I wasn’t sure where to place this, Lifestyle, Health, or Constitutional Debate. I’ve settled for Domestic Policy since there seemed to be several tax discussions here.

Recently there has been a movement to pass a fat tax.



http://www.msnbc.com/news/927301.asp?cp1=1

I have a problem with this tax. Why should I be taxed when buying Snickers just because other people can’t push back from the table? Is this about good verses bad food or a good verses bad lifestyle (eating and exercise habits, etc)?

On the Defending the Indefensible thread, Mike and Wertz suggested that a topic I posted would make for serious debate. So, here goes…

Should all persons be taxed when buying “junk” food to help fund health promotion programs or should obese people pay a tax based on their weight that helps feed the hungry and homeless and/or fund health promotion programs?

Dumb idea. The gov't can't prevent kids from getting fat. Only parents can.

We don't need any more taxes. Especially when the proceeds will be spent on fruitless initiatives and gov't sponsored programs.

--cheers

For the latter question, it would be interesting see how that one would be put into practice. Mandatory weekly weighins for all citizens?

Junk food. I don't know. We exploit addictions to alcohol and tobacco by taxing the hell out of them. Most of the proceeds never go to the intended, they just stuff bureaucratic pockets with more layers of legislation and fat. I am against new taxes in general, so I am against this one as well. No one is going to back away from the chunky chews for a one percent increase in charge, and indigent people tend to be the higher consumers of junk food.

As long as the government is involved in health insurance, which is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future, there is a real social cost associated with obesity and other avoidable forms of illness. Those who incur the cost should bear it (that's almost a mantra for me), so it's reasonable to consider who contributes to the "obesity epidemic". Obviously the individual who eats too much and/or doesn't exercise enough is first and foremost, but other offenders might include junk-food manufacturers and advertisers, purveyors of sedentary entertainment, employers whose labor practices conflict with good health, etc. Ideally all of these costs would be recovered, but the cost of collection is likely to be too high for that to be worthwhile in all but the first case. Taxing the consumer is a reasonable approximation of collecting costs where they are incurred, and furthermore of taxing people in proportion to their contribution to the increased social cost. If you don't eat Snickers bars you won't be affected by the tax, while those who eat a lot will be the most affected.

It's certainly desirable for the tax revenue to match the costs that are used to justify the tax, and it would be even better if the "sin tax" were specifically earmarked to pay those costs instead of being tossed into the general pot, but the basic idea of taxing consumption seems sound enough to me.

I have to agree with Platypus. A government that is responsible for your health has the right to take actions to reduce costs associated with healthcare and to tax items that contribute to healthcare costs.

I think taxing unhealthy food is a fine idea. I'm sure I will pay my share of those taxes. But I am not so sure "fat tax" will work out as a good name.

Come on...A fat tax, are you kidding me? Are we going to tax everyone for the smaller amount of people who do unhealthy things? Should we have an acohol tax because there are acoholics in the country? Should social drinkers be forced to pay because of alcoholics. Should we tax everyone who doesn't work out. No, no, no, here's a good one, maybe we should tax everyone $100 per every pound they are overweight. This is ridiculous, the government has no business trying to differ me from eating a Big Mac because it is unhealthy. I know it's unhealthy is, just let me eat what I want for God's sake! Let's start letting people take responsibility for themselves for once what a concept.

CP

Um...anyone who buys junk food has already paid tax on that junk food... City, county, and state sales tax, state and federal income tax... If they were lucky enough to spend some of their tax rebate (pronounced 'overtax') on that junk food, they even got to pay taxes on their refunded taxes!

This is ridiculous. Add enough stupid taxes like this to the pot of tax revolt we've currently got brewing and eventually it's going to overflow.

And what about the real victims-- the trick-or-treaters?

A good (but twisted) case could be made that in order to promote the general welfare we need to ban all junk food. After all, if the government is allowing us to ingest something that they know is killing us, are they not partially responsible?

Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's tax air. Those who exercise breath more, right? Well, our air is polluted. Therefore, those who breath more (exercisers) ingest more toxins from the air. According to this school of thought, the health costs associated with the over-intake of dirty air should not be covered by those not breathing as much air. Right?

Now, add in to the mix that there are dozens of studies claiming that high-fat diets are good for us. Eating all fat, all the time is big business. So, which study do we use to gauge the "junk factor" of each food?

Do we tax butter higher than normal? Or do I have to declare how I will be using the butter? One tablespoon for my green beans, one tablespoon for dinner rolls for 4... What about if you're making toffee or some other candy? The butter still gets ingested, right?

Sorry I'm all over the place... it's hard to decide where to begin on a topic like this...

