way to do that would be through the tax code.  You'd have to have some kind of physical fitness tax credit or something.  And how the heck would verification work for something like that? 

[Placid Dingo]

I meant what's the kind of moral objection rather than the pragmatics, but point taken. Even having higher taxes on the bad4us and lower on the good4us I'm saying, might not really be that bad. I mean sure, it's designed to coerce people into behaving a certian way, but pleanty of stuff is made to do that. And this one isn't really coercing people into anything too dislikable.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

 If we're talking about a 'health' tax which works like Social Security and only gets used to deal with health issues (or a drug tax that only gets used to deal with drug related issues... shout out to RWHN), then its not a problem of morals for me. However, if individuals are taxed more for personal choices and that tax just goes into the general fund, then that doesn't seem right. Mostly because I would see the State finding something new to tax anytime they needed more cash.

If there is a direct correlation:"Your acts may/will cost the State more in the future, so pay a bit toward that now"  it seems a bit slippery, but not horrible. If its "We can market a popular "soda tax' off of the anti-corn syrup, pro-health nuts, or a tobacco tax off of the current anti-smoking vibe and use it to fund random State business" that seems unfair and boils down to "You're in the minority, therefore we'll tax you more!" Many people would, I think, be horrified if they taxed 'insert ethnic food here' because it might contain carcinogens, or might contribute to weight gain.

If Ohio taxes soda, can South Carolina tax chitlins? Could we be sure that the tax was not ethnically motivated, rather than health motivated?

Now, if the tax went to help obese/diabetic ethnic minorities, maybe it would be less repugnant, but I don't really know.

[Reginald Ret]

Everybody,
Stop saying that taxation of luxury products is punishment or coercion.
The only ones getting griefed are the soda companies.
You(the customer) are completely free to drink what you want, when you want.
This kind of taxation in fact empowers you, you can now influence how much tax you pay by changing your feeding habits.

[Cramulus]

right, like how if the government decided to put a tax on generic pharmaceuticals

you are still free to choose which pharmaceuticals you want

the only people this effects are the pharm companies


you should really thank them because they're giving you the freedom to stick it to them by making the market choice that the government prefers.


is that what you're saying?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey, I know a great way to tax the makers of high-fructose corn syrup

it's called "stopping corn subsidies".

Also, giving a tax break to healthy people is one step shy of eugenics, you Nazi fucks.

[Jasper]

Hey, I know a great way to tax the makers of high-fructose corn syrup

it's called "stopping corn subsidies".

Also, giving a tax break to healthy people is one step shy of eugenics, you Nazi fucks.

Oh Godwin...

But yeah;  Fuck corn.

[Reginald Ret]

right, like how if the government decided to put a tax on generic pharmaceuticals

you are still free to choose which pharmaceuticals you want

the only people this effects are the pharm companies


you should really thank them because they're giving you the freedom to stick it to them by making the market choice that the government prefers.


is that what you're saying?

I think you missed a word when reading my post.
i said 'luxury'.
Also, I'd rather have my government try to persuade me to act a certain way than force me to act a certain way.


ETA:
Remember: Taxes will increase tremendously.
This is a fact.
Do you want taxes on the rich (not gonna happen on a large enough scale to help), taxes on the poor (you bastard!), flat tax(you bastard!) or taxes on luxury products that will have little effect on the spending habits of the rich (they will pay most of these taxes), trick the poor into acting in their own best interest and simultaneously lessen the amount of taxes that need to be levied?

One possible alternative, the govt defaults on the loans and will have to run on a positive budget for the forseeable future.

[Requia ☣]

his underlying point, perhaps, is that punishment is out of step with the goals of society. Punishment may succeed as a prohibitive factor, but rarely as a re-formative one. If the goal of punishment is emotional satisfaction, it is very functional. If the goal is the reform of society, well, it might not be the best solution...

Sorry to hone in on a sliver of what's being discussed here but I find the concept of legal punishment really complex and overwhelming when what everyone wants from it is different.
The areas that try to reform generally end up with lower crime rates not because they are doing better at reform not because they are doing a good job of it, but because it becomes part of the psyche of the society in the vicinity, the idea of reform of being a better person and all that hooha.
In areas that demand retribution, and well... vengeance for a crime have the opposite effect, the society of the area now reflects a mentality of accepted balance of crime and punishment, it actually becomes socially acceptable to vilify a criminal which on some dark level within us a potential criminal can relate to, being demonised is easier then being viewed as a social failure and thus crime rates increase.

Ever get a feeling when standing on the edge of a roof that some part of you really wants to just jump off. Having a death penalty doesn't prevent more elaborate violent crime, it encourages it, it adds a thrill to the danger and raises the stakes, it gives a death urge.

If this all seems nuts I'll shut up now.

Do you have sources for all this?  I need some.