Fat tax?

[Judge_Dre]

I just read this article this morning. It concerns the debate on whether a "fat tax" on certain foods will cause a decline in obesity in America. As if we didn't already have enough taxes!

http://health.msn.com/dietnutrition/...21462&GT1=7538

[gangstadawg]

Originally Posted by Judge_Dre

I just read this article this morning. It concerns the debate on whether a "fat tax" on certain foods will cause a decline in obesity in America. As if we didn't already have enough taxes!

http://health.msn.com/dietnutrition/...21462&GT1=7538

OMFG WTF!!!! its bad enough some peeps cant heat their houses for the winter and they wanna start adding dumbass taxes.

[gangstadawg]

i know this thread is kinda old but im surprised by the lack of post.

[LillyBBBW]

Yeah, everyone has already taken a swipe at this on the old boards. This thing will never pass because it will have a devastating impact on the poor, the elderly, the infirmed and children. Especially now since they just proved that low fat eating is a sham.

[kropotkin_fan]

Hmm, a tough issue. On one hand, I think doing something about obesity is important, but on the other, I know this tax money is just going to be wasted on poorly planned wars and corporate interests. It will also probably hit many people too hard for the potential drop in obesity to really make it worth it, I suspect.

[Chimpi]

Forcing people to choose to eat what they want to...
Nice government.

[djewell]

This is basically an extension of the Cigarette Tax. That didn't work either. Smart people in Congress.

[TallFatSue]

I already pay a fat tax. Finding good comfortable fashionable clothing in my size is expensive. But I'm just vain enough to think I'm worth it.

[Phalloidium]

Originally Posted by djewell

This is basically an extension of the Cigarette Tax. That didn't work either. Smart people in Congress.

In Canada, we have a public healthcare system. Smoking-related and -caused illness and disease costs us tens of billions of dollars a year. Tobacco taxes are very much justified, likewise with alcohol.

Any socially negative activity should be taxed to discourage it.

[Phalloidium]

Originally Posted by Chimpi

Forcing people to choose to eat what they want to...
Nice government.

I think it's more a matter of it being cheaper to eat poorly than healthily. Good food costs more money, because it's more expensive to make. A fat tax would bring things more in line -- but it wouldn't do anything about sedentary lifestyles or much about overeating.

[Jon Blaze]

Once again with this fat tax....

I disagree with it completely. As Lilly said.. The poor would be greatly affected...

Another reason I don't agree is the fact that it's an attempt at invoking morals on society, and I know a lot of rebellion would start

THE ANTI FAT TAX MILITIA!!! Like that will happen.

[Totmacher]

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

In Canada, we have a public healthcare system. Smoking-related and -caused illness and disease costs us tens of billions of dollars a year. Tobacco taxes are very much justified, likewise with alcohol.

Any socially negative activity should be taxed to discourage it.

Taxes don't really discourage anything though. Some people cut down, but most still smoke, drink, and drive, (hopefully not at the same time) even people who have trouble making ends meet; they just bitch about the price more.

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

I think it's more a matter of it being cheaper to eat poorly than healthily. Good food costs more money, because it's more expensive to make. A fat tax would bring things more in line -- but it wouldn't do anything about sedentary lifestyles or much about overeating.

Well, if people can't afford to eat, maybe they won't. That might take care of the overeating Perhaps a tv/internet tax would round out that strategy... If, "they" were really interested in controlling what people eat they'd put some of the money into subsidizing food based on its, "healthiness".

[Phalloidium]

Originally Posted by Totmacher

Taxes don't really discourage anything though. Some people cut down, but most still smoke, drink, and drive, (hopefully not at the same time) even people who have trouble making ends meet; they just bitch about the price more.

Cutting down is better than not at all.

Well, if people can't afford to eat, maybe they won't. That might take care of the overeating Perhaps a tv/internet tax would round out that strategy... If, "they" were really interested in controlling what people eat they'd put some of the money into subsidizing food based on its, "healthiness".

That's a great idea! For instance, they should stop subsidizing corn production in the US. So much is overproduced that the price of corn products, especially corn (glucose) syrup is artificially low -- which means it's used as a sweetener in everything. Why is this bad? It increases the level of triacylglycerol in the blood stream, which is a factor in cardiovascular disease. It's also an appetite stimulant.

http://www.webmd.com/content/Article...m?pagenumber=1

[Totmacher]

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

Cutting down is better than not at all.

Yeah, but it's inverse logarithmic effectiveness. If you want to make a significant impact you'd need to double and triple the price of something.

