I’ll be on ESPNEWS today at 2:40 pm EDT, talking Tigers/Twins, a few playoff-bound teams, and maybe Milton Bradley.
New column on the Team USA 18U trials last week, and a quick comment in Rumor Central on Buster Posey’s outlook for 2010.
I have never been a big cola drinker, and only seldom drink soda of any sort (although I do love Thomas Kemper’s vanilla cream soda), but I hate the idea of a government tax on soft drinks or any other foods that the Food Police deem bad for me. What’s next – bacon? Butterfat? I maintain a healthy weight and have low cholesterol despite consuming both of those items. I can make my own food choices, thanks, Sam.
Oh, and if you haven’t seen Kseniya Simonova, the sand artist who won Ukraine’s Got Talent this year, she’s pretty impressive.
I certainly understand people’s skepticism about taxes like this where it looks like government is making our decisions for us. But we need to pay for things like health care somehow. Basically every tax is going to piss off a huge portion of the population. I’d probably be more inclined to do a more broad-based tax or just soak the filthy rich, but this seems to be more politically viable. And if we pass this tax, people will drink less soda, which is an undeniable public health benefit. The same thing has already been proven with cigarettes and alcohol.
In heavy agreement with Tim.
Keith, YOU can maintain a strong weight eating junk (I can too and I love a can of Coke), but that doesn’t mean that most people can. Rising obesity rates, especially in children, are a major cause for concern in America.
The government is not telling anyone what they can and cannot eat, they are simply charging people more for having unhealthy lifestyles. The irony of this is that it is essentially a monetary trade off anyway, since junk food / fast food is a lot cheaper.
Aiden,
A lot cheaper than what? I’d argue that it’s less expensive to cook basic meals at home with ingredients from any generic supermarket. Granted, it’s less *convenient,* but you can definitely stretch a dollar cooking yourself.
Tim and Aiden,
Can you please cite which article in the Constitution could reasonably justify a federal tax on soda? I don’t think Article 1 Section 8 does much for your cause from a Constitutional standpoint.
And Pigouvian taxes do not work. We create a black market and increase criminal activity. And in the case of soda, a relatively inelastic good, we can’t really claim we’re trying dissuade poor nutrition. Furthermore our federal government subsidizes the second ingredient in soda (HFCS) so the logic doesn’t seem to jive. It’s really just another way to nickel and dime Americans.
Lastly, why is it that soda companies will be affected when it’s not the soda companies who are causing our nation to become fatter by the second. Are they holding a gun to your head? Is it Coca Cola’s fault that parents buy soda for their kids instead of having them drink water or juice? Why are people allowed to use their EBT on soda then? As Klaw said, why stop at soda?
White bread and white rice cake are just as bad as soda in many ways. White bread has a high Glycemic Index. You feel sluggish after you eat it (so you probably don’t burn any calories) and your body actually feels hungrier after eating it. With Coke, at least you get the caffeine to propel you to burn more calories. On its own, Coke is not ‘that’ bad. It’s when you pair it as a refreshment with a high GI, highly processed starchy dinner that you get a lethal combination. So let’s tax white sesame seed buns for hamburgers while we’re at it!
And mostly, what happened to personal responsibility? I, as a male who runs 30mpw, lifts and boxes regularly at my gym, and eats salad for lunch weekly—I enjoy a cherry Coke sometimes with a popcorn at the movies. Where does the federal government get off forcing me to pay more when I’ve already only been allowed to keep 75% of my income.
The logic and rationale behind these taxes is mind-boggling.
Uncle Sam could just stop subsidizing corn. It is no mistake that the foods in the supermarket that are the cheapest are the worse for you, because they are subsidized the most.
“Rising obesity rates, especially in children, are a major cause for concern in America.”
Really? Whose concern? If it’s not your body, or your child, why is this any of your business? If the kid down the block is fat, my life is not affected in the least, and I wouldn’t go to his parents and telling them to lay off the soft drinks and candy. (Note: the fat kid down the block is hypothetical.)
That sand art video is mesmerizing. Impressive stuff…
Well, Keith, I suppose one could argue that fat children around the block are major contributors to the rising cost of healthcare in the country, especially if these children are on one of various government programs. Though I suppose that’s an even better argument against government programs.