Mike

I liked what Platypus had to say about it, I think I agree with it to a large extent, but I don't think it would be feasible... and certainly not popular.

I think it makes sense that while most people don't feel they should have to pay a taxes because of the actions of a few, as long as you aren't engaging as much in the behavior (buying candybars or soda) you aren't paying as much in taxes. But, of course, when somebody wants to have their only allowed candybar of the week they might take it personally that they now have to pay an additional x amount in tax to purchase it.

The silver lining to personal complaints would of course be that people would refrain more from indulging in such foods to avoid the tax, thereby becoming slightly healthier. Heaven forbid, though...

Of course, if it isn't appealing enough that you might actually get healthier, look better on the beach or attract more sexual partners through healthy gains, you could always look at the other issue brought up by Platy:
I may be wrong, as I'm really not that well informed on how economic matters work, but it seems that tax payers are likely already paying more through the government's role in health care. Obese people are more likely to have medical problems and seek assistance. Placing a 1% tax on junk food, to me, seems insignificant in comparison to the tax dollars that probably go towards treating and maintaining those in our population who are already obese.

Unfortunately I don't think the reasoning Platypus mentions would quiet the angry masses. Regardless, I would support such a "fat tax" were it to be instituted. Having had experience in the fitness industry and dabbling some with nutrition, I doubt we'll see any truly comrehensive plan anytime soon, though. It really can get tricky trying to classify which foods qualify as junk food, whether you're going to base it around fat content, excess carbohydrates, added calories, cholesterol...

Grrrr. The number of people willing to pay more taxes always amazes me.

Why should a single mom with three kids, barely getting by, be forced to pay an extra special tax on the rare occasion she has enough money to take her kids to get ice cream?

I'm surprised to see anyone on the left in favor of this, being that it is basically a tax on poor people. For the rich fat people, this tax won't stop them. Then again, they're probably not using government healthcare. But for the poor and middle class people, this would add an extra one percent to much of their food purchases depending on whatever loose standard would be imposed. That extra one percent hurts the budget, and that is where it matters.

Taxes like this set a horrible precedent for future taxes. Anything that the government determines may bad for you could be subject to a tax.

For those who are fine with paying an extra tax, why don't you start paying it now? I am yet to find someone who writes their tax check for more than the exact amount due.

Think about it... The people who are in favor of paying an extra tax on junk food enroll in a "Save the Fat People" type program. For 60 cents a day, less than a cup of coffee, you could sponsor Jimmie, a 250 pound fourth grader in Wisconsin. His hobbies include eating bratwurst and cheese curds (the battered and deep fried kind). Jimmie is saving for a coronary bypass, and maybe even a pace maker some day!

Mike

LOL! I agree. That is my new favorite quote.

Mike, your so shallow...don't think about what you're paying for, just do it for the fat kids. Is that honestly the reasoning behind all of this, paying taxes to help people undo their eat as much as they want lifestyle, that is truly ridiculous.

CP

I'm only 20, so my experience with taxes has been considerably limited, Mike. I can, however, say with certainty that I am not a fan of taxes. I'm not opting in favor of a "fat tax" because my views sit to the left or to try putting poor people at a further disadvantage. I would support it because of the health benefits, which I perceive to take priority over an extremely brief material pleasure like a sugar rush.

As I said above, I'm not fine so much with paying an extra tax, but rather with encouraging Americans to change their eating habits for the sake of their well being. If you can't afford to purchase ice cream as often or if such a tax encouraged you to embark on a diet, you're gaining much more than you are losing. And if I understand the proposal correctly, as long as you aren't eating as much junk food, or you are abstaining from it entirely, you aren't paying the tax.

For me it comes down to a choice of whether a double scoop of rocky road every weekend or the few cents to super-size your value meal is worth the long term price of poor health, reduced physical capabilites, the high costs of medical bills, and a reduced life span. Common sense and concern for my health encourages me and many others to stick with a diet, with or without a fat tax. Some people don't see that or they don't have the discipline to stick with it. A tax like the one proposed would help them, and possibly reduce the number of taxes spent on health care, allowing us to save more by giving only a little.

Making a tax on this kind of stuff is just sick. In my ind, it's so incredibly dumb, i can't even begin to comprehend it. This is just like when they first decided to call them freedom fries. I honestly thought it was a joke. There are naturally going to always be obese people. It's just something we can't help. So, why tax junk foods? Wouldn't the obese persons simply go and eat more of another type of food? This kind of a tax is just pointless, and I find it quite depressing that our government is even considering this tpye of thing.

