Ethics of a punitive junk food surtax

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, I think most of you could probably predict what I would say about a punitive junk food surtax, and how I would go about trying to ethically justify it. What do you think?

[Alferd Packer]

On the one hand, it'd be a great revenue stream. Fat people, generally speaking, will work very hard to stay fat, or rather, resist all that will make them thin or healthy. So, even in face of the taxes, Big Mac sales will not suffer that much, if at all.

On the other hand, we should recall that obesity is highest amongst the poor and/or stupid. I'm not sure I can justify a tax that will primarily affect the poor/stupid, especially when so many exist already (alcohol, tobacco, the lottery, etc.). I'm not sure that punitively taxing the stupid will necessarily remedy anything. Does it provide mechanisms for making them any less stupid? Does it provide mechanisms for making them less poor? If so, then maybe I could see such a tax as being desirable.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'd do it in an instant. I would also make sure the revenues from such a tax would go towards subsidising the healthier foods that are often out-of-reach of the lower working class families. This way, you use your free market hand of much encouragement to gently make people avoid fatty, high salt and sugar snacks and soft drinks and go towards the leaner, more balanced foods and fruit juices/smoothies.

Given the Tonight programme's little trial some time back with one estate family having their rowdy teenage boys go on a nutritionist's optimised diet, to come out and begin acting like model kids; such a tax would be fully justified in society.

[General Soontir Fel]

We tax tobacco. We tax alcohol. There really is no difference here.

The only problem I see is a practical one: you'd need the law to define what is and isn't junk food. Any law of the sort that has a chance at passing will be full of loopholes that either 1)turn the whole thing into a joke or 2)favor the food companies with the best lobbyists over their competitors. And that might make the situtation worse.

Ethically, it's no different than a tax on cigarettes or alcohol. If a clear, non-loopholed law could be passed, I'd support it 100%.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You have tax bands for foods depending on content. You could use the traffic light system being implemented in the UK (though there are also stores making their own system alongside the gov't traffic light one; it's like HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray with diets) to make red branded foods the highest taxed and green with little or no tax.

[Rye]

If it would make hospitals better able to deal with it, sure. On the other hand, I don't give that much of a shit, but pissing off hardcore libertarians is its own reward.

As for defining junk food, I would start by taxing everything cooked in transfats.

[Metatwaddle]

On the other hand, we should recall that obesity is highest amongst the poor and/or stupid. I'm not sure I can justify a tax that will primarily affect the poor/stupid, especially when so many exist already (alcohol, tobacco, the lottery, etc.). I'm not sure that punitively taxing the stupid will necessarily remedy anything. Does it provide mechanisms for making them any less stupid? Does it provide mechanisms for making them less poor? If so, then maybe I could see such a tax as being desirable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think part of the reason why obesity is highest among poor people is that fatty foods devoid of nutritional value are cheapest. I think the junk food tax would correct for this a bit, especially if Valdemar's modifications went through as well.

I would also make sure the revenues from such a tax would go towards subsidising the healthier foods that are often out-of-reach of the lower working class families. This way, you use your free market hand of much encouragement to gently make people avoid fatty, high salt and sugar snacks and soft drinks and go towards the leaner, more balanced foods and fruit juices/smoothies.

It wouldn't do anything about stupidity though.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It wouldn't do anything about stupidity though.

That's where the genius bit comes in. The subsequent generations of physically, and therefore, mentally healthier people stimulates learning again, revitalising the populace's intellectual state. It won't be a miracle and get rid of all idiocy from the world, or that which is simple apathy or intolerance, but it should make the future a less shallow, less anti-elite society whereby new disorders aren't found every week and kids are not bored, mindless, short attention span morons.

If even part of that comes true, it'll be worth it.

[Coyote]

If a box of Cocoa Puffs is cheaper than a box of Kashi Whole-Grain cereals, then the average WalMart shopper will buy the Cocoa Puffs. Same with snack foods-- a protien bar is hideously expensive compared to a three-pack of Twinkies. Right now it makes economic sense to buy junk food for people on a budget.

