The Fat Tax

[Ozymandyus]

People drink soda primarily because it tastes good. For this to be effective, the tax would have to be high enough to overcome the soda's flavor, you would literally have to make it so expensive that people can't enjoy drinking it, and even then, the effectiveness of such a tax would decrease as the consumer's income rises.

I disagree that this is the primary reason people drink soda. We clearly see low price increases demand pretty significantly with regard to soft drinks, and advertising and previous exposure also are HUGE factors. Futhermore the 'good taste' is directly affected by the marketing and widespread availability - we drink it because it's always there as an option, and because we grew up drinking it etc.

As for a tax decreasing in effectiveness, you'll notice that wealth often directly correlates to obesity - poor people currently see a much higher rate of obesity than wealthier. Anyone that buys their own food knows that its much cheaper to eat high calorie high sodium foods than it is to eat vegetables or other healthier foods - I didn't start eating healthy until I started making more money. That's what I'm saying is a problem.

 

[GoodKat]

I disagree that this is the primary reason people drink soda. We clearly see low price increases demand pretty significantly with regard to soft drinks, and advertising and previous exposure also are HUGE factors. Futhermore the 'good taste' is directly affected by the marketing and widespread availability - we drink it because it's always there as an option, and because we grew up drinking it etc.

Perhaps I should have said "because they enjoy it". I personally love carbonation, I really wish companies would start carbonating fruit juices.

As for a tax decreasing in effectiveness, you'll notice that wealth often directly correlates to obesity - poor people currently see a much higher rate of obesity than wealthier. Anyone that buys their own food knows that its much cheaper to eat high calorie high sodium foods than it is to eat vegetables or other healthier foods - I didn't start eating healthy until I started making more money. That's what I'm saying is a problem.

So you're basically saying that it doesn't matter that it won't effect more well to do people as much because they don't really need it? I suppose that makes sense.

 

[Synystyr]

You just said poor people are more likely to be fat than rich people, and you want to tax cheap food as the solution... :roll: I hope you see the irony of that. That's just the tip of the iceberg. What about the poor people outside of America? What about the farmers whose livelihood depends on exporting their crop? When you try to play god with price controls, okay, you may help a handful of fat Americans out of 300 million, but you're not saving anyone who lives off of farming natural ingredients like sugar by artificially decreasing demand. In the extreme, these companies will say "f this s" and go elsewhere where there's no tax killing their business, and in the very extreme, we'll have black markets for tax-free goods. All of this, while doing nothing to address the price and supply of healthy processed foods. Demand INCREASES price, if you're trying to bring cheap foods on an even playing field with expensive foods, you're going to end up making expensive foods more expensive as they "become an alternative". This is a wasteful, risky, and unproductive way of saying to people "diet and exercise".

 

[Ozymandyus]

I said I want to tax unhealthy food and subsidize healthy food.

If businesses decided to stop selling soda in the U.S. - no sweat off my back. I'm not talking about taxing all food, crazy dude. I'm not even talking about directly taxing crops, so exports wouldn't be affected at all (Though I would remove subsidies of corn crops that are used to create high fructose corn syrup). Also, we're not talking about little farmers here you know, I'm sure at least 99% of the high fructose corn syrup that goes into these softdrinks is from mega-industrial farms. Small farmers almost universally grow healthier crops because they don't have the equipment to mass harvest and process things to make cheap corn syrup etc.

You are completely misrepresenting the truth of this situation - The price of exports is not changed by excise taxes. The demand for high fructose corn syrup and perhaps some other sugars would decrease, but that would lead to growing different products or simply not process corn into high fructose corn syrup. This will increase production and processing of healthier food will drive DOWN the price of healthier foods.

Thus expensive foods would not become more expensive, as production and marketing would shift away from the goal of making americans drink 25% more soda a year (the stated goal of coca-cola) and INTO making healthier foods more cheaply. There are production side economics at work here which is ultimately what needs to be influenced.

 

[Synystyr]

I don't think you're going to have much luck taxing Coca Cola to subsidize a competitive healthier substitute. Imagine if I tried to take from you, to subsidize your neighbor, who seeks to take your market share and put you out of business. Its completely bankrupt. I don't care how bad Coca Cola is, that kind of social engineering is harmful. I'm not saying exports will be taxed, but the refined goods obviously will be and that effects everything down the line. You can't seriously believe that a tax designed to harm massive businesses is not going to change the pricing structure of related goods. You can say we're going to tax certain food products, but if your goal is to get people to stop eating bad foods that (to paraphrase someone else) "clog our healthcare system" through a "fat tax", its either going to fail and people neglect it, or just grow the list of taxed foods (taxing ingredients to bake cakes or cookies for example). The worst part is that when you subsidize certain companies with tax dollars, especially undemocratically, you're picking winners and losers and destroying potential competition which is what helped make Coca Cola so big the in the first place. I'm all for ending corn subsidies, but picking winners from someone else's proceeds only creates conditions that keep healthy foods more expensive than they would be when subjected to real competition. You'll end up with a Coca Cola of healthy foods that remains unchallenged. That aside, I'm not a right winger and I'm not saying healthy foods have no place in the market, there are other ways to promote healthy food, and for reason's sake, without promoting this fundamentally bankrupt government and quasi-central planning.

