Anyway - this news story made me think about this issue from a different angle.  Would it be right to reward people who made conscious decisions relating to their health, consumption, pollution etc by cutting their taxes?  In a sense we already do this with Road Tax (tax less polluting cars less) so why not tax people who are less of a burden on the state less?  If you keep your BMI below a certain level, don’t smoke, don’t drink excessively, excercise heaps etc etc then why should you pay as much tax as somebody who exhibits all of these ‘polluting’ and costly activities?  In the USA where, depending on your definition of liberal, the most liberal healthcare system (and many, me included, would argue unfair…) exists this is reflected in lower insurance premiums for people with ‘healthier’ lifestyles (and in the UK – here).

Is this liberal?  I think there are arguments on both sides.  On the one hand the state increases your liberty by reducing your tax burden (similar to the Easyjet council model we’ve heard so much about – here).  On the other, like the nudging objections, someone has to decide what the ‘good behaviour’ is.  Another obvious objection is the inequality that would be created between healthy people who find it easy to lose weight, keep fit etc and those who for whatever reasons find it more challenging.  Also would it be a breach of the universal coverage the NHS provides?

I’d be interested to hear peoples’ opinions.