The long-term, aggregate cost benefit and savings won't be felt until later, but it is a savings that will benefit everyone across the board, from trailer moms to corporate executives. If a healthier overall diet eventually means less heart disease, less obesity, less diabetes, and other lessened health costs, then the health care and insurance industries will face less of a burden.

I think it is crazy not to tax junk food. Sometimes people have to be forced to do the right thing. Switching to unleaded gas was one thing; $500.00 fines for littering, what have you...

[General Zod]

If a box of Cocoa Puffs is cheaper than a box of Kashi Whole-Grain cereals, then the average WalMart shopper will buy the Cocoa Puffs. Same with snack foods-- a protien bar is hideously expensive compared to a three-pack of Twinkies. Right now it makes economic sense to buy junk food for people on a budget.

The long-term, aggregate cost benefit and savings won't be felt until later, but it is a savings that will benefit everyone across the board, from trailer moms to corporate executives. If a healthier overall diet eventually means less heart disease, less obesity, less diabetes, and other lessened health costs, then the health care and insurance industries will face less of a burden.

I think it is crazy not to tax junk food. Sometimes people have to be forced to do the right thing. Switching to unleaded gas was one thing; $500.00 fines for littering, what have you...

If they can somehow create subsidies for healthy food in the process to make it more affordable so people don't have to be forced to choose between rent and food, I'd be all for taxing junk food.

[Pick]

I'm all for this. I'd love to see crap food taxed to hell and healthy food perhaps not taxed at all. I hate going to the store and spending more than my friends do merely because I buy apples and greens while they buy chips and candy.

[Cairber]

I make meals from (almost) scratch every night (yeah, there are a few frozen veggies in there now and then, some cans every so often) but I have not found it to be all that expensive. I am not sure I believe the argument that junk food is cheaper. I have no problem making junk food even more expensive, but I do wonder if there are other factors making the poor buy the junk food. I save a lot of money by making fresh foods. For example, for my husbands' lunches I make sandwiches. a loaf of bread, enough meat for the week, lettuce, tomato, cheese (package lasts a long time), and mayo (again, lasts a while) runs me about 10$ (more if its a week were I need to buy more mayo or mustard). And thats an entire weeks lunch sandwiches.

[Cairber]

Right now it makes economic sense to buy junk food for people on a budget.

This is what I was talking about in my above post. I don't see this as being true at all. I buy groceries on a strict budget, coupons and all. I don't see, in real life experience, the junk food being cheaper. Maybe in some parts of meal preparation; for example, a bag of frozen broccoli is cheaper than buying the same amount fresh. But a bag of chips is not cheaper than cheese sticks or other healthy lunch snacks. Soda is not cheaper than generic juice brands (even ones that are not from concentrate). Even frozen juice is cheaper than soda.

[Tahlan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think part of the reason why obesity is highest among poor people is that fatty foods devoid of nutritional value are cheapest. I think the junk food tax would correct for this a bit, especially if Valdemar's modifications went through as well.

I would also make sure the revenues from such a tax would go towards subsidising the healthier foods that are often out-of-reach of the lower working class families. This way, you use your free market hand of much encouragement to gently make people avoid fatty, high salt and sugar snacks and soft drinks and go towards the leaner, more balanced foods and fruit juices/smoothies.

I agree with Discombobulated, but I think there is another similar/related factor as well. I think there is a "pleasure factor" as well. Lower socio-economic people have limited resources and can't afford the luxuries and entertainment of middle- and upper-class people. And so they indulge in the one thing they can enjoy, and can justify the expense of: food.

[LordShaithis]

I think the police should kick in your door if they have evidence that you're in there eating unhealthy, and drag you off to jail. Because someday your fat ass will probably have a stroke, public health system, tax dollars, blah blah blah, therefore I own you.

Oh wait, this isn't the smoking thread...

No, but really, I don't have a problem with cigarette taxes and I don't have a problem with this idea. (At least not in theory, though any given implementation is likely to have bitch-worthy details.) I'm confident that everyone making money selling junk food now would jump through hoops to produce something desirable yet healthy enough to evade taxation if it came down to it, and that's good for me as a consumer.

[Darth Wong]

I think the police should kick in your door if they have evidence that you're in there eating unhealthy, and drag you off to jail. Because someday your fat ass will probably have a stroke, public health system, tax dollars, blah blah blah, therefore I own you.

