Tax Junk Food

[JustinW]

Rather than just take money from consumers as a tax, it takes the tax from people who are abusing the healthcare system and gives it to people who aren't.

 

Abusing the health care system. . .I'm going to have to think about this. The thing about the other examples of incentive programs is they are tax breaks. They are not adding a tax to motivate people to make the decisions that they want them to. It would be like taxing every book except the bible because the government felt that people needed an incentive to learn better morality. Probably not the best analogy I know. But wouldn't an incentive program in favor of health food be more balanced if they were to cut taxes on health food instead of add taxes to junk food? I would think that that would be a more acceptable position and possibly a better motivator rather than a seeming punishment.

Let me ask you this: If someone came up with a type of cigarette that satisfied smokers but didn't cause all the health problems, would you be against a government program that taxed regular cigarettes and gave that tax money as a subsidy to the new type of cigarette so it could compete? If health studies five years later confirmed that smoking-related health problems were declining, don't you think that program (which only came out of the pockets of those who insisted on smoking the old, known-carcinogen cigarettes) would be justified?

Yes I would be against it. Whenever we let a government beauracracy favor one company over the other by rewarding one company with part of the profits of the other, I'm against it. In this analogy with the cigarette; you would think that if it gave smokers the same affect but without the health problems that it wouldn't need a subsidy to compete. I would be in favor of giving the new and improved cigarette a tax break though. Same incentive but without taking extra money from the pockets of people.

 

For years it's been OK for a company to take advantage of people if they're stupid enough not to see the dangers. Now we have rampant obesity and attendant health problems. At a certain point, you're either going to have to allow for some type of publicly-funded solution, a solution from the private sector (good luck, they're making all kinds of money as it is) or better nutrition education. I'd actually prefer the education, but taxpayers don't seem to want to pay for schooling these days, and the fast food companies won't be thrilled about having their products actively challenged intellectually. A fast-food tax seems almost like the easiest solution.

You've got a decent point here, but an easy solution is not always the best.

 

You argue against this incentive only as manipulation of people's behavior, but you don't see it as a counter to the manipulation of advertising. You argue against this incentive as an attempt to remove choice from the people, yet you don't seem to have the same problem with The Patriot Act. This isn't about the government MAKING your choices for you; it's about making some of the choices more/less attractive than others to influence your choice. Corporations get to do it with advertising, but you're arguing that it's not right for the government. Why is that?

The two are not comparable. A counter for corp. advertising would be the government counter advertising, not racking up more cost on it's people to punnish bad behavior. I don't hear anyone arguing for a tax BREAK incentive instead of a tax HIKE incentive. Which of the two do you think would be more effective? I think the break would be more incentive and look a whole lot less like a penalty for bad behavior.

 

But you're correct, it's not right. And no one can tell me why the US has to charge double in order to use a system "designed to put U.S. manufacturers of sugar-containing products on a level playing field in the world market", as the US Dept of Agriculture puts it. It's also keeping us from using sugarcane as biomass for ethanol. Sugar ethanol is eight times more efficient than corn ethanol. Brazil uses sustainable sugar ethanol and they have many cars that run on nothing but, AT HALF THE PRICE OF GASOLINE!

 

Yeah we did kind of bugger up that corn ethonal project didn't we.

 

But you do have a choice not to pay this tax. Buy healthy food and you won't be charged. In fact, it could cost you less if your veg and whole grains were subsidized by the fast food eaters.

I've thought about this a couple of times throughout this thread so I'm going to go ahead and ask. Is there some reason that health food needs a subsidy? You would think that a tax cut incentive would do the job of boosting sales and production. All the while you wouldn't be publicly punnishing people. Who would of ever thought that people would think of fining people for being fat. It sounds absurd just saying it.

 

iNow

 

You've got a good point there too. But why stop at taxing junk food? After people start eating more fruits and veggies the next item on the list will be pesticides. We can then tax those who buy fruits and veggies grown using herbicides and such, then give that money to subsidise organic products. Then after that we can go after the big bad meat products. Someone might realize that fish can help fight off certain health risks while red meat contributes to some health problems. So we can then tax meat products and use that to subsidise fish products. This could go on and on and on. Why start in the first place? And if we do start we might as well go all the way. You can come up with a lot of products to tax once you start taxing things for being linked to some sort of health problem.