Actually, I was just playing devil’s advocate. I agree that soda taxes (and other vice taxes) are bad government. I agree heartily with Spencer. End corn subsidies, and indeed all agricultural subsidies, and I suspect the American diet will improve significantly. At the very least the costs of things like soda and various processed foods will rise, perhaps discouraging their use.
In the end though between the way hospitals and insurance companies treat and charge payments we all end up paying for the collective ills of the general American population. People with diabetes because of their weight go to emergency rooms where they will be treated, but the tab will be given to the rest of us. You might not like the way the system is run (no one does), but still hospitals are going to treat people who are sick even if they can’t pay, and then someone is going to have to pay. It may be intrusive and a slippery slope, but it could save us a lot of money and lives in the long run.
In an efficient world, a singular fat kid may not affect your life but a tangible reduction in fat kids would. Both financially and from an aesthetical standpoint.
It is difficult to say one food is less healthy than another because there is no consensus about diet and other factors like GI. Some “experts” will say that high fructose corn syrup is one of the worst things for you.
The ironic thing now is that people are finally starting to care about these taxes when it comes to food, even though they have been going on with cigarettes and alcohol for years. The constitutionality in all cases is the same.
Keith, I’d be interested to hear your take on Milton Bradley. The media in Chicago is absolutely crucifying him right now and that seems like what they have wanted all along. He will likely go down as the reason for the 2009 Cubs’ failure even though he is far from it.
We wouldn’t have to discuss soda taxes if we tackled the larger issues of costs.
If the government really cared about rising costs in healthcare, they would take steps to stop rigging it in ways in which they increase costs. i.e. pointless regulations
People with diabetes because of their weight go to emergency rooms where they will be treated, but the tab will be given to the rest of us.
Ignoring diabetes for the moment, since it’s an underlying health problem, if people who weigh more are going to consume more health care, they should either pay more for the care itself, or they should pay more for health insurance. Life insurance companies charge smokers more; shouldn’t health insurance companies charge overeaters or non-exercisers more?
More importantly, why should I let the government into my kitchen (any more than it already is) because other people choose to follow a lifestyle that makes them more likely to consume health care in the future?
Keith-
Usually I find your views to be rational and well thought out. In this case, though, I think your stance is grounded more in emotion (get government out of my kitchen) than logic.
If certain behaviors result in increased government costs, levying a “sin” tax to discourage the behavior is an approach that deserves consideration.
That’s not to say it’s always the right approach. But typically the arguments against focus on impact of the tax (i.e., disproportionately hurts lowest economic brackets) or alignment with other government policies (i.e., why tax something when we’re providing corn subsidies that make the stuff cheaply).
Implying rights are taken away (they’re not, you can still drink soda, just at a slightly higher price) or that health care should somehow be priced solely by use (how do you enforce/identify who exercises, or justify increased costs for those with preexisting conditions) strike me as the wrong arguments in this discussion.
Why stop at taxing soda? why not just move straight into this http://www.fff.org/comment/com0909d.asp ? after all, “free” health care is a right, correct? …..
“…if people who weigh more are going to consume more health care, they should either pay more for the care itself, or they should pay more for health insurance. Life insurance companies charge smokers more; shouldn’t health insurance companies charge overeaters or non-exercisers more?”
So true. It would be really nice if, in addition to the health care “overhaul” (that may or may not happen), the gov’t tried to do something useful – like concentrate more on preventative care (though, ideally, this is something *parents* would take care of…). I’ve actually heard of wellness programs at various places of employment where employees receive incentives for exercising regularly. Often times this comes in the form of being charged less for their health insurance. And I have a friend who used to work for the ATF, and they actually received one hour, paid, each day to work out at the gym. Pretty good ideas, if you ask me.
The funny part about the whole personal responsibility thing is that the public as a whole believes in personal responsibility, so long as they aren’t required to actually live up to said responsibility themselves. (I don’t mean anyone in specific – more just an observation that Americans tend to be lazy and stupid when it comes to health…)
JJ:
Your argument rests on your assumption that these extra costs must be borne by the government. If you delete that assumption, as I would by making people who follow a riskier lifestyle bear the costs of those choices, your entire argument collapses.
More broadly, you are misusing the term “rational,” as there is nothing more rational than arguing that people who engage in certain behaviors should bear the costs. What you are arguing – that I should pay for the irresponsibility of others – is actually the irrational point of view.
