Quebecers supported a tax on sugary drinks
Three quarters of Quebecers and almost as many Canadians would welcome the introduction of a tax special energy drinks and soft drinks if the authorities were investing the proceeds in the prevention of obesity.
In an interview, the director of the coalition, Suzie Pellerin noted that it had commissioned a similar poll before the budget of the Minister of Finance Raymond Bachand and support remained the same before and after the budget, despite the general dissatisfaction with the other taxes in this budget.
A tax is a tool to finance the government. But it is clear in this context that a majority of people want to use this tool to impose what is considered good and bad in our society. Want to use this tool to impose morality on other citizens.
And this is precisely wrong ...
Even for someone who believes that the company has rights to these individuals, it is difficult to accept that a free society decides what an individual is entitled or not to drink or eat.
Even for those who believe that it is society that decides the main lines of evolution (not individuals), how can they justify what a person eats is significant for this company.
This way of imposing morality to citizens in the form of tax is absolutely deplorable.
Democracy is to allow citizens to "choose" outline his company chooses. When democracy is used to define what a citizen has the right to eat or not, this is where democracy becomes a tyranny of the majority.
And the worst is that 5 cents of tax will change absolutely nothing about anything. For example, for me, this represents an annual loss of around 30 under ... Nothing to change my habits ... And for those who actually consume these beverages, do you really they will change their habits? To do so they really should be that the tax is several times larger ...
But so what? Why be in favor of a tax on a moral basis (not on a funding base) while knowing that it will change absolutely nothing?
This reasoning is beyond me ...
Worse, if 75% of Canadians support such a tax, I'm sure, given the quantity consumed of these products that many of them consume ...
But then why be in favor of a tax on a product you consume, knowing that this is not to fund government?
Or might think that such a junkie, you say, tax it for me I stop my vice.
but I doubt that these people in favor of the tax (and those who drink liquor) plan less and drink ...
But then, why so many people are in favor of this tax entity, given that it is not to fund government, nor to reduce consumption?
Well, the only conclusion I can see is: the moral value for the gesture!
It is in favor of a tax just to assert a moral value. Here: soft drinks are not good for your health ...
must make express its value through a tax is rather loose: instead of having to defend its values, they vote ....
We must realize that this path is very dangerous for the freedom of a people. This case is trivial and inconsequential but over this mentality to impose these values (for failing to confront them?) Is accepted and used, the more freedom people will be subject to the majority.
But mostly, we accept these values. If you love but do not drink Coke (or little) for health reasons, you must accept that the neighbor not reaching the same conclusion as you. If you shit because you suspect him to drink full, it is that you must ask. Wanting to prevent him from drinking because you do not do it is to envy.
Live and let die ....
Francois.
0 comments:
Post a Comment