[A Tripolation]

I've only very briefly skimmed through some of the posts in this thread, but I'm going to answer the OP with my own opinion. Apologies if they have been hashed out over and over again.

 

1. Healthy food is NOT cheap, unless you grow it yourself. It's safe to say that many poor people cannot get a self-sustaining garden going/

2. Taxing junk food more heavily would work so long as there were healthy foods to buy at the same price as the junk food. (I eat junk food in college because it's so freaki' cheap. I buy clementines whenever possible, though. It's not cheap.)

3. This is a blight on personal liberty and free market. But they do it to cigarettes and--though not as heavily--alcohol. So it only seems fair to do it to something as unhealthy as junk foods.

[JustinW]

3. This is a blight on personal liberty and free market. But they do it to cigarettes and--though not as heavily--alcohol. So it only seems fair to do it to something as unhealthy as junk foods.

They do it cigarettes, but do they use that money to subsidise a competitor of cigarettes? Or do the alcohol taxes get used as subsidies for non alcoholic beverage companies? I don't see it as the same thing.

[Phi for All]

Abusing the health care system. . .I'm going to have to think about this.

If they're using the insurance risk pool more often than the average person for a problem they could overcome with more responsible eating habits, then we either need to change the way they pay for healthcare or change their eating habits.

 

The thing about the other examples of incentive programs is they are tax breaks. They are not adding a tax to motivate people to make the decisions that they want them to. It would be like taxing every book except the bible because the government felt that people needed an incentive to learn better morality. Probably not the best analogy I know.

Some of the other examples were just breaks, but there are plenty of examples of measures that are subsidized by a tax so the government doesn't have to make up the slack of the tax break elsewhere. States often penalize heavier vehicles because of the extra wear and tear they cause. Isn't it right that a big rig should pay more in licensing and road taxes than you in your compact car?

 

But wouldn't an incentive program in favor of health food be more balanced if they were to cut taxes on health food instead of add taxes to junk food? I would think that that would be a more acceptable position and possibly a better motivator rather than a seeming punishment.

Yes I would be against it.

How are you going to pay for it? Can we have some of that defense budget? Care to penalize something else that isn't to blame?

 

What if I put it to you this way: I want to eliminate the tax on healthy foods and double the tax on fast foods to compensate. In my community, this would mean a savings of about $0.80 on my $10 purchase of produce/grains/lean meats, and it would cost me an extra $0.80 on my $10 purchase at Mooseburger's.

 

Whenever we let a government beauracracy favor one company over the other by rewarding one company with part of the profits of the other, I'm against it. In this analogy with the cigarette; you would think that if it gave smokers the same affect but without the health problems that it wouldn't need a subsidy to compete. I would be in favor of giving the new and improved cigarette a tax break though. Same incentive but without taking extra money from the pockets of people.

I wasn't thinking of the alternative cigarette as a single company, but more of an industry. I don't like it when one company is set apart for lots of government consideration. *cough* Halliburton *cough*

 

You've got a decent point here, but an easy solution is not always the best.

No, but it's often a good place to start.

 

The two are not comparable. A counter for corp. advertising would be the government counter advertising, not racking up more cost on it's people to punnish bad behavior. I don't hear anyone arguing for a tax BREAK incentive instead of a tax HIKE incentive. Which of the two do you think would be more effective? I think the break would be more incentive and look a whole lot less like a penalty for bad behavior.

I'd rather the government use real incentives through economic means rather than spending money on advertising. There's enough spin going on in the corporate world. And again, I favor a break AND a hike. Both.

 

I've thought about this a couple of times throughout this thread so I'm going to go ahead and ask. Is there some reason that health food needs a subsidy? You would think that a tax cut incentive would do the job of boosting sales and production. All the while you wouldn't be publicly punnishing people. Who would of ever thought that people would think of fining people for being fat. It sounds absurd just saying it.

You trivialize the impact by making it sound like it's just a few poor fat people. It's a big problem now that's getting bigger, literally.

 

So yes, obviously, healthy foods could use a subsidy. Indulgence is easier to sell than wisdom.