The government, by the way, is already in our kitchen. Just try to find raw milk in most states, or a raw-milk cheese aged less than 60 days. Various levels of government have decided that you are not smart enough to weigh the risks of those foods.
Maybe the federal government shouldn’t be involved in health care. Shouldn’t that deserve consideration, too? Why is it always more more more government and tax revenues?
Rights are impinged whenever you tax something. Buying goods is essentially barter. Instead of trading a lamp for a case of Coke, we have a form of currency to make such exchanges less cumbersome. So what right does the government have to any part of this transaction?
The government will argue that the commerce clause will permit them to tax such items as the Coke trucks drive on interstates (what is the federal gas tax for?), but the intent of the tax is clear: To pay for the huge programs that are inefficient in a palatable manner.
The sad part is that this taxes never go away, too. Sure, will anyone’s behavior be affected by a couple cents here and there? No. But extrapolate that across the bevy of taxes we pay, and we’re talking thousands of dollars for a middle class family. We still pay a tax for telephones that was initially used to fund the Spanish-American war! If you’re wondering, that was 111 years ago!
I can’t believe people actually believe the government will run health care effective. I work for the government and the waste is mind boggling. Where does it end? Who decides on what is considered healthy? I guess the government should decide since it knows whats best for me better than I do. I thought you had smart readers, not brainless cattle.
Won’t this just create lines to see your primary care physician or family practice like it has in Massachusetts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
For every federal decision, you’re going to get an unintended consequence.
The problem with the logic of just taxing “fat” people more is that not all fat people are responsible for their situations. If we simply use BMI (which is so flawed it considers ARod obese, and not just his fat head), there would be many people who potentially make healthy lifestyle choices but would ultimately unfairly be charged for things out of their control. By taxing the unhealthy behavior itself, we make sure that people are being held responsible for individual choices that have a negative impact on the collective.
Now, does that mean soda itself should be taxed? Probably not, especially given the conflict of interest with corn subsidies. But, the government regularly uses discriminatory taxing for a whole host of reasons, some I agree with and some I don’t. Cigarettes are taxed more than anything. Electronics are taxed, but food isn’t. I would not necessarily agree with all of these decisions, but there is nonetheless precedent for it.
Whether we like it or not, we do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. The government is not saying you can’t drink soda, just that you have to pay a little bit extra for it. I don’t necessarily agree with THIS sin ta, but I do agree with the rationale behind sin taxes in general.
First: How does one calculate which behaviors are “healthy” vs “non-healthy” behaviors? This becomes tricky as one must somehow qualify actions on a day to day basis.
“No doctor, only ONE glass of red wine a day. Nevermore.”
Secondly, based upon the pure freemarket system which seems to be advocated here, does one who has a precondition therefore pay a higher premium based upon higher assumed usage? This directly correlates to healthy lifestyle equally lower use of medical coverage. Isn’t this the very problem that is being discussed today?
Keith-
Thanks for the response. I would counter that your argument rests on two shaky assumptions:
1) That there is sufficient transparency that enables health care providers to differentiate between behavioral and pre-existing conditions. For example, high cholesterol may be the result of irresponsible behavior or just bad genetics. A system based solely on use presumes that every medical ailment is somehow controllable, when in fact it’s not.
2) That there is never a compelling moral consideration to help someone when they are ultimately at fault. I’m not proposing government should bail out degenerate gamblers for their own bad decisions (irony intended). But if someone needs insulin and can’t afford the medication, what’s the alternative? Letting them die on the hospital outside the sidewalk? I get the arguments for personal responsibility. But if someone shows up at an ER needing treatment, they’re going to get treatment.
So yes, the starting point of many sin taxes is that people don’t always make responsible decisions in how to take care of themselves. But when those costs are inevitably passed on to society, it makes sense to discourage the behavior somehow.
JJ-
Cosign. I think you made some of the same points I made, but articulated them far better. There is also the issue of people making informed decisions. If these companies can spin information through marketing that either downplays the negative health effects or even touts falsified positive health effects, then that needs to be combated in some way. Knowing that a food made it onto the “not healthy” list would help people make more informed decisions.
Again, we run into the issue of the government being just as guilty of misinformation as the companies themselves, so we’d want to ensure that “sin” taxes were being employed responsibly.