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

That's a great idea! For instance, they should stop subsidizing corn production in the US. So much is overproduced that the price of corn products, especially corn (glucose) syrup is artificially low -- which means it's used as a sweetener in everything. Why is this bad? It increases the level of triacylglycerol in the blood stream, which is a factor in cardiovascular disease. It's also an appetite stimulant.

http://www.webmd.com/content/Article...m?pagenumber=1

I agree about corn subsidies and high fructose corn syrup, but I think it's a little more complicated than just that and taxes.

[Phalloidium]

Originally Posted by Totmacher

I agree about corn subsidies and high fructose corn syrup, but I think it's a little more complicated than just that and taxes.

It's a lot more complicated, unfortunately.

[EtobicokeFA]

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

In Canada, we have a public healthcare system. Smoking-related and -caused illness and disease costs us tens of billions of dollars a year. Tobacco taxes are very much justified, likewise with alcohol.

Any socially negative activity should be taxed to discourage it.

One thing that should be pointed out, is people will try to find loopholes in the law.

For example if our government raise tax on tobacco, the number of tobacco products being smuggled into the country shoots up.

I think the problem that fast food and snacks, are cheaper and easlier that good food. If we can balance it out we might have something.

[Totmacher]

/me imagines going to the nearest indian reservation every weekend to bootleg burgers.

[HereticFA]

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

In Canada, we have a public healthcare system. Smoking-related and -caused illness and disease costs us tens of billions of dollars a year. Tobacco taxes are very much justified, likewise with alcohol.

Any socially negative activity should be taxed to discourage it.

There are studies that show best health and longest life generally goes to those with higher education, work in a low stress environment and are in a hetrosexual marriage (the only kind available during the study).

You must support taxing those with less than a doctorate; are single, divorced or gay/lesbian; or chose to work in a high stress workplace since those fit with the concept of "socially negative activity" (as measured by impact to health)? Would you recommend a flat tax or have it scaled to the implied impact of the lifestyle?

If they open the doors to a fat tax justified by health issues, they open the doors to every aspect of everyone's life.

[Phalloidium]

Originally Posted by HereticFA

You must support taxing those with less than a doctorate; are single, divorced or gay/lesbian; or chose to work in a high stress workplace since those fit with the concept of "socially negative activity" (as measured by impact to health)? Would you recommend a flat tax or have it scaled to the implied impact of the lifestyle?

If they open the doors to a fat tax justified by health issues, they open the doors to every aspect of everyone's life.

The key here is taxing the unhealthy thing itself: the bad foods, not the person. Or alternatively, giving a tax incentive to good things. This is already happening with the things you mentioned. Tax deductions and grants are given for education. Couples receive special treatment under tax law, usually resulting in less tax paid than the two would have paid as singles (I live in an egalitarian country where gay marriage is a right).

I wouldn't recommend a flat or scaled tax. Instead, I'd go for a percentage based consumption (sales) tax on the harmful items (bad food, alcohol, tobacco, etc.)

The fact is taxes are already manipulated to promote various agendas. It's a good idea and should be furthered when there is a public cost for not doing so.

[Totmacher]

Ofcourse this completley ignores the rights of responsible junk food users, junk food users who have private healthcare, and junk food users who don't develop costly infirmities as a direct result of their junkfood usage. I guess in Canada you keep track of those things, right? I'm curious, how does Canada handle dual-income families? I've heard there's a, "marriage tax" in the US which discourages secondary breadwinners from being too succesful, for whatever reason I don't know, but that's what I've heard.

[Phalloidium]

Originally Posted by Totmacher

Ofcourse this completley ignores the rights of responsible junk food users, junk food users who have private healthcare, and junk food users who don't develop costly infirmities as a direct result of their junkfood usage. I guess in Canada you keep track of those things, right? I'm curious, how does Canada handle dual-income families? I've heard there's a, "marriage tax" in the US which discourages secondary breadwinners from being too succesful, for whatever reason I don't know, but that's what I've heard.

The rights of responsible junk food users aren't ignored. It's no different than taxing alcohol, which does not violate the rights of responsible drinkers.

And you're forgetting that we have a social healthcare system -- everyone uses it, including those who have supplemental private healthcare. As a social system, everyone pays. It's insurance. I may never need healthcare again -- or I may need treatments that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not every junk-food user will need it, but some will. It's the same argument for mandatory seatbelt usage (I pay for your treatment for flying through the window).

Being unmarried, I'm not too familiar with all the ins-and-outs of taxation for couples, but I do know there are benefits such as transferring tax credits and whatnot to the higher earner (who is taxed more) thus saving tax money.

[Totmacher]

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

The rights of responsible junk food users aren't ignored. It's no different than taxing alcohol, which does not violate the rights of responsible drinkers.

Welll, the tax on alcohol is justified differently, atleast here in the states. It's mostly because the powers that be want money and a little bit because they want universal temperance, not to pay for liver transplants and addiction counselling. All it really does is turn Alcohol into a luxury item though.