 

We subsidize oil and you have few choices when it comes to NOT using it. Why not subsidize a better choice of foods, where you can decide to do whatever you want as long as you're willing to pay for it?

[JustinW]

If they're using the insurance risk pool more often than the average person for a problem they could overcome with more responsible eating habits, then we either need to change the way they pay for healthcare or change their eating habits.

My first point with the my rant at the beginning of the thread was that we need to change the system if we don't want to pay for it's use when we disagree with the reason it is being used. I don't like to think that our eating habits can become a rule of law. What then. . our sleeping habits?

States often penalize heavier vehicles because of the extra wear and tear they cause. Isn't it right that a big rig should pay more in licensing and road taxes than you in your compact car?

True, but one could also argue that by doing so they insure that they have a road to drive on. It would be a better example if you could find a situation where heavy trucks were getting taxed and there competitors were getting subsidies by that tax. That would be closer related to the junk food tax situation.

 

What if I put it to you this way: I want to eliminate the tax on healthy foods and double the tax on fast foods to compensate. In my community, this would mean a savings of about $0.80 on my $10 purchase of produce/grains/lean meats, and it would cost me an extra $0.80 on my $10 purchase at Mooseburger's.

If you eliminated the tax on healthy foods it might eliminate the need to add a tax to cover it in the long run, but I do concede to your point on this though. I should have thought that part out a little more.

I don't like it when one company is set apart for lots of government consideration. *cough* Halliburton *cough*

Ah, touche.

 

So yes, obviously, healthy foods could use a subsidy.

But where? What part of the health food industry would this subsidy affect? Not that I would agree with doing this no matter what area it help the industry, but curiousity has me.

[iNow]

From the link I shared in the very first reply to this thread:

 

 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/01/rogoff-coronary-capitalism/

 

Consider the food industry, particularly its sometimes-malign influence on nutrition and health. Obesity rates are soaring around the entire world, though, among large countries, the problem is perhaps most severe in the United States. According the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly one-third of US adults are obese (indicated by a body mass index above 30). Even more shockingly, more than one in six children and adolescents are obese, a rate that has tripled since 1980.

 

<snip>

 

Obesity affects life expectancy in numerous ways, ranging from cardiovascular disease to some types of cancer. Moreover, obesity – certainly in its morbid manifestations – can affect quality of life. The costs are borne not only by the individual, but also by society – directly, through the health-care system, and indirectly, through lost productivity, for example, and higher transport costs (more jet fuel, larger seats, etc.).

 

<snip>

 

That is a fair point, but it overlooks the huge market failure here.

 

Consumers are provided with precious little information through schools, libraries, or health campaigns; instead, they are swamped with disinformation through advertising. Conditions for children are particularly alarming. With few resources for high-quality public television in most countries, children are co-opted by channels paid for by advertisements, including by food industry.

 

Beyond disinformation, producers have few incentives to internalize the costs of the environmental damage that they cause. Likewise, consumers have little incentive to internalize the health-care costs of their food choices.

 

If our only problems were the food industry causing physical heart attacks and the financial industry facilitating their economic equivalent, that would be bad enough. But the pathological regulatory-political-economic dynamic that characterizes these industries is far broader. We need to develop new and much better institutions to protect society’s long-run interests.

 

Of course, the balance between consumer sovereignty and paternalism is always delicate. But we could certainly begin to strike a healthier balance than the one we have by giving the public far better information across a range of platforms, so that people could begin to make more informed consumption choices and political decisions. <read the full story unsnipped>

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

You just reminded me of something. I'm Obese. I forgot until you laid that article down again. I was at a fit test for work one year and it was the first time someone had told me I was obese. To look into a mirror I couldn't tell. No one else thought so and I doubt they were trying to spare my feelings. It's just that as skinny as I've been my whole life it was sort of shocker to find out that I was in the obese category. (don't worry I'll get over it) The point of my story here is that I think the percentages are inaccurate coupled with an inaccurate rating system. I would never consider myself obese, but that mass index sure did say so, it must be right.

[CaptainPanic]

iNow,

 

You just reminded me of something. I'm Obese. I forgot until you laid that article down again. I was at a fit test for work one year and it was the first time someone had told me I was obese. To look into a mirror I couldn't tell. No one else thought so and I doubt they were trying to spare my feelings. It's just that as skinny as I've been my whole life it was sort of shocker to find out that I was in the obese category. (don't worry I'll get over it) The point of my story here is that I think the percentages are inaccurate coupled with an inaccurate rating system. I would never consider myself obese, but that mass index sure did say so, it must be right.