JJ/BSK – you’re confusing two issues, people who have higher health insurance needs because of genetics/birth, and people who have higher health insurance needs because they make bad decisions. The former are simply not part of this discussion; why tax soda to help provide health care to people born with, say, an inborn error of metabolism? That’s just social policy through the tax code, with no connection to the care being provided.
BSK, I think there are better ways to tell people that certain foods are “not healthy” (assuming such a simplistic delineation among foods is possible) than by taxing those items. Indeed, that argument only makes it clearer that this is just a nanny-state policy – we don’t trust you to make smart decisions, so we’re going to try to do it through the tax code.
To pick an even more extreme example, why have so many local governments decided to ban trans fats in restaurants? Did they think citizens were somehow unaware of the health risks? (Only if those citizens lived under a rock, like folks in Underrock, Tennessee; Stone Roof, South Dakota; or St. Louis.) Trans fats aren’t good for you, but in small doses they’re not fatal, and the fact is that many baked goods have better textures if you use partially hydrogenated oils. An intelligent consumer can easily limit his consumption of trans fats without the government forcibly removing them from his diet. I don’t need any government authority telling me what I can and can’t eat; what was the benefit to banning trans fats instead of simply requiring restaurants to identify any products that contained them?
klaw-
I agree with your last point. Providing the information is better than banning it or taxing it. No doubt. My point, which probably wasn’t clear, was that this was an imperfect solution to a problem that I think ultimately needs to be addressed (some simply think it isn’t a problem and others think it is a problem but that it is up to the individual to determine a solution).
So to the first point, some (even you, maybe) stated that people who required more health care would pay for it when they sought it. But, this does nothing for the person with inborn error. Unless the doctors are going to take the time to determine HOW the person came to be in the situation they are in, they are likely just going to be diagnosed a certain way.
I also agree that it is too simplistic to label foods “healthy” and “not-healthy”. Back to the first point, let’s just provide accurate, honest information and let consumers decide. The question is, how do we do that when most companies would rather the truth not be known?
One thing that some of you are overlooking is that many (most?) aren’t smart enough to make the distinction for themselves. To wit:
An intelligent consumer can easily limit his consumption of trans fats without the government forcibly removing them from his diet.
This makes me an elitist, but I sorely doubt the ability of many, many Americans to rise to this level of intelligence and awareness. I’m not sure that the government should be in the business of protecting the less . . . ummm . . . smrt? but could this be another way in which stupid people ruin our lives?
I agree with Chris as food labels are designed to be complicated. Take a common flavor enhancer many people want to keep out of their diet “msg” as an example, according to wikipedia:
“Monosodium glutamate is one of several forms of glutamic acid found in foods, in large part because glutamic acid is pervasive in nature, being an amino acid. Glutamic acid and its salts can also be present in a wide variety of other additives, including hydrolyzed vegetable proteins, autolyzed yeast, hydrolyzed yeast, yeast extract, soy extracts, and protein isolate, any one of which may appear as “spices” or “natural flavorings.”
Avoid foods with a pretty packaged label that says, “NO MSG!!!” but still contain hydrolyzed yeast is cryptic and no normal consumer should necessarily need to know all the various forms of unhealthy items in food.
To reduce this to a matter of have-smarts/not-have-smarts is overly simplistic and narrow-minded.
overly simplistic if everyone assumes they are of the “have smarts” crowd. Clearly they, myself included, are not. Understanding what is in food is incredibly difficult. Suggesting people should make their own decisions is fine – as long as their is truth in marketing.
This is elitism masquerading as libertarianism. “I’m not fat so I don’t need food advice, I won’t crash my car so I don’t need to wear a seatbelt, I know better than everyone else so the rules shouldn’t apply.” Check out the people standing in line at Disneyland–we are a nation of fatties completely unable to get out of the way of ourselves. Blame whoever or whatever you want but if shelling out an extra 50c for a Coke means it’s one less giant person squeezing in next to me on the airplane I’ll sign up for the tax now.
brian-
That was my point. Chris acted as if it was easy to make informed food choices. My point was that it is not, and people who don’t aren’t necessarily stupid or deserving of what they get. There is a lot of misinformation out there, sometimes deliberately promoted by the food companies themselves (often with the complicity of the government).
