7 ms·

Obesity should be taxed, but indirectly. Taxing people with an eating disorder seems mean. Let's nudge them in the right direction by adding a massive federal

Obesity should be taxed, but indirectly. Taxing people with an eating disorder seems mean. Let's nudge them in the right direction by adding a massive federal healthcare tax to sugars at the wholesale level. Let's see how many Oreos you eat when they go from $2 to $20 per box. This is politically challenging because people hate taxes and farmers & processed food companies like money and they're organized. That said, we managed to tax cigarettes despite tens of millions of smokers and plenty of tobacco farmers and even RJR Nabisco.

bufferoverflow 9y ago
That will just create a black market. Prohibition doesn't work.
- carlmr 9y ago
  Taxes aren't prohibition. Alcohol taxes work in most market, despite having a similar effect on price.
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    Insane taxes that increase the cost of the product 10 times is a form of prohibition. It doesn't even matter what you call it, you just created a black market with 900% margins. Alcohol taxes are quite low in most states: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/Spirits-Excise-Tax-Rates-2014%20%282%29.png https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/Spirits-Excise-T... The comment above suggests a $18 tax on a tiny $2 pack, 14 Oz. That's very different from a few cents per bottle tax.
    - GordonS 9y ago
      > Alcohol taxes are quite low in most states The world is bigger than the USA! Look at Norway, for example, which has high alcohol taxes and even runs a state monopoly for alcohol over a certain strength (ftom memory, ~4%
      - bufferoverflow 9y ago
        Norway tax on alcohol is around $63 per liter of pure ethanol. So your 5% 0.33 liter beer only has $1.05 tax.
        ci5er 9y ago
        Woah! So about +$30 for a bottle of vodka? I assume that this is just for ethanol to drink, right? Bio-ethanol as fuel wouldn't work if it weren't separated. How do they keep the ethanol-as-fuel out of ethanol-as-commestable apart? Also - at that tax-level - do they attempt to keep people from home-distillary?
      - mft_ 9y ago
        ...and has a well-recognised problem with binge-drinking, likely as a direct result. The high cost of alcohol has minimised or removed the 'social' aspect from drinking culture for many people - rather, people get hammered on cheap booze at weekends.
        GordonS 9y ago
        > ...and has a well-recognised problem with binge-drinking Norway? I've worked for a Norwegian company for over 15 years, and I've spent a lot of time there over those years. And I've never seen bing-drinking or heard of it as a "well-recognised problem" there. > rather, people get hammered on cheap booze at weekends Sorry, what cheap booze? IME, what you state is just not the case. Alcohol always seems to be a social thing, more of an event even, likely because of the price. Norwegians tend to be more like connoisseurs of good quality alcoholic drinks - because so much of the cost is tax, you can buy high quality aquavit, whisky and craft beers for the same price as what would be considered 'pish' here in the UK.
        carlmr 9y ago
        I also had Norway in mind when I wrote this.
nopinsight 9y ago
In the short run, we could even use some of the taxes to compensate producers and induce them to switch to producing healthy food. That should help take some objection away from agribusiness. For consumers, the taxes should be earmarked to subsidize healthy food and thus increase demand for it. Therefore, consumers do not pay more taxes in aggregate and that should reduce objection from fiscal conservatives.
- fludlight 9y ago
  The problem is that some climates are massively more efficient at producing one crop over another. Switching corn subsidies to vegetable subsidies would reduce the value of farms in Iowa and increase the value of farms in California. Explicitly regional subsidies might work (CA farmers get $0.01 per carrot while IA gets $0.05). Some people will decry this as another market distortion, but that's the point.
ekianjo 9y ago
People with eating disorder have themselves to blame so it would be entirely fair to tax them just like we tax smokers since they are at elevated risks of various diseases as well.
carlmr 9y ago
While I agree in principle, I have my trouble with politicians deciding what's healthy and what's not. With sugar it seems to be a clear cut case by now. But just imagine your policy implemented in the 90s. They would have heavily taxed fat and eggs. The obesity epidemic would have been even worse, because poor people would have substituted with carbs. Nutritional "science" is less science than advice. And it's often wrong. Just look at the number of bs studies on chocolate is healthy, wine is healthy etc. They're famous because everybody likes chocolate and wine. My best guess is that having a glass of wine in the evening is correlated with people who are a) more well-off, b) cook at home and c) have enough moderation not to drink a whole bottle of wine. Having moderation is generally good for you. People who eat dark chocolate? Well they probably aren't people with such a sweet tooth (otherwise they'd eat milk chocolate), and that is in general a healthy thing to have. Nutritional science is 99% bunk, and filtering through that noise is nigh impossible. I'm wary of politicians calling shots on this basis.
- zb 9y ago
  Or we could just stop massively subsidising sugar (in the form of HFCS). Crazy, I know. Why does everyone think that politicians are clueless numpties when they're deciding what to tax, but omniscient geniuses whenever they're deciding what to subsidise?
  - Mountain_Skies 9y ago
    Earmarks and subsidies are some of the most criticized aspects of the legislative process. Those who benefit directly from the subsidies of course are in favor of them, others simply feel powerless to do anything about them.
  - carlmr 9y ago
    >Why does everyone think that politicians are clueless numpties when they're deciding what to tax, but omniscient geniuses whenever they're deciding what to subsidise? I don't agree that everyone thinks that way. Most people like me are wary of both taxation and subsidies. IMHO there shouldn't be any subsidies on food for the same reason. We don't know enough about food to make smart decisions. So I'm all for a complete cut of subsidies. But not for taxation to control buying behavior.
apatters 9y ago
This approach is super goofy because refined sugar and corn syrup are already heavily subsidized by the federal government. Instead of adding another layer of distortions to correct the first one we should start by looking at why the current regulations exist and what the consequences will be if we unwind them.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Aren't the subsidies for US sugar various forms of protection from cheaper imports? That's beneficial for producers but shows up as higher consumer prices.