If you are not of average length, the body mass index will give an error.

 

To show the error, you should check out NBA basketball players. They are top athletes. But they somehow all get into the very dangerously fat category.

 

The reason is that they are so tall. Weight scales with the 3rd power of length (like volume). The BMI only scales with the 2nd power of length. And that is just a really crappy fit.

[Phi for All]

My first point with the my rant at the beginning of the thread was that we need to change the system if we don't want to pay for it's use when we disagree with the reason it is being used. I don't like to think that our eating habits can become a rule of law. What then. . our sleeping habits?

When your eating habits start to infringe on the rights of others, they become fair game for regulation and taxation. That part's really no different from your driving habits or your walking habits or your going-to-the-bathroom habits. You live in society with other people and your freedom to do as you please can't interfere with the rights of others. Not wearing your seat belt causes unnecessary deaths and higher costs to others, walking against the traffic lights is also not allowed for the same reasons, you can't defecate in public because of the unnecessary dangers and costs to others, and eating a preponderance of food that is known to be unhealthy for you also passes unnecessary dangers and costs along to other people in your society.

 

The slippery slope leading down to your sleeping habits example is a fallacious one unless you can show how those habits might infringe on the rights of others. OTOH, if your snoring keeps enough townspeople awake at night and you fail to do anything about it....

 

True, but one could also argue that by doing so they insure that they have a road to drive on. It would be a better example if you could find a situation where heavy trucks were getting taxed and there competitors were getting subsidies by that tax. That would be closer related to the junk food tax situation.

You're bringing business into my example to make it less... better. And then you're arguing against my examples rather than the original point.

 

A system that taxes all vehicles (personal and commercial) by their impact on existing resources (roads, in this case) by using the vehicle's weight as the parameter is almost exactly like taxing foods based on their impact on existing resources (healthcare insurance pools, in this case) by using the food's nutrition ratings as the parameter.

 

But where? What part of the health food industry would this subsidy affect? Not that I would agree with doing this no matter what area it help the industry, but curiousity has me.

For starters, I'd subsidize the local growers and farmers who bring produce to the grocery stores. These are the businesses that are providing the most sustainable, freshest, healthiest alternative to fast food in most communities.

 

I'd have to think about the rest. Overall, my goal would be to make healthy food less expensive to attract more demand, increasing supply and lowering costs further.

[A Tripolation]

For starters, I'd subsidize the local growers and farmers who bring produce to the grocery stores. These are the businesses that are providing the most sustainable, freshest, healthiest alternative to fast food in most communities.

 

You are under the mistaken assumption that grocers buy from local farmers. This isn't so. Kroger, Wal-MArt, etc, import produce from mega farms that sell by volume.

 

There are some stores that have a "local farmer" section. But those prices are higher than normal. They have to be. There are organics stores that sell local produce. But they are incredibly expensive.

 

Small local farmers cannot compete with the mega-farms, even if their product is better.

 

I'd have to think about the rest. Overall, my goal would be to make healthy food less expensive to attract more demand, increasing supply and lowering costs further.

 

Find a way to cheapen the cost of fertilizer per tonne and lessen the cost of diesel. Food prices will go down.

[iNow]

You are under the mistaken assumption that grocers buy from local farmers. This isn't so. Kroger, Wal-MArt, etc, import produce from mega farms that sell by volume.

 

There are some stores that have a "local farmer" section. But those prices are higher than normal. They have to be. There are organics stores that sell local produce. But they are incredibly expensive.

 

Small local farmers cannot compete with the mega-farms, even if their product is better.

Isn't that exactly what Phi is talking about, though? Using smart methods to shift the price pressures to one where local growers finally CAN compete and where consumers CAN act on their desire for the better/healthier product without sacrificing their ability to pay the electric bill and keep the heat on at their home?

[Phi for All]

You are under the mistaken assumption that grocers buy from local farmers. This isn't so. Kroger, Wal-MArt, etc, import produce from mega farms that sell by volume.