Why should that same single mom, still barely getting by, have to pay toward some other guy's bypass surgery, whether or not she has anything left over to feed her kids dinner, because that guy she never met couldn't control his appetite? The tax is paid, Mike, one way or another. It can be paid by the people who incur the healthcare costs, proportional to those costs, or it can be paid in some less fair way.

Snide comments aside, nobody likes paying taxes. What amazes me is how many of the same people who complain about the rich paying taxes to subsidize others' behavior don't seem to mind the frugal or health-conscious paying taxes to subsidize others' behavior.



Not quite. The key here is whether something creates a cost to society, not whether it's bad for you. The slope's not as slippery as you make it out to be.

Hey, here's a wacky idea!

Pay for your own friggin' bypass!

To more precisely apply Mike's argument, based on the logic of the 'fat tax', anything that has social costs can be justified for taxation.

I say we put a $1,000 per session tax on homosexual buggery. G'head, calculate the social cost of AIDS just in the homosexual population and see if there isn't opportunity to recover some dough for the public coffers. What's even better is, since they a) make more money than average, and don't have nearly as many kids to support, they can afford it. Progressive taxation at its best, sin tax soakin' the rich! Wooohooo! Of course, we'll strike down all the sodomy laws, but we'll use taxation to cover the "social costs."

Let's put a 10% asset "tax" on divorce, just like an estate tax, because the social costs of divorce are high. Make it 20% for couples that have kids, cause all them little delinquents in the makin' are gonna cost us. Chewing gum! Tax it more, we have to recover the costs of cleaning it off the streets. Ummmmm, what about video games? Boost the taxes on those also, they're "bad" and have social costs. Put a tax on Hustler, 'cause it has "social costs", and while you're at it, put one on Christianity Today, because we all know the "social cost" of allowing them religious wackos to have their own rag.

Hmmmm. Where else can we try to recoup some of the costs to society? Oh, yea. Let's put a $1.00 head tax on lettuce, because we know how much money is spent on social services for the illegals who pick the lettuce.

Hips. Hundreds of people die every year in because of their hips failing, with tremendous social costs. Hey, what about the social costs of sunburn. Hundreds of people are treated every year for really bad sunburn, thousands of days of work are lost, and let's not even talk about the increasing incidence of skin cancers as a result of the sun-loving shift in culture over the last 4 decades.

Tax the SUN!

We need a higher tax on dihydrous monoxide. Its a toxic substance that kills thousands every year, and does billions of dollars worth of damage, yet folks are demanding more, more, more. If we tax it more, then we can both reduce the demand and recoup some of the costs from the out of control use.

Rant aside, the "fat tax" is so incredibly stupid, moronic, and contrary to the American spirit that anybody, aside from a fireman who just lugged some fatty out of a burning building, supporting it should be whipped with Twizzlers.

Anybody getting this weird Cocteau deja vu feeling, or is it just me?

If government is going to provide a service, the fairest tax is user fees. Gasoline taxes are a legitimate source of revenue for a government that must clean the air and provide the roads those automobiles drive upon. Taxes on unhealthy food items are a more legitimate tax then medicaid and medicare taxes. A government that is responsible for your health has a right to limit costs and extract the revenue needed to provide for your health. With freedom comes responsibility. When you give up the responsibility to pay your own healthcare costs you also give up certain freedoms.

Is government going to subsidize fruits and vegetables and gym memberships? If we ain't getting rid of any other taxes to balance out the new food taxes then let us subsidize healthy foods and activities to make this proposal revenue neutral.

What an awesome topic. To the first question, I would say no. I am not fat, but I love to eat. I really love to eat ice cream, candy, and the like. I don't want to have to pay more for them because Suzy Fatpants can't control her appetite. If you are fat, and its not because of a medical condition, then its nobody's fault but your own. Not McDonald's, not Hershey's, not Mayfield's...its yours and yours alone. A tax on such fattening, unhealthy foods would be unfair to those who are capable of controlling themselves. To the second question, I would say maybe. If the logistics are achievable, then yes. If not, then no.

There never seem to be any shortage of idiots trying to find another way to get into my pocket.

Fine. Go ahead and tax me for being overweight. I deserve it for being such a lazy fat slob.

Then let me tax you for being stupid. Or being ugly. Or because you smoked two packs a day for 20 years and now you want that new iron lung with the built-in DVD player.

Let's start taxing those idiots who go off mountain climbing and break their leg and have to rescued. Let's tax those morons who happen to live on a flood plain and have to be resuced by the National Guard when the waters rise.

Let's tax all those prisoners who get free health care, room and board and food.

Let's tax the morons who dream up these incredibly brain-dead ideas.

My objections to this fat tax are not based on any inherent "taxophobia" (like most of those here), but that it just wouldn't work.

