

Then I believe you I missed the comparison.
I’m not suggesting that in both cases, a government is doing things to make “bad choices” harder. I’m suggesting that in both cases a government is disproportionately punishing the less wealthy to get what it wants. In neither case does the government gives a shit if you, individually, lead a healthier life or have a child. It wants you to generate more wealth for the country, whether that be by demanding less for health care costs or by producing the next worker drone.
The point in the sugar tax comparison, a real thing that happened in parts of Canada by the way, is that the government should be reducing the costs of the healthy choices, not making the unhealthy choices more expensive, as people were largely turning to unhealthy choices because they were cheaper and do not have the wealth to make better choices. Likewise, if the Chinese government wants to improve the birth rate of its population, they should make childcare more affordable and look to give parents more wealth/time, not attempt to punish them financially for preventing a pregnancy. Punishing a population that is making the choice you don’t want them to make out of necessity isn’t the solution to get them to make the choice you want. “Poor tax” is never a good solution, and that’s what the comparison is: two versions of “poor tax.”




Yeah, interesting article, but in the context of being posted on Lemmy, I’m immediately left asking questions on the intent here. “Zelensky did a bad thing” is the kind of domino that some people in these parts would use to start the “and this is why Russia has to murder civilians” discussion.
Confirmation bias can be a hell of a drug. I hope that any corruption is properly investigated, just not by a hostile, Imperialist nation using force of arms.