I supported the local governments that required calorie counts at fast food chains. I personally would have preferred them provide more detailed information that allows for a more nuanced assessment of a food, but it’s a start. There also is a question of the accuracy of these reports. Regardless, I would prefer this tactic to the tax. But I don’t think the tax is inherently immoral, given how slanted the playing field is against the knowledge-based of the consumer.
Philosophical disagreements aside, singling out soda wouldn’t make any sense. A tax on high fructose corn syrup and refined sugar would be the way to go.
BSK,
I’m not trying to reduce it to a matter or smart versus dumb, nor do I think that making smart food choices is simple. There certainly is a lot of trash, misinformation, and duplicity to wade through. Clearly, making informed choices is not easy, even for the “have smarts” crowd and the knowledge-based consumer.
However, I think that there’s a level of intelligence, and (more importantly) level of self-awareness that many are assuming the average America has. One theme of the Libertarian argument that has been referenced here is the idea that people are smart enough to choose for themselves, so don’t tell me what to do. Lately, I’ve come to question if many people really are smart enough or aware enough to choose for themselves, ambiguous food labels aside.
There’s a politician down here (I live in SC) who references drought laws saying that the government shouldn’t tell people when they can water their lawns. He says, the people are smart enough to know not to water lawns during a drought. I’m not sure I agree, and even if they’re smart enough, I’m sure there are those who aren’t aware enough, and those who think that their lawns are the exceptions.
I’m a high school teacher (not today, kid is sick) and have made it a personal mission to try and fix this, but I see average every day in the students I teach and their parents. I don’t think that we’re a nation of blithering idiots (well, some baseball execs and coaches aside), but I also don’t think that the average consumer cares about food labels, nutritional content and the like, nor do I think the average consumer can understand even the simple, straight-forward information available.
It’s not a “stupid so you get what you deserve” argument–I’m wondering if part of government’s job is to protect these people with sin taxes and macro/micro managing. I tend to think so.
I believe Nancy Pelosi should be taxed.
Everytime she opens her mouth, my blood pressure jumps up. That woman is a hazard to my health.
I dislike the idea of a soda tax as much as anyone else, but if we’re going to run a nanny state the money should come from somewhere.
Tax away. At least there’d be some honesty regarding the costs.
“I also don’t think that the average consumer cares about food labels, nutritional content and the like, nor do I think the average consumer can understand even the simple, straight-forward information available.”
The first part of this I absolutely agree with. The average consumer doesn’t care one tiny bit about what they’re putting into their body. For that reason, I’m certainly one of the people that thinks “too bad for them.” If you aren’t interested in your health to eat well, you shouldn’t complain about the results. As for the second part of the statement, I DO think the average consumer is capable of understanding the information available, they just aren’t interested enough to do so. Or maybe they aren’t smart enough to realize the importance of it. Or maybe they’re just lazy.
Regardless of the reason, the average consumer just isn’t overly savvy.
Maybe people WOULD be smarter and WOULD be more able to make decisions for themselves if they weren’t raised to be completely reliant on this gangster State to “care” and “nanny” for them … its the same reason spoiled kids often end up completely unprepared for life in the “real world”
At what point does this argument become a circular reference of blaming the decision making of people who can only afford to buy the cheapest possible products? Because all the junk we’re debating about here is stuff that people are either (1) “forced” to buy in order to stretch a small amount of money or (2) too dumb/lazy to upgrade away from. The number of Keiths, those who fully recognize the downsides and consume only in logic based moderation, can’t make up more than like 5% of those hypothetically affected by a tax.
Glen,
I don’t think so. They’d just shell out their money without thinking about it. Liquor tax went up 90% in Illinois, and I don’t know anybody who says they are going to stop drinking because of it.
Adam, soda is an elastic good. Nowadays, if you go to the supermarket, soda is probably the cheapest, sugared drink. If soda became more pricey, people might instead find a strong alternative (how many kids don’t like juice, Gatorade, lemondade, etc?).
The effects you get from alcohol can’t really LEGALLY be reproduced, so alcohol is a lot more inelastic. But even then, if alcohol is taxed higher, I’m sure many people would drink LESS than they might if the cost to get buzzed/drunk was a lot higher.
