4 ms·

If eating meat is truly something that should be discouraged, it should be done in a way that has equal effect on rich and poor.

jordache 9y ago
it predicts this inevitability, but it should also be noted that it will be inevitable that humans can develop meat substitutes or artificially grown meat that is indiscernible from traditionally produced meats. In this context, yes you should definitely tax the latter, if the former are legit options.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
misja111 9y ago
Spot on! So the only solution is to combine meat tax with basic income.
MrQuincle 9y ago
Then the route is legislation. You're not allowed to eat more than X grams a day. Our technology is not advanced enough to enforce this in a customer friendly way. The other route is education. That will take a long time. The poorest are often also the ones that are difficult to reach using this route.
- petre 9y ago
  The commies used to do that in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union with meat being rationalized. They were exporting it to Western countries at dumping prices to obtain hard currency. It was quite unpopular. If you want a swift regime change, then go ahead and tax food or rationalize it.
- jacknews 9y ago
  So, meat rations? Of course there will be a black market trade in them, so you are back to rationing by price again, with the slight advantage that everyone gets a "universal meat income". I think it's impossible, and undesirable, to ration a commodity that people want, by dictat, perhaps even when there are strong negative health and social impacts, as with alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc. The route has to be by some form of economic penalty/redistribution, ie taxation (which people will accept to some degree), and/or through education, persuasion, cultural shift, etc.
  - MrQuincle 9y ago
    In the end I think the only answer is technological progress. If there is artificial meat, with sufficient small footprint, the debate is mute.
petre 9y ago
Then don't tax it. Rather than that, stop subsidizing it. Also pass legislation for propely labelling meat from livestock treated with antibiotics, listing the types of antibiotics used and the trace amounts present in the meat.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Ostensibly the "withdrawal period" means that there aren't trace amounts present in any meat. In the US, current labeling standards allow farms not using antibiotics to differentiate themselves by stating as much on the label (they must not use antibiotics as a feed additive). https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/6fe3cd56-6809-4239-b7a2-bccb82a30588/RaisingClaims.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/6fe3cd56-6809-4239...
- RightMillennial 9y ago
  Regarding the antibiotics, that's already the law. Additionally, I have veterinarian friend working for a state government in livestock inspections. She says there are no antibiotics in our meat, and that it hasn't been allowed for years.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    That is surely true for beef. For chicken and pork, I don’t think that is completely true.
ballenf 9y ago
Is that possible outside a totalitarian / authoritarian state? If so, would it work for jet travel, and all other sources of environmental stressers?
- petre 9y ago
  Yes, it is possible, but then you'll probably lose the next elections. Or perhaps even encourage riots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1902_Kosher_Meat_Boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1902_Kosher_Meat_Boycott Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
LeeHwang 9y ago
Something like a partial tax might be better. A tax that doesn't affect the meat, the lower classes buy. A much higher tax on the cuts of meat preferred by the upper classes. Ex. no tax on ground beef, but a very high tax on filet mignon or ny strip steaks. I personally think we can have a less divisive higher environmental impact by banning private jets.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Have you done the back of envelope calculation to compare private air miles to pounds of meat or are you just guessing?
notacoward 9y ago
That's a good and important point. Affluent folks like us can just shrug off such a tax, but that's harder for people who are already $fewdollars above having to skip meals entirely. If you want to make the wealthy feel a tax, you have to levy it on capital gains on companies engaged in that kind of commerce. Make it less profitable to invest in that area than in some other. Even better, as others have suggested, use the proceeds from the tax to fund development of alternatives. If I could have something that tastes like meat, but that can be produced with 10% of the greenhouse gases and chemical runoff and energy cost (including fertilizers), then I'd love it. We're getting close. Just a little push might get us over that line.
petre 9y ago
Good luck with that. The rich will just eat it in a country where it isn't taxed, like Argentina, buy it on the black market, or go hunting. The poor and the rest of us will end up paying the tax or eating even unhealthier industrially processed substitutes.

jordache 9y ago

it predicts this inevitability, but it should also be noted that it will be inevitable that humans can develop meat substitutes or artificially grown meat that is indiscernible from traditionally produced meats. In this context, yes you should definitely tax the latter, if the former are legit options.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

misja111 9y ago

Spot on! So the only solution is to combine meat tax with basic income.

