THE JUSTIFICATION OF STATE INTERVENTION IN DISINCENTIVE TAXES UNDERTHE “LENS” OF PATERNALISM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46763/SCGW25112y23dAbstract
Tax law has long played an important role as a useful tool not only for obtaining funding resources for public affairs, but also for guiding taxpayers' behaviours on relevant issues, such as the protection of collective health. One of the classic examples is that of taxes on foods considered harmful to human health (the so-called junk food) and today used by many national systems to discourage their consumption. In these cases, it is necessary and useful to understand whether this attitude of the State, which can in practice represent a real interference in the individual sphere, can be framed within the scope of so-called paternalistic interventions, that is, in those acts of extreme politics which, while tending - with "paternal" solicitude - to the progress and well-being of the governed, does not consider them capable of pursuing such goals autonomously. This paper aims to analyse these tax strategies in consideration of the major theories on the subject, in order to understand whether they can be legally considered legitimate in the face of the autonomy and freedom of private individuals to engage in even "self-harming" behaviours (eating, for example, unhealthy food). From this perspective, the work also carries out an evaluation of the concept of health, trying to understand whether it can be qualified (as already happens for the environment) as a common good that everyone is required to protect without engaging in egoistic behaviours that, due to this collective dimension, can produce harmful effects for the entire community.
Keywords: Eating habits, obesity, fiscal instruments, paternalism, health, common good
Downloads
Literaturhinweise
Dodd, R. et al. (2020). Effectiveness and feasibility of taxing salt and foods high in sodium: a systematic
review of the evidence. Advances in nutrition, 1616-1630.
Grossi, P. (2006). Società, diritto, stato: un recupero per il diritto. Milano.
Hammer, M. (2018). Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: A Bittersweet Solution. Bulletin for
International Taxation.
Constitution of the Italian Republic (entered into force on 1 January 1948), Part I "Rights and duties of
citizens", Title II "Ethical and social relations", Art. 32.
Kant, I. (1784). An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? Practical Philosophy, 17-22.
Kant, I. (1793). On the Common Saying: That May Be Correct in Theory, but It Is of No Use in Practice.
Practical Philosophy, 279–309.
Kant, I. (1797). The Metaphysics of Morals. Practical Philosophy, 353-604.
Mill, J. S. (1991). On liberty and other essays. Oxford University Press.
Miravalle, M. (2020). Gli orizzonti della teoria del nudging sulla normatività: verso un diritto senza
sanzioni? BioLaw Journal, 441-461.
Niebylski, M.L. et al. (2015). Healthy food subsidies and unhealthy food taxation: A systematic review
of the evidence. Nutrition, 787-795.
Shughart, W. F. (2013). Teoria economica dello Stato-mamma. In M. Trovato, Obesità e tasse. Perché
serve l'educazione, non il fisco. Torino. 35-60.
Sunstein, C. (2015). Effetto Nudge. La politica del paternalismo libertario. Milano.
Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge. La spinta gentile. La nuova strategia per migliorare le nostre
decisioni su denaro, salute, felicità. Milano.
Uricchio, A. (2014). La tassazione degli stili alimentari e la capacità contributiva. L’evoluzione del
sistema fiscale e il principio di capacità contributiva. Padova. 473-502.
Villani, S. (2020). Spunti per un nuovo approccio ai problemi dello sviluppo sostenibile e della
tassazione nell’era del Covid-19. Ambientediritto.it, 1-46.
WHO. (2018). Global Nutrition Policy Review 2016–2017: country progress in creating enabling
policy environments for promoting healthy diets and nutrition, 34-100
WHO. (2022). Fiscal policies to promote healthy diets: policy brief, 6-10.