Obese people aren't obese JUST because they eat fast food - there are some obese people that don't, or don't often. They are (I am ) obese because they just eat more food (of all types) than they need, based on their BMR and the amount of exercise they take.

The UK isn't as far gone as the US in the levels of obesity, but were leading the chasing pack in Europe, for most of the same reasons. Our calorific intake has fallen over the past 50 years, but our levels of exercise have fallen further, so we are eating more than we use.

If "fat taxes" are a serious idea, then just tax plates and portions above a certain size (Europeans never quite get over the enormous portion sizes that Americans consider normal, no matter how many times they visit) and use the money raised to provide tax breaks for gym and sports club memberships - this could be a zero sum game.

Tax automobile journeys of under 1 mile - I've seen some Americans drive 200 yards to the corner store, and the ones that I've seen do that most often are the ones most easily described as obese.

Provide tax breaks to parents whose kids take exercise. Tax video games and TV - the things that keep kids (and many adults) indoors and inactive.

My point is that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of government using taxation to influence behaviour, just taxing fast food isn't going to do anything much on its own except give the government lots of money they don't currently have. Even people on the left (like me) don't think that's a worthwhile objective in its own right.

If costs can be calculated and attributed, and corresponding taxes levied at the point where the cost is incurred without the cost of collection exceeding revenue, then I'd say it's a fair tax - fairer than an income tax (which would go down), that's for darn sure. Most of your examples don't meet those criteria.

Why do people have such a problem with paying their fair share, as exactly as that can be determined? Why is "all you can eat" preferable to "a la carte" for taxes? As long as taxes are based on income rather than usage, people who create more costs than their taxes pay for have no incentive to do otherwise, and every incentive to keep pushing costs onto you and me. The libertarians should be in the front ranks of those calling for use-based taxes instead of income taxes; when we see them on the other side of the fence instead we know the limits of their interest in liberty.



After all of those gratuitous and counterproductive insults, are you going to put your money where your mouth is and take your own advice? "Pay for your own frigging bypass" was the phrase, I believe. Go ahead. Opt out of medical insurance, public or private. Take full financial responsibility for your actions, instead of pushing it onto the rest of us.

To others: if you think taxing products that lead to ill health is so bad, what's your solution? What tax or other means of recovering those costs - which aren't going away any time soon - do you think would be fairer? Why don't you put your own proposals up for others to jeer at? What's your excuse for taking money out of my pocket to pay for your own choices?

IMO, health insurance costs should be based on those with riskier behaviors. For example, my husband pays more for life insurance because of his occupation. If he chose to sky dive, also, we would be in potential financial trouble.
Maybe the insurance companies can charge extra for health insurance for people who are overweight, and engage in 'risky' eating habits?

side note...Julian...You look great! You are not in any way obese.

Neither does the 'fat tax.' That's a mighty big if you've got there regarding calculating the costs. To use a simple but extreme example, is the "cost to society" the same when a morbidly obese individual scarfs down a quart of Chunky Monkey the same as when an Ironman competitor does it? No. The nature of the food you eat is only part of the equation. An accurate calculation and attribution of the cost cannot be done because a) there are too many variables in personal eating habits, there are too many variables in individual physionomy, c) there are too many variables in personal activity patterns, d) all of these variables change over time, e) with the exception of allergic reactions and choking on your food, there is insufficient immediacy between the consumption of the "costly" (to society) food and the deletrious impacts. The calculation can't be made accurately, hence, it cannot be "fair."

I don't object to paying my "fair share", I object to the overuse of taxation as a means of social engineering. I object to taxation as a means of income redistribution. I object to taxation as a means of relieving people of personal responsibility.

Agreed. The "pushing of costs" is the core problem. Changing the tax structure to shift the costs of poor health habits from the general taxpayer to the specific unhealthy taxpayer begs the question: why should the government pick up the tab in the first place? That's a big reason why I object to this tax, cause its intent is to fund government activity that shouldn't be undertaken in the first place. If you believe that holding an individual responsible for the social costs of their actions through the tax code makes sense, then why waste so much on government overhead? If we're going to expect the irresponsible to pay the piper, why give Uncle Sam or Cousin Guvnah a cut? It makes no sense.

Private medical insurance is taking full financial responsibility, unless you object to voluntary commercial association. As for public medical insurance, I don't use it. Satisfied?

Gov't stops paying in the first place. See how easy that is? No costs to recover, no need for the taxes.

duh, you offered it. If only liberals had to pay taxes, the welfare state sure would wither in a hurry.

Some do, some don't, although I don't know of any that actually make risk assessments on eating habits, because those are too difficult for an insurance writer to evaluate accurately. A medical exam can give a fair assessment of current health, which is the real issue.

