High Taxes on Junk Food

Off Topic
21

As regarding the issue of worker improvement grants, no. By the way, my source for this is Fast Food Nation, which I believe to be credible, but if you know of issues with it, I’m objective and would like to know. My understanding is that worker development grants are supposed to support manufacturing as a whole, and that the Bush Administration has pushed for having food service classified as a manufacturing position, so we can bouy up the number of people being hired in that field.

I also understand that a lot of companies, including McDonalds, apply for these well-intentioned grants without having any intention of actually “training” workers to do anything more useful. However, I haven’t done more significant research, so if anyone would like to add to or subtract from my knowledge, I’d be grateful.

22

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I do not think the answer is taxing unhealthy foods or subsidizing unhealthy ones. That screams fascist to me. I think a better solution is a better breakdown on health and life insurance. Where some measures of fitness are instituted and also lack of risk factors such as good blood pressure and cholesterol. [/quote]

I might be inclined to agree with you, but why would that (insurance instead of up-front cost sin taxes) be less fascist?

Also, what about genetic factors in cholesterol, even if such predeposed people aren’t neccesarily at a risk of heart disease? Do you want to sin tax people for things that they don’t have a level of complete control over and may or may not lead to heart disease? An analagous situtation would be to tax me more since I’m taller, as I’m “predisposed” to advancement and high-income (for the record, I’m 6’2, and a poor graduate student).

23

If you are worried about funding your health system, how about you just use some of the $5.5 billion dollars that your government supplies the corn industry in federal subsidies?

Is there any economic data showing that high taxes lead to a reduction in demand? Also, not all fast food is bad for you. How do you make that distinction? I certainly wouldn’t trust anybody in government to do it.

Also, would you include it on shit food that you buy in a supermarket? It would be a bit unfair to hit Maccas with a tax for being unhealthy, but letting cheescakes get away with it.

FYI, Australia has a 10% Goods and Services Tax on all food that have been prepared by humans. That basically means everything but fresh fruit, vege and meat, and we are still as fat as a rhino’s ass over here.

24

[quote]Massif wrote:
If you are worried about funding your health system, how about you just use some of the $5.5 billion dollars that your government supplies the corn industry in federal subsidies?

Is there any economic data showing that high taxes lead to a reduction in demand? Also, not all fast food is bad for you. How do you make that distinction? I certainly wouldn’t trust anybody in government to do it.

Also, would you include it on shit food that you buy in a supermarket? It would be a bit unfair to hit Maccas with a tax for being unhealthy, but letting cheescakes get away with it.

FYI, Australia has a 10% Goods and Services Tax on all food that have been prepared by humans. That basically means everything but fresh fruit, vege and meat, and we are still as fat as a rhino’s ass over here.[/quote]

I think its time to tax that fat rhino ass into shape.

25

I don’t think it has much to do with money. As far as I can tell, there seems to be an indirect relationship between your income and your waistline. I know this is a HUGE generalization and it obviously does not apply to everyone, but I can’t tell you how many times I have seen a morbidly obese individual buy food with food stamps or a welfare check.

Kinda makes you wonder doesn’t it?

26

[quote]zarathus wrote:
Actually, the US government provides for a lot of hidden subsidy for the fast food industry, from the help they give to keep corn cheap (high fructose corn syrup) to work training grants they give to McDonalds so McD’s can say they are training and educating workers. Perhaps a good place to start would be by curtailing those.[/quote]

This is an excellent point.

It is time the government stops subsidizing corn and corn products.

High fructose corn syrup is in almost everything. It is not healthy at all.

They are also pushing soy on us. I don’t like that.

27

And just one more thing. Why would you penalise people you aren’t obese but enjoy the occassional foot long meatball sub with double meat, cheese and bacon because a bunch of fatasses can’t control themselves?

How about you just punish fat people. It’s simple - as soon as you reach 25% bodyfat, you get shipped off to do back breaking manual labour. You get to work off your debt to society and lose some pounds at the same time.

28

Trying to deal with the result of obesity problem in less efficient than dealing with obesity itself. Plus the whole question of whether medical care is a right (like it is in countries where it’s free, at least nominally) or a priviledge (USA) comes up. How is taxing junk food facist? How is it radically different from other government regulation?

