[OT]: smokers - was: [oclug]new kind of keyboard

[Brad Barnett]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:46:20 -0500
"Dan Langille" <dan at langille.org> wrote:

> On 23 Jan 2003 at 16:41, Brad Barnett wrote:
> 
> > If this is the case, should people who take part in certain sports not
> > be taxed additionally?  Mountain climbing, parachuting, and such,
> > obviously carry a higher risk than walking down the street.  There are
> > people that go hiking for miles into the North, get injured and have
> > to be lifted out.
> >  Why are the purchase of paraphenilia for these activities not taxed
> >  at a
> > higher rate?  Why are people who take part in these activities not
> > taxes somehow, since they are at higher risk?  
> 
> The consensus is that any benefit derived from that physical activity 
> outweighs the risk.

You don't need to jump out of a plane to get exercise, nor climb a cliff. 
Hey, I've climbed cliffs myself, but that's not the point.  There is an
inherent risk involved with these sorts of things.  The risk is obviously
higher than walking down a path, or cycling to get exercise.  Furthermore,
there are activities that are extremely risky, yet offer little return in
terms of physical exercise.  Parachuting falls in this area.  You don't
really do all that much, the ride up is free, and the fall just sort of
happens. ;)  You get a little exercise walking to the plane, and to the
car at the pickup spot.  

Then look at the concept of the sin tax.  You are at a higher risk,
therefore you need to pay more tax to support health care.  I could also
get exercise by dodging knives being thrown at me, and you can be sure I
would do so with much zeal.  However, again, the exercise gained isn't the
point.  The risk is.

If we are to tax one area for risk, we should tax all areas for risk.