Oh wait, this isn't the smoking thread...

I guess you're too dense to realize that banning something does not necessarily mean it would be a felony offense, or that it would be punishable with prison time instead of fines. We ban parking in a fire lane too, so are you about to launch into a diatribe about how evil jackbooted thugs will knock down your door and haul you off to jail because you parked in a fire lane once?

No, but really, I don't have a problem with cigarette taxes and I don't have a problem with this idea. (At least not in theory, though any given implementation is likely to have bitch-worthy details.) I'm confident that everyone making money selling junk food now would jump through hoops to produce something desirable yet healthy enough to evade taxation if it came down to it, and that's good for me as a consumer.

No they won't. They'll continue selling junk food and they'll pour their money into political lobbying.

[Coyote]

We need to find a way to make junk food as socially unpalatable as cigarettes; and brands like "Hostess" "Dolly Madison" and "Frito-Lay" need to be treated with the same public scorn as "Phillip Morris".

The catch to all this? Philip Morris owns a lot of the junk food brands, would you believe it? When the axe began to fall on cigarrettes, PM just quietly pushed junk food to make up the loss. (my mom had stock in Phillip Morris for a long time).

No tax at all on food that meets certain nutrional requirements, and "sin taxes" on junk foods. And, make sure the FDA is on th eball so that Nabisco doesn't just toss a couple grains of fiber in there, call it "healthy" and try to re-sell it at the non-taxed rate.

[Solauren]

Tax it, tax it , tax it.

Put the money into education.

Stupid and Poor people can't afford the taxed goods? Good! Then they won't eat it and become fat, or will lose weight from not eating so much of it.

Rich people can? That's why. They can also afford the liposuction and surgeries, and not put a strain on public health support in the mean time.

[apocolypse]

Right now it makes economic sense to buy junk food for people on a budget.

This is what I was talking about in my above post. I don't see this as being true at all. I buy groceries on a strict budget, coupons and all. I don't see, in real life experience, the junk food being cheaper. Maybe in some parts of meal preparation; for example, a bag of frozen broccoli is cheaper than buying the same amount fresh. But a bag of chips is not cheaper than cheese sticks or other healthy lunch snacks. Soda is not cheaper than generic juice brands (even ones that are not from concentrate). Even frozen juice is cheaper than soda.

I've noticed similar myself. I think where the issue lies is more the short term vs. long term meal planning. It may seem more expensive to go out and buy $20 worth or chicken breast or what have you at one time, but you'll be able to make more meals with that $20 dollars worth of meat than you would from spending the equivalent amount of money at a fast food restaurant.

[Howedar]

I'd be all for a tax on junk food.

[LordShaithis]

I guess you're too dense to realize that banning something does not necessarily mean it would be a felony offense, or that it would be punishable with prison time instead of fines. We ban parking in a fire lane too, so are you about to launch into a diatribe about how evil jackbooted thugs will knock down your door and haul you off to jail because you parked in a fire lane once?

Either that or the statement was obvious hyperbole.

No they won't. They'll continue selling junk food and they'll pour their money into political lobbying.

Hence the qualifier "if it came down to it". I don't really think such a tax would come through our plutocratic political process with any teeth left, but if we assume by act of thread that it did, then those companies would be forced to either adapt or take it in the ass.

If we assume as a premise of the thread that this tax is hopelessly condemned to political defeat, then talking about the potential benefits at all is pointless. If we squint and imagine a scenario where it comes into and remains in force, then blithely selling only the usual taxed foods while throwing money into the political arena is a recipe for ruin.

[Covenant]

Yeah, it's lazy.

I'm not for banning people's choices, but I'm more than happy to put an additional tax on the shit. People eat it, get fat, get unhealthy, don't exercise because being fat and unhealthy makes that uncomfortable, drive more, eat more, and all around add so much more stress on infrastructure that there's no reason not to tax it.

As for cheaper, I think it's cheaper in terms of input/output of labor and money. Going to McDonalds is extremely cheap if you just get everyone some burgers and fries. For a little amount of money you can feed a lot of people, have them feel satisfied and enjoy their meal, and it takes very little time. If you're poor or overworked or both, like a single mom would be, it's the sort of thing you can pick up for your kids and yourself at the end of the day and not have any complaining.