If we have to pay extra for "risky eating habits," why don't we have to pay for other "risky habits"? Why don't we have to pay extra for skiiers? What about mountainclimbers? The list of risky habits goes on and on. If we had to pay for every risky habit there was, nobody would have any money! For crying out loud, why not tax apples? Lord knows that anyone could choke on an apple!

*Edited because I forgot the apple part .

That's a reasonable point, but does that mean we should just give up and not try to make the taxes match the costs? No tax will perfectly capture costs, but use taxes come closer than paying for everything out of income tax. It's not a matter of perfectly fair but of fairer than the alternative; even an approximation should be preferable to throwing our hands up in the air and just charging everyone.



Fine, but's let's just say for the sake of argument that doing away with public health-care funding is not an option (which is the political reality). Would you still consider a use tax worse than an income tax? If not, why do you heap scorn on the former and remain silent on the latter?



If the criteria described previously can be met, I'd say skiers should pay for the increased risk, and everyone else's income tax should be lowered by a corresponding amount. In many of these cases the cost could even be built into the price of the commodity as is already the case for gas/alcohol/cigarette taxes, so the administrative burden would be fairly low.

BTW, for those who've started the familiar "social engineering" whine: this isn't social engineering. Social engineering is when tax policy is used to encourage (or discourage) a behavior just because it's "good" (or "bad"). What I'm talking about here is taxes that are used to recover quantifiable and attributable costs from the people who incur them. People eating themselves into a heart attack doesn't particularly offend me, more power to them as far as I'm concerned, but it costs me money and I don't like having people - hypocritical libertarians among them - reaching into my pocket.

I've gathered that I am somewhat of a libertarian, but I am admittedly slightly confused on this issue. I think I would like to see more use-based taxes than the general income tax, though.

As I understand it, your taxes are already going to those people who engage in riskier behaviors, Bean. The difference is that while you may pay the same percentage as an obese smoker with a smack addiction, that lost individual may actually be using thousands more in health care than you. He or she is actually benefiting from the tax whereas you are not.

If we were to charge people, however, for engaging in risky behaviors then they are getting more of what they pay for rather than what we are paying for, unless of course you are one of those individuals engaging in riskier behavior. I don't think we would necessarily have to tax skiers or mountain climbers extra throughout the entire year, but rather just apply additional taxes (in leu of other taxes) when they choose to engage in those behaviors.

Edited add: Didn't see Platypus's post, but I think he worded it slightly better than I...As far as the comments on "social engineering", I don't see such taxes as serving that purpose primarily, though I think they might inadvertantly alter the way in which some people choose to behave.

If they're going to raise taxes for "risk foods," then they just as well should raise taxes a little over all. Y'know, the all-or-nothing deal. Because as I see it, if you're going to start taxing one risk behavior, you might as well tax them all[I].

I think that's what Platypus was getting at (and what I was trying to support), Bean, when he said...
While skiing and obesity are the only two really mentioned, I believe he was referring it to apply across the board so as to lower income tax a "corresponding amount." Those not engaging in risky behaviors would benefit by having to pay less for the mistakes for others, while those engaging in such behavior would not necessarily be paying more (in an unfair sense), but rather paying their fair share in relation to their activities, obesity included.

The point Bean, Mike and I are trying to make is that if you are going to tax one "risky" behavior, how don't you tax all of them, and if you did that, we would live in a dictatorship.

CP

How in the world did you take a proposed change in tax policy and turn it into the rise of a dictatorship?

If a gov't controlls every aspect deemed "unhealthy" you will have a totalitarian gov't.

CP

First, the obvious: dictatorships have dictators.
Second: Nobody is suggesting we give the government control of every activity deemed "unhealthy." All we're talking about is reworking taxes so as to charge more for riskier activities while "everyone else's income tax should be lowered by a corresponding amount." (quoting Platypus)

We aren't saying the government should be able to forbid you from eating ice cream, from smoking a cigarette or from engaging in promiscuous sex. All it's saying is that the taxes would be reworked so as to reduce the income tax in favor of personal responsibility, people paying for their actions. That's not a totalitarian government.

Reduce income in favor of responsibility. My parents taught me to be responsible, I don't need a tax to re-teach me. Now, with that said, why should I pay for someone else's mistake? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

CP

Exactly. Welcome to our side.

All we're talking about is reworking taxes so as to charge more for riskier activities while "everyone else's income tax should be lowered by a corresponding amount." (quoting Platypus)

Government would lower taxes for not taking risks? In your dreams......

This is what you are already doing, Pat. You pay the same as somebody overeating and having government assistance on a triple bypass. You may not be using those services supplied by your tax dollars but somebody is. Why should you pay the same or more when you aren't reaping the benefits yourself?