[quote]Massif wrote:
If you are worried about funding your health system, how about you just use some of the $5.5 billion dollars that your government supplies the corn industry in federal subsidies?

Is there any economic data showing that high taxes lead to a reduction in demand? Also, not all fast food is bad for you. How do you make that distinction? I certainly wouldn’t trust anybody in government to do it.

Also, would you include it on shit food that you buy in a supermarket? It would be a bit unfair to hit Maccas with a tax for being unhealthy, but letting cheescakes get away with it.

FYI, Australia has a 10% Goods and Services Tax on all food that have been prepared by humans. That basically means everything but fresh fruit, vege and meat, and we are still as fat as a rhino’s ass over here.[/quote]

Frankly speaking, I never fully understood why in USA argiculture is so heavily subsidiesed. Corn definitely should not be subsidiesed.

However the main question is not how to fund health-care. The main question is how to have a healthier nation and hence reduce health-care costs.

Well, classical econ does tell us that higher taxes will reduce consumption of junk food and I think it’s common sense. In fact, I’d think that demand for junk food is rather elastic and that a lot of people eat it due to its low cost. As for real-life examples, I vaguely remember that increasing tobacco taxes reduces consumption.

When I mention junk-food, I include everything - fast-food, supermarket food, etc… Tax will depend on nutrition value of food. 2-3 different categories will suffice. We already have high taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Same can be done for any junk-food.

10% is not a significant tax, plus it doesn’t differentiate between healthy and un-healthy prepared food. I’m no economist, but to have an impact we probably need at least 40% tax. And such high taxes are not new in the developed nations - Israel, for example, has 100% tax on cars and electronics, I think.

29

I don’t know what you mean by indirect rl, but if you mean inverse relationship (which I think is in fact present), then it only proves my point. Lower economic class consumes considerably less fruits/veg and much more junk food than upper class. Hence it has bigger waistlines. Make it cheaper to buy healthy food, more expensive to buy junk - you have a healthier nation.

[quote]analog_kid wrote:
I don’t think it has much to do with money. As far as I can tell, there seems to be an indirect relationship between your income and your waistline. I know this is a HUGE generalization and it obviously does not apply to everyone, but I can’t tell you how many times I have seen a morbidly obese individual buy food with food stamps or a welfare check.

Kinda makes you wonder doesn’t it?[/quote]

30

You’re all so close-minded and judgemental. It’s a glandular problem…

31

I still can’t figure out where it’s the government’s job to give me health care in the first place. Someone want to fill me in? I certainly agree that they shouldn’t be subsidizing farmers but that’s really just because it’s again none of their damn business what farmers do with their excess, plus it’s bad for the economy. Henry Hazlitt makes a fantastic case for this specifically in a few of his economics books. Paternalistic government makes me sick and it’s so heavily ingrained in American life that they don’t even see it.

Mike

32

[quote]Massif wrote:
And just one more thing. Why would you penalise people you aren’t obese but enjoy the occassional foot long meatball sub with double meat, cheese and bacon because a bunch of fatasses can’t control themselves?

How about you just punish fat people. It’s simple - as soon as you reach 25% bodyfat, you get shipped off to do back breaking manual labour. You get to work off your debt to society and lose some pounds at the same time.

[/quote]

You mean kind of like mandatory work camps? I like that idea!

33

[quote]engerland66 wrote:
You’re all so close-minded and judgemental. It’s a glandular problem…[/quote]

LOL!

34

I think you have a good idea. I’ve thought of it myself, and realized that if the taxes were increased on junk food, wouldn’t the producers of the healthy foods start charging more. The higher the demand, the higher the supply must be. And that will lead to higher prices to supply the product. It’s a real good idea, but it probably wouldn’t work for that reason.
Il Don

35

Why? To achieve the goal. Plus tax increase will barely affect an occassional meatball sub eater.

I don’t think punishing fat people will work. As zarathus mentioned above, we’ll run into much bigger problems as some people are “naturally” fatter, some have medical/family history, etc.

Plus in general I think it is much better to promote good behaviour/habits rather than final results. Prevention is important. Taxation will just make it easier for people to make better food choices.

[quote]Massif wrote:
And just one more thing. Why would you penalise people you aren’t obese but enjoy the occassional foot long meatball sub with double meat, cheese and bacon because a bunch of fatasses can’t control themselves?

How about you just punish fat people. It’s simple - as soon as you reach 25% bodyfat, you get shipped off to do back breaking manual labour. You get to work off your debt to society and lose some pounds at the same time.

[/quote]

36

I’m all for personal responsibility (that’s why I don’t advocate complete junk-food prohibition).

Getting gym/health classes in schools, parks, promotion of more active lifestyle - we need that. Getting rid of soda and introducing healthy lunches in schools is a much needed idea. I pretty much try to think of ways to do the same in the adult world. If most people seem ok with enforcing “no junk food in school” policy, why would there be opposition to economic insentives to achieve that results beyond schools?

P.S. Arnold tried to pass legislation that only fresh fruit can be served in schools in CA. The last minute food-company’s lobby was able to amend the bill so that canned fruits in light syrop (hfcs, anyone?) will satisfy the requirements. Damn it!

[quote]zarathus wrote:
I have a theory, how about instead of the government stepping in (they already do, subtlely, but in negative or ineffectual ways), how about people take some personal resonsibility? Also, getting health and gym classes back in schools, get pop out of schools, healthy school lunches, stop making high fructose corn syrup so cheap, build parks, put your damn kids in the parks, aaaaaaagghhhhhhh! [/quote]

37

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I still can’t figure out where it’s the government’s job to give me health care in the first place. Someone want to fill me in? I certainly agree that they shouldn’t be subsidizing farmers but that’s really just because it’s again none of their damn business what farmers do with their excess, plus it’s bad for the economy. Henry Hazlitt makes a fantastic case for this specifically in a few of his economics books. Paternalistic government makes me sick and it’s so heavily ingrained in American life that they don’t even see it.

Mike[/quote]

Whether or not it’s government’s job to provide it’s citizen’s with health care is a very complex question. Gov’t should definitely make sure that everyone has reasonable access to absolutely necessary health care. Do you think first aid should be provided to those who can’t afford it? But this is getting off-topic

I edited my response to you on a previous page - I didn’t use correct quote tags at first.

The economical concept which you need to grasp is externalities. Personal choices of a single person affect many more people. The issue of obesity is getting out of hand and severely affects health-care costs. Should we try to fix it or not?

People who believe that unregulated free markets are an answer to everything make me sick.

38

This is monopoly case scenario. With enough competition, the prices will not rise much. Why is fast-food so cheap? Partially because there is rather stiff competition. Plus high tax on junk food will improve relative consumption of good food.

[quote]Il Don wrote:
I think you have a good idea. I’ve thought of it myself, and realized that if the taxes were increased on junk food, wouldn’t the producers of the healthy foods start charging more. The higher the demand, the higher the supply must be. And that will lead to higher prices to supply the product. It’s a real good idea, but it probably wouldn’t work for that reason.
Il Don[/quote]

39

[quote]skor wrote:
Why? To achieve the goal. Plus tax increase will barely affect an occassional meatball sub eater.

I don’t think punishing fat people will work. As zarathus mentioned above, we’ll run into much bigger problems as some people are “naturally” fatter, some have medical/family history, etc.

Plus in general I think it is much better to promote good behaviour/habits rather than final results. Prevention is important. Taxation will just make it easier for people to make better food choices.
[/quote]

MUST. PUNISH. FATTIES.

I don’t care if some people are naturally fatter or not. I don’t care if they have family histories of fatness. That just means that they will have more energy to spend digging rocks in my mandatory fat camps.

This part “Taxation will just make it easier for people to make better food choices” is pure and undiluted gayness with a side dish of horseshit.

You argue that it is better to promote better habits and awareness. People don’t eat Maccas now because they think it’s healthy. People know that they need to exercise more and eat less shit. People know what they should be doing but have no motivation. Well, at MMFC (Massif’s Mandatory Fat Camps) they will have plenty of motivation, because if you don’t do the work, you don’t eat.

You get fed a strict diet of protein porridge and ridicule after you do the work. Anybody who is still there after 6 months gets shipped to Japan to be used as land fill. We’ll make millions!!!

40

If they start taxing candy bars and big macs, I’m starting the Junk Food Revolution and taking over.

If I want to eat Mounds with almonds and Little Debbie’s I damn well will.