Sure, those stores have the distribution power to push perishables further out right now. As fuel prices increase and the climate changes, the mega farm model may lose out due to higher shipping and spoilage costs.

 

There are some stores that have a "local farmer" section. But those prices are higher than normal. They have to be. There are organics stores that sell local produce. But they are incredibly expensive.

I have a couple of local grower grocery chains near me, Sunflower Farmer's Market in particular, that aren't that expensive at all. Their organics aren't any more than my local Kroger affiliate, and some of their other produce is cheaper. If they do have some things at higher price, I don't find them incredibly higher.

 

Small local farmers cannot compete with the mega-farms, even if their product is better.

This is changing. President Obama supports legislation that's aimed at curtailing some of the detrimental practices perpetrated by the mega farms. They're horrible polluters, whether it's a growing farm or a factory farm (Confined Animal Feeding Operation), and recent studies have shown there are many hidden costs that are being caused but not accounted for in large scale farming. It's a falsely profitable model that shifts liability from the business to the consumer and taxpayers.

 

 

Find a way to cheapen the cost of fertilizer per tonne and lessen the cost of diesel. Food prices will go down.

Sure, but we're trying to get people to eat healthier while still allowing them choices. I don't think it's just the overall price of healthy foods that keeps people from buying them.

 

I see a tax on unhealthy foods to subsidize lower prices on healthy foods as a viable way to reach that goal. This will help people who are being responsible while penalizing those who aren't.

 

But there are obviously people who don't shop at the grocery for other reasons than price. Lack of cooking expertise, or a perceived lack of time to prepare healthy meals are some other factors. I heard about a concept a while back where vacant commercial buildings (there are a few of those around me, even some vacant grocery stores) are leased for farmer's markets where you can buy produce that's just been freshly chopped up for you and bagged with simple instructions to make stews, soups and casseroles. They only prep the raw food there, they don't cook it, which saves a ton on inspections and venting and all the costs involved in operating an oven.

 

I'm curious to know, from some of the members who DON'T cook or use the grocery store much, what it would take to get you to start? What are your biggest obstacles and drawbacks? Would you like to start eating healthier?

[A Tripolation]

Isn't that exactly what Phi is talking about, though?

 

It it is, I misinterpreted, and my apologies.

 

 

Using smart methods to shift the price pressures to one where local growers finally CAN compete and where consumers CAN act on their desire for the better/healthier product without sacrificing their ability to pay the electric bill and keep the heat on at their home?

 

This would be most excellent. And there wouldn't even need to be an increase in the number of farmers. Most small farmers have contracts with the mega-corporation farms (notably: Tyson) where they sell their locally raised product to the big boys just so they have a buyer.

 

But, here's where I don't understand. People keep screaming about cutting the subsidies for farmers and such. Making them pay carbon tax for their cattle and tractors. I ask you, how is that progressive to expanding local farming services to the actual locals? The cost of fertilizer has made small-farming (500 acres or less) economically irrelevant. And people want to get rid of the subsidies that make it relevant. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Sure, those stores have the distribution power to push perishables further out right now. As fuel prices increase and the climate changes, the mega farm model may lose out due to higher shipping and spoilage costs.

 

Fuel price increase (which is directly correlated to fertilizer prices) would be worse for small farmers than factory farms. They can weather the storm. We can't.

 

I have a couple of local grower grocery chains near me, Sunflower Farmer's Market in particular, that aren't that expensive at all. Their organics aren't any more than my local Kroger affiliate, and some of their other produce is cheaper. If they do have some things at higher price, I don't find them incredibly higher.

 

Oh, sure, there are some successful farmers' market where a group of guys will get together and make it, but how many of those do you see? Trust me, we hate doing business with the factory farms. My dad loathes having to sell his cattle because he knows that they won't be treated as they should. If farmers could sell to their community, they would. But, honestly, we can't compete with the price of entities like Kroger.

 

 

This is changing. President Obama supports legislation that's aimed at curtailing some of the detrimental practices perpetrated by the mega farms. They're horrible polluters, whether it's a growing farm or a factory farm (Confined Animal Feeding Operation), and recent studies have shown there are many hidden costs that are being caused but not accounted for in large scale farming. It's a falsely profitable model that shifts liability from the business to the consumer and taxpayers.

