3 ms·

Or more simply, you could not subsidize the cheap unhealthy options at source (eg corn subsidies). But until very recently, I would absolutely have still chose

by flir 3y ago

Or more simply, you could not subsidize the cheap unhealthy options at source (eg corn subsidies). But until very recently, I would absolutely have still chosen the unhealthy option. I'm not sure how much impact 20% on a bag of Doritos is really going to have.

ethbr1 3y ago
Not sure you're going to shift US corn subsidies without changing the electoral system. ;) To me, substitutability is key. If you tax unhealthy food, but unhealthy food is the only option (from physical, financial, and time perspectives), people just pay more to eat unhealthy food. If you tax unhealthy food, but also require healthier and low-cost options at the same establishment, then people begin to have options. I.e. do I want a $10 Big Mac or a $3 grilled chicken sandwich? Even getting the Big Mac less often would be a net win. And I call bullshit if McDonald's tries the "But it's impossible to run healthy food through our supply chain..." argument.
- flir 3y ago
  I'm saying I would have picked the unhealthy option. I know this, because I spent decades doing it when I certainly wasn't hurting for money. Maybe on a population level it would work, and I'm just atypical. Can we look at sin taxes on cigarettes and draw any conclusions?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Apparently the relationship between income and obesity is complex enough to vary by race and gender. Which is to say, not tightly coupled. (CDC studies) Cigarettes are a great example of missing substitutability. If you smoke, and the price of cigarettes increases, what options do you have? My version of an anti-smoking campaign would have drastically boosted the price of cigarettes and used to tax to decrease the price of nicotine patches or gum. If there aren't alternatives at the point of sale, there aren't alternatives.
    - flir 3y ago
      > If there aren't alternatives at the point of sale, there aren't alternatives. I agree. But most of my bad food choices are made in supermarkets. Next time you're at a checkout, look for the healthy trolleys and the unhealthy trolleys. Honestly, the difference is stark. (When I go on a health kick, I find it amazing how many aisles I just don't need to walk down. So much processed food). On the tax point I'm going to try to argue you away from the concept of hypothecated tax, because I think it's almost always a bad idea. Money is fungible, and taxation all goes into a single pot. Tying tax and spending together is a rhetorical trick, meant to manipulate public opinion - whenever you see a politician doing that, there's a good chance they're trying to con you. If we're going to put a sin tax on something, we should do it because it's the right thing to do. If we're going to fund a health programme, we should do it because it's the right thing to do. But these decisions are orthagonal. Tying them just unnecessarily binds government's hands wrt future policy changes. Worst-case, you end up funding obsolete health programmes, "because that's what the tax is for".

by flir 3y ago

ethbr1 3y ago

Not sure you're going to shift US corn subsidies without changing the electoral system. ;) To me, substitutability is key. If you tax unhealthy food, but unhealthy food is the only option (from physical, financial, and time perspectives), people just pay more to eat unhealthy food. If you tax unhealthy food, but also require healthier and low-cost options at the same establishment, then people begin to have options. I.e. do I want a $10 Big Mac or a $3 grilled chicken sandwich? Even getting the Big Mac less often would be a net win. And I call bullshit if McDonald's tries the "But it's impossible to run healthy food through our supply chain..." argument.

flir 3y ago
I'm saying I would have picked the unhealthy option. I know this, because I spent decades doing it when I certainly wasn't hurting for money. Maybe on a population level it would work, and I'm just atypical. Can we look at sin taxes on cigarettes and draw any conclusions?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Apparently the relationship between income and obesity is complex enough to vary by race and gender. Which is to say, not tightly coupled. (CDC studies) Cigarettes are a great example of missing substitutability. If you smoke, and the price of cigarettes increases, what options do you have? My version of an anti-smoking campaign would have drastically boosted the price of cigarettes and used to tax to decrease the price of nicotine patches or gum. If there aren't alternatives at the point of sale, there aren't alternatives.
  - flir 3y ago
    > If there aren't alternatives at the point of sale, there aren't alternatives. I agree. But most of my bad food choices are made in supermarkets. Next time you're at a checkout, look for the healthy trolleys and the unhealthy trolleys. Honestly, the difference is stark. (When I go on a health kick, I find it amazing how many aisles I just don't need to walk down. So much processed food). On the tax point I'm going to try to argue you away from the concept of hypothecated tax, because I think it's almost always a bad idea. Money is fungible, and taxation all goes into a single pot. Tying tax and spending together is a rhetorical trick, meant to manipulate public opinion - whenever you see a politician doing that, there's a good chance they're trying to con you. If we're going to put a sin tax on something, we should do it because it's the right thing to do. If we're going to fund a health programme, we should do it because it's the right thing to do. But these decisions are orthagonal. Tying them just unnecessarily binds government's hands wrt future policy changes. Worst-case, you end up funding obsolete health programmes, "because that's what the tax is for".