MrQuincle 9y ago

Then the route is legislation. You're not allowed to eat more than X grams a day. Our technology is not advanced enough to enforce this in a customer friendly way. The other route is education. That will take a long time. The poorest are often also the ones that are difficult to reach using this route.

petre 9y ago
The commies used to do that in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union with meat being rationalized. They were exporting it to Western countries at dumping prices to obtain hard currency. It was quite unpopular. If you want a swift regime change, then go ahead and tax food or rationalize it.
jacknews 9y ago
So, meat rations? Of course there will be a black market trade in them, so you are back to rationing by price again, with the slight advantage that everyone gets a "universal meat income". I think it's impossible, and undesirable, to ration a commodity that people want, by dictat, perhaps even when there are strong negative health and social impacts, as with alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc. The route has to be by some form of economic penalty/redistribution, ie taxation (which people will accept to some degree), and/or through education, persuasion, cultural shift, etc.
- MrQuincle 9y ago
  In the end I think the only answer is technological progress. If there is artificial meat, with sufficient small footprint, the debate is mute.

petre 9y ago

Then don't tax it. Rather than that, stop subsidizing it. Also pass legislation for propely labelling meat from livestock treated with antibiotics, listing the types of antibiotics used and the trace amounts present in the meat.

maxerickson 9y ago
Ostensibly the "withdrawal period" means that there aren't trace amounts present in any meat. In the US, current labeling standards allow farms not using antibiotics to differentiate themselves by stating as much on the label (they must not use antibiotics as a feed additive). https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/6fe3cd56-6809-4239-b7a2-bccb82a30588/RaisingClaims.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/6fe3cd56-6809-4239...
RightMillennial 9y ago
Regarding the antibiotics, that's already the law. Additionally, I have veterinarian friend working for a state government in livestock inspections. She says there are no antibiotics in our meat, and that it hasn't been allowed for years.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  That is surely true for beef. For chicken and pork, I don’t think that is completely true.

ballenf 9y ago

Is that possible outside a totalitarian / authoritarian state? If so, would it work for jet travel, and all other sources of environmental stressers?

petre 9y ago
Yes, it is possible, but then you'll probably lose the next elections. Or perhaps even encourage riots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1902_Kosher_Meat_Boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1902_Kosher_Meat_Boycott Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

LeeHwang 9y ago

Something like a partial tax might be better. A tax that doesn't affect the meat, the lower classes buy. A much higher tax on the cuts of meat preferred by the upper classes. Ex. no tax on ground beef, but a very high tax on filet mignon or ny strip steaks. I personally think we can have a less divisive higher environmental impact by banning private jets.

maxerickson 9y ago
Have you done the back of envelope calculation to compare private air miles to pounds of meat or are you just guessing?

notacoward 9y ago

That's a good and important point. Affluent folks like us can just shrug off such a tax, but that's harder for people who are already $fewdollars above having to skip meals entirely. If you want to make the wealthy feel a tax, you have to levy it on capital gains on companies engaged in that kind of commerce. Make it less profitable to invest in that area than in some other. Even better, as others have suggested, use the proceeds from the tax to fund development of alternatives. If I could have something that tastes like meat, but that can be produced with 10% of the greenhouse gases and chemical runoff and energy cost (including fertilizers), then I'd love it. We're getting close. Just a little push might get us over that line.

petre 9y ago

Good luck with that. The rich will just eat it in a country where it isn't taxed, like Argentina, buy it on the black market, or go hunting. The poor and the rest of us will end up paying the tax or eating even unhealthier industrially processed substitutes.