 

Something tells me that if this causes food prices to go up, it won't pass at all.

 

 

Sure, but we're trying to get people to eat healthier while still allowing them choices. I don't think it's just the overall price of healthy foods that keeps people from buying them.

 

That and the time to prepare the meals is all I can think of why people wouldn't want a true garden fresh salad with their meal. Or fresh cilantro thrown into their selection of sauteed vegetables. Mmmmm.

 

 

I see a tax on unhealthy foods to subsidize lower prices on healthy foods as a viable way to reach that goal. This will help people who are being responsible while penalizing those who aren't.

 

I wouldn't normally agree with this since it's far too Big-Brother-y, but hey, since they're doing it to cigarettes, I don't mind them doing it to junk food.

[JustinW]

If you are not of average length, the body mass index will give an error.

 

To show the error, you should check out NBA basketball players. They are top athletes. But they somehow all get into the very dangerously fat category.

 

The reason is that they are so tall. Weight scales with the 3rd power of length (like volume). The BMI only scales with the 2nd power of length. And that is just a really crappy fit.

I wonder how this affects the averaging of the whole country, and maybe this so called crisis isn't as bad as some would like it to seem. Even though I still believe that junk food does have some bearing on the healthcare system I wonder just how much and also am weary of the overall accuracy of the stats.

 

 

The slippery slope leading down to your sleeping habits example is a fallacious one unless you can show how those habits might infringe on the rights of others. OTOH, if your snoring keeps enough townspeople awake at night and you fail to do anything about it....

 

Man I hope there's not a sleep walking epidemic.

 

 

You're bringing business into my example to make it less... better. And then you're arguing against my examples rather than the original point.

The reason I was arguing against your examples was because it didn't fall into the same kind of scenario. Let's take the car scenario. A better example of the relation between the two would be what I was thinking earlier along the lines that junk food was the big vehicles while cars were the health food. A proper relation would be taxing big vehicles and subsidising the smaller vehicles. But you don't tax big vehicles then turnaround and subsidise the smaller vehicles with it. That would be like taxing Peterbuilt and using that money to subsidise GM. Does that sound reasonable? It doesn't to me.

 

I'd have to think about the rest. Overall, my goal would be to make healthy food less expensive to attract more demand, increasing supply and lowering costs further.

 

And you don't think there is other ways to do that? With all the inventiveness that we've had in the financial sector this past decade someone is bound to have that rabbit in there hat. But I would have to admit that I have no answer to covering the cost that needs to be cut in order to boost the health food market.

 

 

 

You are under the mistaken assumption that grocers buy from local farmers. This isn't so. Kroger, Wal-MArt, etc, import produce from mega farms that sell by volume.

 

There are some stores that have a "local farmer" section. But those prices are higher than normal. They have to be. There are organics stores that sell local produce. But they are incredibly expensive.

 

Small local farmers cannot compete with the mega-farms, even if their product is better.

 

Uh Oh Phi, I think A Tripolation has sniffed out another one of those pesky corporations. I wonder how many congressmen would bank on a surge in health food sales.

 

Find a way to cheapen the cost of fertilizer per tonne and lessen the cost of diesel. Food prices will go down.

That is an interesting thing to think about. Edited February 8, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

But, here's where I don't understand. People keep screaming about cutting the subsidies for farmers and such. Making them pay carbon tax for their cattle and tractors.

I'm not too closely connected to this, and really don't have strong feelings myself. However, my sense is that the concern (the screaming over subsidies) is that the things being subsidized don't need it, or that the wrong people are being subsidized. It strikes me as similar to people saying we shouldn't subsidize oil companies. They're already making insanely large profits, and they're hurting the environment, as well. IINM, the people screaming about subsidies think that agro-corporations... these monster mega growers... are already making large profits and growing things that are hurting the health of the public... like with corn that is used for corn syrup, etc. Regardless, I suspect strongly that you understand the fertilizer and other issues better than I do.

[iNow]

[iNow]

"Every dollar raised by taxing harmful activities is one dollar less that we must raise by taxing useful ones."

 

--Robert H. Frank, The Darwin Economy: Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good

 

 

h/t Brad DeLong

[A Tripolation]

that the things being subsidized don't need it, or that the wrong people are being subsidized.