The last figures I read, crops like sugar are imported well over 50%. I understand that these big corporations own much of the land, but they certainly don't work it. Its the "peasants" who will be the first to suffer pay cuts for decreased demand, and I don't think they would be all too happy hearing that they need even lower wages during a global recession because fat Americans need to stop being fat, as if its their fault.

 

[ahdkaw]

As with Synystyr, are you fucking serious?

I was really trying to make a point regarding personal freedom. The "I like soda pop, don't tax it" argument, is a dead argument.

There should at least be a level of taxation on it, there are serious health risks associated with excessive sugar intake, whether you take it seriously or not.

And as far as I can tell these 'outrages' appear more to be about commodity taxation as a revenue generating source, rather than the actual sugar.

If taxation is fair across the board, and unhealthy lifestyles cost more, then more people would live healthier lives. Those who haven't, will have paid plenty of taxes so should get the very best treatment for any illness attained from such a lifestyle.

Commodity taxation is just one method that can be employed effectively. But there are the associated risks of imbalances in the global economy, raise the taxes too high, and a black-market will thrive. Subsidisation also has similar risks to the local and global economies.

 

[ahdkaw]

After a good walk with the dog, I have reconsidered my opinion on this slightly.

It could well be argued that sugar is an 'essential' and hence should not be taxed, and I get that argument completely.

I'm just not sure it will work because of the grey areas surrounding it. This is when everything starts getting murky, do we consider anything as sugar-based as non-essential? Would that make the sugar sprinkles on cakes taxable? etc.

But on principal, if everything was equal and fair (which is isn't), I wouldn't see much of a problem with a tax on sugar.

 

[WolfAU]

"are serious health risks associated with excessive sugar intake"
There are health problems with over-consumption of ANYTHING... usually thats where we draw the line at 'over' consumption, when it starts having side effects.

Again, to me this all sounds like slippery slope... as based on this logic we could easily create a system where we record what an individual has consumed that week, and if it exceeds a healthy dose a GST tax is applied to it... have bacon and eggs two or more mornings a week and the price goes up...

And this can go for any food or service capable of misuse or over use to cause physical harm... with the lines of what we consider sufficient harm increasingly becoming more and more vague, and then we start including vague ideas of emotional side effects (ie taxing skimpy dresses because they promote image disorders). Its a problematic way of thinking that quickly leads to 'fascism, for your own good'... because lets not forget, the government knows whats best for us.

You can't replace free will, and forcing peoples hands towards the 'right thing' in such ways usually leads to people being brought up without any willpower to speak of.

And besides, I'd rather have fun than live forever without any kind of guilty pleasure. I know this isn't about banning soft drinks, but I'm taking issue with the whole style of thinking (and with those who argue taxing cigarettes and alcohol till they are prohibatively costly, in Australia we pay insane tax on alcohol and parliament nearly passed a law to further increase it).

 

[Synystyr]

I'm glad you reconsidered to some extent. The thing is, if people's weight was not directly linked to sodas, which it clearly ISN'T, you would HAVE to establish a base tax for elementary goods that contribute to bad health if you aim to make Americans healthier, which is coercive to begin with. This is demonstrable here:

A tax on soft drinks and other sweetened beverages and higher taxes on alcohol are among the options U.S. lawmakers will consider to pay for expanded healthcare coverage

So who decides what gets taxed? What is "sweetened"? I'll tell you, a politician or a health czar. Wouldn't it be convenient for a politician to be able to raise taxes on whatever he decides is "sweetened".

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, and other Democrats, argue that an overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system is needed to control soaring costs

Instead of FIXING the healthcare system, tax subsidies are going to basically pay for them to be increasingly inefficient and remain under the government's fingertips (like they have been). The government and all its pals are just looking to pay for their money grubbing, lobbying ways.

Here's the kicker:

Senators will look at a mix of taxes and cost savings to pay for a healthcare overhaul that aims to provide affordable medical coverage for all Americans, including an estimated 46 million who have no insurance . . . President Barack Obama wants Congress to pass the overhaul by the end of the year. He has called for a $634 billion "reserve fund" in his budget as a downpayment toward expanding coverage to the uninsured.

Its clearly not a tax that is directly intended to make people make healthier decisions anyway, its about getting more money from you and then telling you you're getting affordable insurance. Think about how the system will look with 46 million more people, I'd be surprised if Sprite doesn't become the new Cristal. Take away the subsidies, get rid of the lobbies and politically connected, and make these damn insurance companies compete with eachother like they're supposed to, not with the consumer.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

How about instead of taxing the crap out of people, we start getting rid of pointless government projects and branches that only serve to suck up money from tax payers? We could then funnel the money saved into national health coverage, if we absolutely have to have it.

Oh wait, that makes too much sense, of course the clowns in congress wouldn't think of it.

 

[wilmracer]

I tend to be in favor of taxes such as this, but I have very little trust in the government to use the money made from this tax to support healthier lifestyles.

The company I work for charges nearly $700 more a year for health insurance if you are a smoker, and they have floated the idea of a "fat" tax as well, but they haven't figured out how to put that one into effect.

I personally gave up all fried food nearly 5 years ago and only drink soda in EXTREME moderation. Frankly the only time I have soda is when it is mixed with Jack Daniels. I don't expect everyone to go that route, but it has made a huge improvement in my health.