If such a person as mentioned above is asked to pay higher taxes for risky activity, including horrible eating habits, all while reducing your income taxes, you are on the path to no longer having to pay for other people's mistakes.

I know, pat. I'm on your side here . The point was to express that if you're going to do one, you'd better do all the rest, because taxing risky behaviors is a fairly pointless concept, and you might as well complete it.

Dude, I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying the point you, I and Mike are making was...

CP

I do support an alcohol and cigarette tax because there is a fairly precise determinable consequence to drinking and smoking which I think you can cost out. Moderation in alcohol consumption may actually have some health benefits, but we are talking broad social costs. In general use taxes appeal to me as fair if there are provable costs.

In the case of taxing certain foods you are making judgements without clear evidence. Is refined sugar really bad for you? I think the jury is still out on that one. Different fats seem to have a variety of affects. Without more precise evidence of the specific food ->fat->ill health connection I think you are opening up a pandoras box that will lead to more heat than health.

How about simply encouraging more healthy eating habits and offering more opportunities and facilities for healthy physical activities.

Yes, I agree that taxing behavior just because it's risky would be suspect, but taxing it because it's costly - when the costs can be quantified and associated with particular commodites or actions - is a different matter. I consider it heinous that my income taxes pay for costs associated with other people's decisions, when a tax more closely - though of course not perfectly - associated with those decisions could easily be implemented.

Going back to Conservpat's point, is taxing something dictatorship? Is a tax on liquor the same as prohibition? I don't think so. Again, I'm not suggesting that things be taxed just out of some mushy-headed idea of something being right or wrong, or even vaguely good for society. All I'm suggesting is that revenues and expenditures be more closely associated with one another, and I'm astounded that so many people seem to be against that. Do people really like just paying lump-sum taxes and watching the government spend them without any consideration given to the connections between input and output? I don't think I'm the crazy one in this picture.

From the first post in the thread:

Noting that most of these taxes went into the states' general funds, the article called for small state and federal taxes on foods with low nutritional value, and dedicating the revenues to fund health promotion programs.

from the original question:

should obese people pay a tax based on their weight that helps feed the hungry and homeless
Is this a "Use tax" based on how the fatties burden the social net, or social engineering? You decide!

How does this next one sound, social engineering, or "sound" fiscal policy?
You decide!


From the latest good intentioned road builder:
Today Show, 12 June, 2003.

More gems from the Twinkie Tax crowd:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headline_de...EADLINE_ID=1667

I suggest you read Walter Williams' recent op-ed on this issue. Just in case you don't though, here's the closer:



http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.html


Incidentally, there are several things that are being overlooked here if we're going to indulge in some Erewhonian cost-accounting justification for "fat" taxes.

What about the BENEFITS to society? The computer programmer who, fueled by Doritos, pizza and caffeine, writes new software that increases the GDP by a few million dollars. Do Nabisco, Coca-Cola and Domino's get a tax credit? "Fairness" demands that they do. What about the fat opera singer who "greases her pipes" with a couple of eclairs? The jilted girlfriend who consoles herself with a pint of Haagen-Daz rather than running the jerk over? The person who kicks the bucket at 65 from a massive coronary at the Piggly Wiggly Rootin-tootin BBQ Cook-Off, rather than hanging around for another 30 years in an Alzheimer's haze on Medicare? Do we credit his heirs with the money saved?

That is the logic of your calculation. Brutal, cold, inhumane, and utterly incompatible with liberty.

If Williams had posted his article here, he'd probably earn at least a warning for phrases like "food Nazis". In any case, his non-argument is nothing more than an extended appeal to emotion with a few strawmen thrown in for good measure. Consider this:



Is anyone anywhere - but particularly here - seriously suggesting such a thing? You decide.

How are we supposed to determine which foods are 'risk foods'? Do we measure their caloric content based an a certain amount? Is anything over the designated number considered "risky"? This is a pointless and quite futile thing to do. If a person can't get enough of a certain food because it's risky, what's preventing them from eatinglarge quantities of another food, thus producing the same effect?

And how much are we going to jack up the prices with this tax on risk foods? Is a one dollar candybar going to become ten all of a sudden? This is stupid, and probably bad for the economy as well. Candy and other foods that could be classified as risky are a major source of income. If nobody buys these foods, or enough of these foods, because there's a tax on them, people lose jobs, companies lose money and go out of business, and we've suddenly got all of these former candymakers looking for new work. Due to this, it isn't logical to bost up the prices too much. If these risk foods aren't too much mroe expensive because of the tax, what's preventing people from buying them anyway, because they probably wouldn't care about spending an extra few cents on something they really enjoy.

