4 ms·
I mean, if we were confident one particular food source contributes more to obesity than others, we have a solution that we know would work: tax it (and ideally
by scarmig 4y ago
I mean, if we were confident one particular food source contributes more to obesity than others, we have a solution that we know would work: tax it (and ideally dedicate revenues to some kind of universal food tax credit). People would consume less of it at the margin and then be less obese.
It would rankle some people, but so do taxes on alcohol and nicotine. My big concern is that I'm skeptical whether we can really identify those "bad" foods and that even if we could whether we could ensure the government would whitelist/blacklist the correct foods.
As far as lack of control goes, I'd be curious if fatter/poorer people would do worse on some kind of adult marshmallow test. Maybe see if you can get them to sit perfectly still for 20 minutes in exchange for a monetary reward. I don't have a strong sense that they'd do worse than skinnier/richer people.
- bombcar 4y agoThat's the solution everyone wants "identify bad food and tax/ban it" - but when apple juice has as much or more calories than soda, what do you do? A per-calorie tax might work if you rebated it correctly, but the mechanics of that would be insane. Perhaps it could be tied to basic income - we will tax calories at ten cents per calorie, and give each person 2000 calories (200$) a day ...
- scarmig 4y agoThat's interesting. A large side of fries at Macdonald's would be $50 (though I suppose everything else would also jump a lot in price). Definitely creates a strong incentive to consume less. Implementation wise, it probably would be best to begin at something like half a cent per calorie and then ratchet it up until we hit some target number (or until we discover it doesn't actually influence behavior). Then at the end of the year people get a $4000 dollar tax credit.