4 ms·
Correct. Further, while I support a sugar tax, on public health grounds, I'd much rather we stop subsidizing sugar production (esp HFCS). But ending subsidies
by specialist 4y ago
Correct.
Further, while I support a sugar tax, on public health grounds, I'd much rather we stop subsidizing sugar production (esp HFCS).
But ending subsidies for corn, sugar beets, etc. is still a non-starter. Because Electoral College and US Senate.
So we're stuck with virtual signaling our displeasure towards harmful agricultural policies with impotent measures like soda taxes.
Meanwhile, like this OC suggests, we absolutely should be investing and subsidizing in healthy drinking water. It's CRAZY that people in places like Flint MI and Jackson MS cannot safely consume their own tap water.
- kennend3 4y agoThis!. Your post touches on several key points. The US "anti-subsidy" laws where they put duties on products they deem were government subsidized, while CORN is massively subsidized. "Subsidies for corn—the most abundant crop in the United States—have far surpassed those for any other crop, estimated to have totaled more than $116 billion since 1995." One has to question the logic here. Use tax dollars to subsidize the price of corn, which leaves the country awash in HFCS and "ethanol" to find creative ways to get rid of all the corn. Then attempt to tax the HFCS later? Seems removing the subsidy would cause the price of HFCS to raise but we cant do that due to powerful lobby groups? These "sugar taxes" always have so many exemptions to feed some special interest groups requirements creating an ever-increasing complex set of laws.