A tax on these types of foods is pointless.

Bikerdad, lest there be any confusion on my position here...

While this was admittedly before I realized the benefits of possibly imposing use-based taxes, all while lowering the income tax, my response to Mike still included the benefits to society by allowing more people to save more money.

Since I've begun understanding the idea, I stand by it for the reasons primarily expressed by Platypus, recently summarized as giving "consideration to the connections between input and output." (Platypus)

Taking this into consideration, I don't know how you consider unhealthy foods as being responsible for the success of computer programmers, jilted girlfriends or theatrical performers. We know that unhealthy foods contribute to the decline in health in our society. I'm pretty sure we haven't drawn conclusive links between Doritos and information technology, Haagen-Daz and a decline in violent crime.

Edited to respond to BEAN:I don't believe the purpose is to tax them out of existence, but rather make it so that the tax money from these foods, or risky activities (etc.), goes to covering the costs incurred by them.

Please specify the "strawmen" that Williams raises.

As for the Dram Shop line, why do you find it so far fetched? Logically, it follows, especially given some of the quotes I provided in my last post. At least one other entity has already picked up on the possibility:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/cartoon_det...m?CARTOON_ID=45

And more than a few have caught the sarcasm, which apparently escaped you...

http://www.cobranchi.com/2003_06_01_DHEAYa....html#200412643

BTW, about that social engineering? Still want to claim that's not what this is about?

You aren't a programmer, are you?

Just did.



Here's the distinction I explained earlier:



I went on to expand on that in a later post:



Seems pretty clear to me. What part do you have trouble understanding? Also, when are you going to take a break from empty invective and answer the question I posed earlier?



Or this one?



We've all seen how quick you are to attack. Can you defend as well?

I really have a hard time understanding why anyone who opposes high taxes would oppose user taxes in place of income taxes. User taxes, to pay for healthcare, would result in better health; therefore lower expenditures on healthcare. This would mean lower taxes overall.

I think what the fear is that government will impose these user taxes and not cut other taxes to offset it.

That's what I think. The Florida lottery didn't lower tax rates, or improve education (which were the selling points when it was initiated). I am skeptical that these funds would go where it’s intended, and I would be speechless with amazement if the resultant revenue went towards curbing other taxes in any way.



According to the article, it isn’t geared towards curbing adult eating habits at all. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) are already-in-place government programs for prenatal health care and education. They are very effective and do not appear to have a lack of funding. Would those funds be redirected?

How will taxing fattening foods save in healthcare costs for Americans in any way? It certainly won’t change their eating habits, and the money (according to the article) won’t go into subsidizing direct health care costs, aside from preventative measures which we already have in place.

If billions of dollars spent on anti- fat propaganda doesn’t improve people’s eating habits, a one percent charge for food won’t. No one likes being fat. I’ll bet a really high user tax on cable television would be demonstrably more effective.

Platypus, you said, and I quote:

[quote]In any case, his non-argument is nothing more than an extended appeal to emotion with a few strawmen thrown in for good measure. Consider this:[/quote]

Not one, but two plurals. I'm still waiting for something other than the Dram law argument, which is a slippery slope, not a strawman. Oh, as an aside, back in the early '90s when the anti-tobacco steamroller was getting going and the tobaccy defenders warned that if the anti-smoking zealots had their way, a "fat tax" would be next, all the anti-smoking types pooh poohed them for raising a strawman, for arguing a slippery slope, for just being plain silly to raise such an absurd argument.

From here, in hindsight, prophetic is a better description.

You may call it whatever you choose, but the words of Ortiz, author of the "fat tax" bill in New York clearly indicate that it is social engineering. This "fat tax" effort looks exactly like the assault on tobacco, an assault that has had lots of "justifications", but only two outcomes. A massive wealth transfer that does not go to service the "social costs", and the forced expression of views that those paying for it wouldn't be saying if they controlled their own dime. Consider the "Truth" anti-smoking campaign, payed for by smokers.... Freedom of expression? Nope, more like "we will take your money from you because you are doing something bad, then we will use your money to re-educate you about the bad thing you are doing." Are we living in America, or Oceania?

All your rationales and justifications and hopes crash against the reality. If you really want to transfer the costs of poor eating habits to those responsible, then you simply stop paying for their healthcare. Its that simple. Anything else is about controlling others, i.e. "social engineering." I'm not the only one to come to this conclusion, that fortress of far right libertarian thought, US News & World Report recognized the same thing back in 1997.

http://reason.com/sullum/123197.shtml

The same conclusion has been reached in England. http://www.suntimes.co.za/2002/10/27/lifes...tyle/life19.asp

Now, I'd like to respond to two earlier questions: Why aren't I objecting as vigorously to the income tax, and why aren't Libertarians leading the charge on the fat tax?