Keith, as many people answered you before me, I would have to agree that obesity is a MAJOR reason for such high health care costs. USA ranks 50th in life expectancy – not really an outstanding ranking for the richest country in the world. I am all for personal freedoms, but living an unhealthy life should come at a cost.
I feel like I’m listening to Ron Paul speak from many of you (no offense, but there is clearly a ideological difference between people). I think Chris really nailed the central issue: most people just aren’t smart enough or motivated enough to eat healthy. Money is really the only motivator to many Americans.
The lib argument is fundamentally flawed. When subsidies exist, the very idea of libritarian choice is moot. People buy what is cheap, and that is the end of the conversation rationally with libs. If that argumnet were to hold water then all foods must start on equal footing price wise and then the consumer has an equal choice.
As it stands now there is no equality among choice as bottled soda is less expensive than bottled water. Asking people to make their own decisions based upon health is absurd – especially when “those who are smart” likely have no idea what they are eating themselves.
There are two issues I have with the lib thinking: 1. eating healthy is more expensive no matter what people believe to be the case
2. many people are limited with their food budget and WIC/foodstamps mandates what can and cannot be purchased. Price is an exclusion when it comes to food.
Does anybody actually have any evidence to support the claim that overweight people incur more medical expenses over their lifetime than those who are not overweight. Seems to me that there are plenty of overweight people who rarely see a doctor before dying of a heart attack at 50. I would think their lifetime health cost would be substantially less than a fit person who lives to be 90. I mean, if we are really talking about cost and all, rather than just trying to justify additional expansion of the government. By the way, studies have shown that preventative medicine actually increases costs, not decreases them (this is a general statement, not obesity specific).
That’s absurd. Eating healthy is quite cheap if you’re cooking for yourself. A vegan diet should be absurdly cheap, as even organic whole grains are far cheaper than conventional meats. The bulk of my food budget goes to meat, organic milks, and discretionary, fancypants items like imported Parmiggiano-Reggiano or good EVOO.
Don’t confuse “inexpensive” with “fast food.”
Paul: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158948.php
That’s a simple article, but there are thousands on the subject. Most obese people DON’T die of an immediate heart attack at 50 years old.
“I think Chris really nailed the central issue: most people just aren’t smart enough or motivated enough to eat healthy.”
The obvious question is: Why should I care?
Of course, as things are I should, because the whole society’s healthcare costs will rise as a result. But why should I care about anyone’s healthcare costs but my own? Because we are increasingly living in a welfare state where the rest of us are responsible for those who just can’t get motivated to live a healthier lifestyle.
“When subsidies exist, the very idea of libritarian choice is moot.”
So end subsidies … stop subsidizing huge agro-business and corn (and passing it off as helping all farmers, which is ludicrous)
Adam:
“They’d just shell out their money without thinking about it. Liquor tax went up 90% in Illinois, and I don’t know anybody who says they are going to stop drinking because of it.”
This seems to be a non-sequitor from what I was saying. Repeal that tax. Sin taxes don’t decrease demand, they only create black markets (and thereby criminals) … they simply exist to create revenue for the State .. any claimed “benefits” are ancillary and, most often, do not even come to fruition
Pete, it’s a good thing every American doesn’t hold that “why should I care?” mentality. We would be without most helping professions, (teachers, social workers, etc.) considering that they do not get paid anywhere near what they could elsewhere.
“Of course, as things are I should, because the whole society’s healthcare costs will rise as a result. But why should I care about anyone’s healthcare costs but my own?”
You pretty much answered your question with the first sentence there…
healthy items are cheap if they are bought in raw form yes – I fully agree. However, whole grains must be processed to be consumed and funny enough, on this very website, there was an entire article about cooking rice.
I’d assume most people who read this are interested in simliar subjects: baseball, food, literature, discourse. If many people on here cannot cook rice adequately, why would it then be assumed people would be able to process the food they buy in bulk cheaply or well? Perhaps this is a fundamental issue in our culture as it stands.
Most people buy semi-prepared foods which are less healthy due to subsidized ingredients in them that are harmful. Any food would be easy to use as an example: cereal, milk, bread, etc.
Caring is wonderful. The distinction is that the government isn’t forcing people to become teachers or social workers.
My point stands that the only reason we worry about our society’s aggregate healthcare costs is that we’ve decided that people aren’t responsible for their own.