 

Yes, but it's more like everyone is subsidized for a certain thing and that includes the super-rich farmers that don't need it. I can understand being upset with that. But the movement isn't to refine the subsidies. It is to end them completely because they're "pork". That is ridiculous. There is a reason that Americans spend less than 20 cents of every dollar on food. It's, in large part, because the government helps to keep prices down.

 

 

like with corn that is used for corn syrup, etc.

 

You're good at finding figures, so I'll let you look it up. The amount of corn used to make corn syrup is negligibly small.

 

"Every dollar raised by taxing harmful activities is one dollar less that we must raise by taxing useful ones."

 

--Robert H. Frank, The Darwin Economy: Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good

 

I completely agree. It is being done with cigarettes. I don't understand why they don't do it with alcohol though. I largely suspect it's because the majority of adult Americans drink while a minority smoke. Seems quite hypocritical to me.

[Phi for All]

Yes, but it's more like everyone is subsidized for a certain thing and that includes the super-rich farmers that don't need it. I can understand being upset with that. But the movement isn't to refine the subsidies. It is to end them completely because they're "pork". That is ridiculous. There is a reason that Americans spend less than 20 cents of every dollar on food. It's, in large part, because the government helps to keep prices down.

I have to wonder though. Since the government is artificially keeping food prices down by using taxpayer dollars to give directly to food-producing businesses, how much would prices go up without the subsidies? Would it be more than we're paying in taxes? Since the subsidies aren't subject to the same kinds of market pressures that prices are adjusted by, it seems to me that we're paying more in taxes than we'd end up paying at the grocery store.

 

I think subsidies should only be used to help emerging sustainable technologies gain a foothold in the market. The subsidies should be time-limited so all involved can prepare for their removal as well as use. Giving taxpayer dollars (from everyone, regardless of whether you use the products or not or how much) to already wealthy sectors (like oil) is just criminal in my opinion, made more so because so many of the companies that benefit are extremely outspoken about shrinking the federal government. They loves the handouts but hates the regulations. They basically want it all their way, with no balance to the greed.

 

I completely agree. It is being done with cigarettes. I don't understand why they don't do it with alcohol though. I largely suspect it's because the majority of adult Americans drink while a minority smoke. Seems quite hypocritical to me.

There are quite a bit of taxes on liquor, but I'm not sure if any of those go to pay for any of the consequences of alcohol abuse.

 

http://microliquor.c...tilled-spirits/

Don't forget that the Federal Government charges a Federal Excise tax of $2.14 per 750ML bottle of 40% (80 proof) spirits. This is built into the retail price. The final retail price of liquor is taxed again with the State Sales Tax (which is different from State Excise Tax).

 

It's interesting that they do it this way. The federal and state taxes must get built in so when you buy a $20 bottle of scotch you don't get rung up for $25. Probably the same people who would scream at that wouldn't blink at having the same scotch marked at $24 with just $1 in local taxes.

[A Tripolation]

I have to wonder though. Since the government is artificially keeping food prices down by using taxpayer dollars to give directly to food-producing businesses, how much would prices go up without the subsidies? Would it be more than we're paying in taxes? Since the subsidies aren't subject to the same kinds of market pressures that prices are adjusted by, it seems to me that we're paying more in taxes than we'd end up paying at the grocery store.

 

This is a very good question. Most of what I know on this topic comes from my father who is a farmer, receives subsidies, and closely follows the economics of the trade. I'll ask him to point me to some reading I can do to see if I can answer this. But IIRC, the market prices for stuff like grain is mostly controlled (check that, dominated by) the price of fertilizer. Fertilizer increases yield to astronomical levels. And it's pretty much all of the perennial overhead. I do not think subsidies are in control that much so that a completely free market system would result in lower prices.

The subsidies we receive are from everything to using more environmentally-friendly farming techniques (because they are a tad more inefficient) to setting a certain amount of acreage aside for produce (other than the more profitable things like tobacco).

 

 

There are quite a bit of taxes on liquor, but I'm not sure if any of those go to pay for any of the consequences of alcohol abuse.

 

None that are comparable to cigarettes. The tax on one pack exceeds $6.00 in New York.