You haven't heard a vigorous objection to the income tax in this thread from me for one simple reason. This thread is about "fat tax", not "income tax."

As for the Libertarians, my guess as to why they aren't at the forefront of "user fees" on this is because they disagree with the stated premise: that government should implement a "fat tax" in order to more closely conform the revenue source to the community served, i.e., a "user fee." One key Libertarian objection would be that an involuntary user fee for a service that may never be provided isn't a fee, and any claim to that effect is a misrepresentation. Another is that the core issue of personal responsibility restricts/prohibits gov't healthcare in the first place, so arguments over how to fund it are misplaced. Expecting a Libertarian to jump onboard the "fat tax" is akin to expecting a capital punishment opponent to take sides in an argument about whether or not the state can recover the costs of execution from the criminal's estate.

[quote]let's just say for the sake of argument that doing away with public health-care funding is not an option (which is the political reality). Would you still consider a use tax worse than an income tax?[/quote]

Yes, because the causal relationship between the consumption of Twinkie X by Citizen Y cannot be reliably linked with HealthDelivery B to Citizen Y, not to mention Citizens A, C, Z, etc.... A comparison of the "use" taxes on gasoline reveals that even the gov't understands this. The taxes on gasoline are for roads. Guess what? If you buy your gasoline and use it in the tractor on your farm, you can get a credit for most of the taxes you paid on that gasoline.... because your use of the gasoline incurred no cost to the public.

[quote]If not, why do you heap scorn on the former and remain silent on the latter?[/quote]

Use tax, income tax, it doesn't matter, the government basically shouldn't be funding healthcare. I heap scorn on the former and not the latter because, as noted, the former is the subject of this thread, not the latter. I refer you to the following [quote]We require posts to be constructive, and on-topic.[/quote] Also, in recognition of the "political reality", its a heck of a lot easier stopping the government from instituting a new tax than it is abolishing an existing tax, so my limited supply of scorn is best directed where there's more than a snowball's chance...

[quote]if you think taxing products that lead to ill health is so bad, what's your solution? [/quote]

Personal responsibility. Personal action, not gov't action. While we're on the subject, lets refute the misrepresentation, again. It ain't the products that lead to ill health, any more than guns kill people. The vast majority of people who are fat get that way because of the disparity between their caloric intake and caloric output, not WHAT they eat. There are people out there who eat massive quantities of raw sugar, and are whip thin.

[quote]What tax or other means of recovering those costs - which aren't going away any time soon - do you think would be fairer?[/quote]

Stop covering the costs, then you don't have to "re-cover" them, do you?

[quote]Why don't you put your own proposals up for others to jeer at?[/quote] Jeer away at personal responsibility.

[quote]What's your excuse for taking money out of my pocket to pay for your own choices?[/quote] I already told you, you've offered it. You're the one who wants to pay more taxes, not I. Unlike statists, I don't advocate sending the tax man around (backed by the police power of the state) in order to fund my choices. If I'm toolin' around on my motorcycle and screw up, ending up as a vegetable, I don't demand that the gov't reach into your wallet to keep me on life support. You're the one advocating that. Me, I'll either take my chances or get insurance, you know, that VOLUNTARY means of hedging against risk.


Now, to address Hugo's concerns:

[quote]User taxes, to pay for healthcare, would result in better health; therefore lower expenditures on healthcare. [/quote]
Or, the users could pay directly for their own healthcare, consuming only what they actually use, without the massive overhead (known economically as "waste") of government serving as the meddle, errrr, middleman, resulting in even better health and lower expenditures on healthcare.
[quote]This would mean lower taxes overall.[/quote] My plan would, "fat tax" wouldn't.

[quote]I think what the fear is that government will impose these user taxes and not cut other taxes to offset it. [/quote] Whatever in the world would lead you to hold such base and groundless fears?

You're just camping out on that hypothesis contrary to fact, aren't you? The government is involved in health care, the government will remain involved in health care. I've asked you twice if, given that fact, you would prefer a use tax or an income tax, and you have yet to provide a straight answer. You just keep going back to the counterfactual well for another drink, instead of reasoning about reality.



Back to demanding perfection, another fallacy known as moving the goalposts. Certainly, there's no causal relationship between a particular twinkie and a particular bypass, but there doesn't have to be. Our basis for comparison is not unattainable perfection but the very low standard of traceability inherent in paying everything out of one big income-tax pool. There is a statistical correlation between heart disease and consumption of certain foods, and a statistical correlation is good enough.