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

And you're forgetting that we have a social healthcare system -- everyone uses it, including those who have supplemental private healthcare. As a social system, everyone pays. It's insurance. I may never need healthcare again -- or I may need treatments that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not every junk-food user will need it, but some will. It's the same argument for mandatory seatbelt usage (I pay for your treatment for flying through the window).

No I'm not, I'm just suggesting that perhaps it violates the rights of people who never get sick to subsidize the less robust in general, and specificaly it would violate the rights of responsible junkfood users to have to pay a tax created solely to discourage junkfood abuse. Kinda like how denatured alcohol isn't taxed because you can't abuse it. Sorry I can't explain it better. I guess it's an ideological thing. In the states we justify seatbelt usage by emphasizing the need for personal safety, and, lately, locally, the fact that it's a $200+ ticket. As I understand it you're encouraged to wear seatbelts because you wouldn't want to have to raise taxes?
Hmmm, I guess I did forget that if you go to a private dr. or out've the country for medical care you still pay taxes... I guess in a perfect world you'd get tax credits for that.

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

Being unmarried, I'm not too familiar with all the ins-and-outs of taxation for couples, but I do know there are benefits such as transferring tax credits and whatnot to the higher earner (who is taxed more) thus saving tax money.

I see. It's like how if you buy a three ton car in the US you can deduct the price of the car from your gross reported income thus saving a percentage of the price.

[EtobicokeFA]

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

The key here is taxing the unhealthy thing itself: the bad foods, not the person. Or alternatively, giving a tax incentive to good things. This is already happening with the things you mentioned. Tax deductions and grants are given for education. Couples receive special treatment under tax law, usually resulting in less tax paid than the two would have paid as singles (I live in an egalitarian country where gay marriage is a right).

I wouldn't recommend a flat or scaled tax. Instead, I'd go for a percentage based consumption (sales) tax on the harmful items (bad food, alcohol, tobacco, etc.)

The fact is taxes are already manipulated to promote various agendas. It's a good idea and should be furthered when there is a public cost for not doing so.

The problem with this is that, if you tax the company that makes bad food. The company with just pass the cost on to the customer!

[HereticFA]

Originally Posted by Phalloidium

The key here is taxing the unhealthy thing itself: the bad foods, not the person.

Economics 101: The person always pays the tax, not the product. Anything else is transparent psychology that only increases resentment by the taxpayers. Taxes are only a way to increase income to the government. Everything else is simply a rationalization to cover government's inabilty to separate it's wants from it's needs.

Originally Posted by Phalloium

The fact is taxes are already manipulated to promote various agendas. It's a good idea and should be furthered when there is a public cost for not doing so.

It's a bad idea and this serves as a perfect example of the slippery slope argument. Eventually someone else will see internet usage as a contributor to some health problem and add in a "ten cent per connected minute" tax. There will always be someone, somewhere who sees a need to tax everything in everyone's life to stop them from doing it since everything carries a cost to the public. The concept of "tyranny of the masses" is real and this illustrates it very well. How about a tax on how many clothes you can own above a goverment determined threshold? How about taxing each pet you own over a similarly determined threshold?

We made a mistake in not objecting to this practice when it was used with alcohol and tobacco. It's sad to see the free acceptance of expanding of the idea elsewhere.

[Phalloidium]

Originally Posted by HereticFA

Economics 101: The person always pays the tax, not the product. Anything else is transparent psychology that only increases resentment by the taxpayers. Taxes are only a way to increase income to the government. Everything else is simply a rationalization to cover government's inabilty to separate it's wants from it's needs.

But! The person only pays the tax if they consume the product. If the product isn't necessary for life, then it's fair. Again, this only makes sense because of the social healthcare system here. If we didn't have that, I agree that the government would have no justification for taxing junkfood. I don't know how publicly funded the US healthcare system is.

Originally Posted by HereticFA

It's a bad idea and this serves as a perfect example of the slippery slope argument. Eventually someone else will see internet usage as a contributor to some health problem and add in a "ten cent per connected minute" tax. There will always be someone, somewhere who sees a need to tax everything in everyone's life to stop them from doing it since everything carries a cost to the public. The concept of "tyranny of the masses" is real and this illustrates it very well. How about a tax on how many clothes you can own above a goverment determined threshold? How about taxing each pet you own over a similarly determined threshold?

By that same argument, we shouldn't have laws against graffitiing of public property. Do you agree?

Originally Posted by HereticFA

We made a mistake in not objecting to this practice when it was used with alcohol and tobacco. It's sad to see the free acceptance of expanding of the idea elsewhere.

We also make a mistake in continuing to treat people who continue to drink and/or smoke by that argument.