Working two jobs and then trying to prepare a chicken breast in a way that kids are going to like might take another hour and a half on your feet, as well as extra shopping and other stuff. To the mom, who probably doesn't have the education or the energy to know what she's doing is wrong, there's no reason not to buy wonderbread, get fast food every day for dinner, and buy non-diet soda.

Add into that a lot of the wierd ethnic perceptions about food, such as resistance to diet sodas and the like, and you have a situation where even if people had access to similarly inexpensive good food, they simply wouldn't buy it. They'd rather get the greaseball burgers that their kids wants, the non-diet sodas that they think taste better or something, and never give diet a second thought.

[Darth Wong]

I guess you're too dense to realize that banning something does not necessarily mean it would be a felony offense, or that it would be punishable with prison time instead of fines. We ban parking in a fire lane too, so are you about to launch into a diatribe about how evil jackbooted thugs will knock down your door and haul you off to jail because you parked in a fire lane once?

Either that or the statement was obvious hyperbole.

That's an interesting way of excusing a red-herring and an attempt to exaggerate a position being held by myself and other posters in a different thread. I'll have to remember that in future, I can strawman anyone's position and then just call it "hyperbole". Not that I'm surprised by these kind of sore-loser tactics. They happen every time tobacco apologists fail to substantiate their bizarre claim that this idiotic habit is some kind of divinely protected right.

No they won't. They'll continue selling junk food and they'll pour their money into political lobbying.

Hence the qualifier "if it came down to it". I don't really think such a tax would come through our plutocratic political process with any teeth left, but if we assume by act of thread that it did, then those companies would be forced to either adapt or take it in the ass.

They would most likely adapt not by outright opposing the tax but by having their paid whores in Congress make the wording so specific that they can evade the tax by adding 3 micrograms of vitamin C to each bag of potato chips.

If we assume as a premise of the thread that this tax is hopelessly condemned to political defeat, then talking about the potential benefits at all is pointless.

This is the ethics forum, not the politics forum. Perhaps you need to check your eyesight. Hypothetical ethical scenarios and dilemmas are perfectly normal in this forum, and one does not need to ask if they are politically realistic.

If we squint and imagine a scenario where it comes into and remains in force, then blithely selling only the usual taxed foods while throwing money into the political arena is a recipe for ruin.

I would actually be curious how many people would simply continue to buy the same foods and pay more money for them. I personally believe that many obese people are sufficiently addicted to food that if they had to pay a thousand dollars extra in junk food taxes every year, they'd pay it without blinking an eye.

[LordShaithis]

Frankly Mike, I'm tired of listening to you act like a giant flaming douchebag throughout every single conversation in which you participate.

I'm tired of your endless "THE RAIN IN SPAIN DOES NOT IN FACT FALL MOSTLY ON THE PLANE YOU LIAR!" antics where you cleverly "expose" the blatant use of anything but dead-serious literal language by anyone you don't like.

Basically, I'm tired of you being a wannabe-bully crybaby shit here in your own little internet kingdom. I really should have left after that racism thread a couple of years ago where you misread the word "literal" as "liberal" and proceeded to brand me a "republitard", then threatened me with the mighty banstick when I pointed out that you needed to go back and read the fucking post again.

But in any case, as an old ASVS slob, a guy here from the beginning, and the dude who tipped you off when that Virus X retard was posting "OMG I WANT TO BEAT UP MIKE WONG AND HIS WIFE AND KIDS" on his little journal, I'm out.

You're just way too much of a raging asshole to bother conversing with, or around. So go ahead and ban this now-derelict account, post a big picture of Megatron shooting my post with pew-pew laser beams or something, and cram it up your puckered little ass.

[apocolypse]

*snip*

While not without merit, I grew up in a single-parent household under similar circumstances and still managed to eat mostly home-cooked meals. Sure, there was fast food, but it was on an occasional basis. And you can cook pretty healthy without spending too much time on it. I used to eat out a lot because the food I was making was pretty bland, but learned ways around it.