Edited February 14, 2012 by A Tripolation

[Vent]

I find it difficult to believe some of the stuff said here. Most notably, the idea that junk food is cheaper than healthy food for one, and the idea that people don't know the difference between healthy food and non-healthy food for another.

 

Considering the two viewpoints argued seem to both be arguing from a rights-based perspective, where one side is don't increase tax because you're infringing on people's liberty to pay for others' eating habits, and on the other side is increase tax because people's eating habits are infringing on others' liberty, if we assent to the first paragraph and side with the second argument, and assuming that health care is to remain social, would it not be more humane, ethical and, basically, nice, to use some of the US military defense budget instead? Why not? Maybe US education could get some love as well with some of that budget?

 

Just a thought.

[Phi for All]

would it not be more humane, ethical and, basically, nice, to use some of the US military defense budget instead?

All that stands in the way are the corporations that manufacture armaments, the corporations that have military contracts, and the corporations that hire lobbyists to manipulate Congress into sending the military to pave the way for their business investments. Get past them and you're good to go.

[Vent]

No, because the biggest consumer is the US government. Lobbyists are a bane of course, but the one that capitulates is again the US government. I believe the power resides on its shoulders.

[JohnB]

Santalum,

 

If that is how you interpret it then so be it!

 

No interpretation is needed.

 

If there are enough failed adults making bad choices and harming wider society in the process then screw their individual rights to make those bad choices!

 

As with badly behaving children, they ought do what they are told not what they want to do.

 

If people disagree with you they are obviously wrong and have no right to opinion or choice. People can bleat about Godwin if they wish but the simple fact is that those who believe that people who disagree do not have the right to an opinion are in the mould of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Only the psychotic feel that those opposed to them should "do as they are told". Some 70 years ago there was a bit of a problem with people who thought that way and I hoped that we were rid of them. It would appear not and they will, eventually, have to be dealt with as their predecessors were.

 

I think a big problem is that the definition of "good" and "bad" food moves a bit with time. To a degree we can all agree that most fast food is junk and isn't all that healthy, but once past that point of agreement, then what? A vegetarian would say that meats should be taxed more. Are meats good or bad? Is free range meat better than grain fed and should it therefore get a tax reduction?

 

If yiou are going to use a tax regime to attempt to change peoples eating habits are you going to encourage high carb or low carb diets? The idea is great in theory but I think fundamentally unworkable in practice.

[imatfaal]

If people disagree with you they are obviously wrong and have no right to opinion or choice. People can bleat about Godwin if they wish but the simple fact is that those who believe that people who disagree do not have the right to an opinion are in the mould of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Only the psychotic feel that those opposed to them should "do as they are told". Some 70 years ago there was a bit of a problem with people who thought that way and I hoped that we were rid of them. It would appear not and they will, eventually, have to be dealt with as their predecessors were.

The equating of using tax regimes and punitive excise duty to influence public action, with the totalitarian states of the 20th century who killed, maimed, and imprisoned those who even voiced dissent is ridiculous. It is practically a definition of society that proscriptive rules are made and enforced - there is a complete qualitative difference with the ideological totalitarian states who attempted to quash any form of unorthodox action and eventually preclude the possibility of unorthodox thought.

 

I think a big problem is that the definition of "good" and "bad" food moves a bit with time. To a degree we can all agree that most fast food is junk and isn't all that healthy, but once past that point of agreement, then what? A vegetarian would say that meats should be taxed more. Are meats good or bad? Is free range meat better than grain fed and should it therefore get a tax reduction?

I agree with you - the decision are all arbitrary to an extent. I like having a free at the point of need Health Service - and if we pay for that (even if not ring-fenced) by taxing those who smoke, drink , and eat crap more than we tax those who play sports, go veggie, or are abstemious then it is fine with me (even though I pretty much fall into the former category)

 

If yiou are going to use a tax regime to attempt to change peoples eating habits are you going to encourage high carb or low carb diets? The idea is great in theory but I think fundamentally unworkable in practice.

taxing most often works on an proscriptive rather than prescriptive basis - you tax X, you don't tax every thing but Y. a tax on junk food, with funds being used to subsidize fresh food at a good price on a local basis excludes a very few forms of food; and is very inclusive, in that most food groups can get into the subsidy regime.