bufferoverflow 9y ago

That will just create a black market. Prohibition doesn't work.

carlmr 9y ago
Taxes aren't prohibition. Alcohol taxes work in most market, despite having a similar effect on price.
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  Insane taxes that increase the cost of the product 10 times is a form of prohibition. It doesn't even matter what you call it, you just created a black market with 900% margins. Alcohol taxes are quite low in most states: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/Spirits-Excise-Tax-Rates-2014%20%282%29.png https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/Spirits-Excise-T... The comment above suggests a $18 tax on a tiny $2 pack, 14 Oz. That's very different from a few cents per bottle tax.
  - GordonS 9y ago
    > Alcohol taxes are quite low in most states The world is bigger than the USA! Look at Norway, for example, which has high alcohol taxes and even runs a state monopoly for alcohol over a certain strength (ftom memory, ~4%
    - bufferoverflow 9y ago
      Norway tax on alcohol is around $63 per liter of pure ethanol. So your 5% 0.33 liter beer only has $1.05 tax.
      - ci5er 9y ago
        Woah! So about +$30 for a bottle of vodka? I assume that this is just for ethanol to drink, right? Bio-ethanol as fuel wouldn't work if it weren't separated. How do they keep the ethanol-as-fuel out of ethanol-as-commestable apart? Also - at that tax-level - do they attempt to keep people from home-distillary?
    - mft_ 9y ago
      ...and has a well-recognised problem with binge-drinking, likely as a direct result. The high cost of alcohol has minimised or removed the 'social' aspect from drinking culture for many people - rather, people get hammered on cheap booze at weekends.
      - GordonS 9y ago
        > ...and has a well-recognised problem with binge-drinking Norway? I've worked for a Norwegian company for over 15 years, and I've spent a lot of time there over those years. And I've never seen bing-drinking or heard of it as a "well-recognised problem" there. > rather, people get hammered on cheap booze at weekends Sorry, what cheap booze? IME, what you state is just not the case. Alcohol always seems to be a social thing, more of an event even, likely because of the price. Norwegians tend to be more like connoisseurs of good quality alcoholic drinks - because so much of the cost is tax, you can buy high quality aquavit, whisky and craft beers for the same price as what would be considered 'pish' here in the UK.
        carlmr 9y ago
        I also had Norway in mind when I wrote this.

nopinsight 9y ago

In the short run, we could even use some of the taxes to compensate producers and induce them to switch to producing healthy food. That should help take some objection away from agribusiness. For consumers, the taxes should be earmarked to subsidize healthy food and thus increase demand for it. Therefore, consumers do not pay more taxes in aggregate and that should reduce objection from fiscal conservatives.

fludlight 9y ago
The problem is that some climates are massively more efficient at producing one crop over another. Switching corn subsidies to vegetable subsidies would reduce the value of farms in Iowa and increase the value of farms in California. Explicitly regional subsidies might work (CA farmers get $0.01 per carrot while IA gets $0.05). Some people will decry this as another market distortion, but that's the point.

ekianjo 9y ago

People with eating disorder have themselves to blame so it would be entirely fair to tax them just like we tax smokers since they are at elevated risks of various diseases as well.

carlmr 9y ago

While I agree in principle, I have my trouble with politicians deciding what's healthy and what's not. With sugar it seems to be a clear cut case by now. But just imagine your policy implemented in the 90s. They would have heavily taxed fat and eggs. The obesity epidemic would have been even worse, because poor people would have substituted with carbs. Nutritional "science" is less science than advice. And it's often wrong. Just look at the number of bs studies on chocolate is healthy, wine is healthy etc. They're famous because everybody likes chocolate and wine. My best guess is that having a glass of wine in the evening is correlated with people who are a) more well-off, b) cook at home and c) have enough moderation not to drink a whole bottle of wine. Having moderation is generally good for you. People who eat dark chocolate? Well they probably aren't people with such a sweet tooth (otherwise they'd eat milk chocolate), and that is in general a healthy thing to have. Nutritional science is 99% bunk, and filtering through that noise is nigh impossible. I'm wary of politicians calling shots on this basis.

zb 9y ago
Or we could just stop massively subsidising sugar (in the form of HFCS). Crazy, I know. Why does everyone think that politicians are clueless numpties when they're deciding what to tax, but omniscient geniuses whenever they're deciding what to subsidise?
- Mountain_Skies 9y ago
  Earmarks and subsidies are some of the most criticized aspects of the legislative process. Those who benefit directly from the subsidies of course are in favor of them, others simply feel powerless to do anything about them.
- carlmr 9y ago
  >Why does everyone think that politicians are clueless numpties when they're deciding what to tax, but omniscient geniuses whenever they're deciding what to subsidise? I don't agree that everyone thinks that way. Most people like me are wary of both taxation and subsidies. IMHO there shouldn't be any subsidies on food for the same reason. We don't know enough about food to make smart decisions. So I'm all for a complete cut of subsidies. But not for taxation to control buying behavior.

apatters 9y ago

This approach is super goofy because refined sugar and corn syrup are already heavily subsidized by the federal government. Instead of adding another layer of distortions to correct the first one we should start by looking at why the current regulations exist and what the consequences will be if we unwind them.

maxerickson 9y ago
Aren't the subsidies for US sugar various forms of protection from cheaper imports? That's beneficial for producers but shows up as higher consumer prices.