Printable View
Saw this news item from the UK today..
The proposal is to increase the tax on 'unhealthy' foods with a high salt, fat or sugar content, in an attempt to influence diets and make the population into lean mean racing machines just in time for global warming to drown everyone too fat to float.
Would a hike in sales tax on junk food make you change your diet, and is this sensible government policy or an invasion of personal choice?
how about they take care of the stupid people first, then the fat people
Sin taxes tend to have unintended consequences. The problem I see here: At what point is mass-processed food simply an economic reality for folks without much income? A major reason I tend not to wax poetic on the animal gig is I know (save some resourceful vegans etc) that we ain't to the point where this is realistic for dietary or other reasons.
It is fashionable to shop at Whole Foods. I am glad many ppl are willing to pay more for products that may be organic, less cruel etc. John Doe making 30K with 3 kids may lack the time and energy for this. He may just love Mickey D's.
The countervailing point I think is health care. Is the U.K. system being overburdened by disease brought on by poor dietary habits? You're getting into some serious govt control there though.
One question I do have for you: Do you know if advertisement is a write-off for taxes as a business expense in the UK? If so is it 100%? No big deal if you don't. It just ties in to a critique of anti-consumerism I found intriguing.
Jackie T
Our diet is already manipulated by similar means. Corn subsidies means there is a lot of high fructoses corn syrup in foods. So yes, a sin tax would effect consumption, but it is not a solution. But, unlike cigarettes and booze which are a luxury, food is not. Unless they are also going to subsidize healthy foods to make them both affordable and accessible, then they tax won't change anything expect how much tax revenue there is. People don't just eat junk food cause it is good, or cheap, but because it is also available all the time.
Also, as cigarette taxes have hopefully taught us, no matter how small it starts, sin taxes grow rapidly.
Now if they could guarantee that money would always be spent, 100% on getting people healthier food, I would back it without hesitation. But, like other sin taxes, the money seems to find new and exiting places to go. I think a more productive solution (although not a faster one) would be teaching kids how to cook and eat on a budget, why they monitor meals and what have you. They keep saying they do it, but all I ever got was the food pyramid and no idea where all these grains are supposed to come from
yes, and yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie T.
Man..they've banned knives, smoking anywhere but in your house and now they're gonna take away the junk food.
it's all a matter of time
The USA is missing out on a great promotional campaign here.. screw all that "land of the freeeeeee" stuff, they just need a little poster at the border saying
"Welcome to America. You can now smoke, eat burgers and blow things the fuck up. have a nice day."
Thanks. Canada went down to 50%. In terms of junk food, I doubt even targetting advertising budgets would work in the U.S. I would be curious to see how a direct tax plays out in the U.K. There is no question we have a problem with dietary practices here. Eliminating farm subsidies may help. The freedom question doesn't register with me. People will eat junk food anyways. If the govt is encouraging this through subsidies/favorable tax regimes, it is legitimate to put an end to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindgames
Jackie T
Advertising on TV for 'junk food' has been restricted though in the UK - adverts aren't allowed to target kids or run within childrens' shows, so it's only adults who are able to sit in front of the TV and think like Homer.. or kids who stay up late.. have their own TV... use the Web... walk out of their front door...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie T.
Instead of just taxing the bad stuff, why not spend the money and time passing laws for minimum food standards so the bad stuff is still safe to eat?
That'd be the way to go. The only obstacle would be companies that calculate losses from higher food standards ie fast food companies. You're in a better position to know how much clout these folks have bought in the UK. In the US, it would be damn hard to pass that legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindgames
Jackie T
they should jsut stop the subsidies for corn and potato then the market will adjust corn syrup and frenchfries to cost more without taxation
and increase prices on tall skinny lattes, or you'll be accused of only persecuting Alabama.Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki