Ethics of a punitive junk food surtax

[Mange]

Absolutely no punitive taxes IMHO, people should decide for themselves what they want to eat healthy or not

Why? Historical precedent has certainly not demonstrated that they have sufficient judgment in this regard.

Who is going to decide what's healthy or not? Leave it up to people to decide for themselves what to eat and suffer the consequences.

it's not up to the government to promote through taxes what people should eat

Why not?

The government should inform (see below), but more bureaucracy and taxes based on peoples' preferences for food and which is going to strike hard against people who have limited income? That's going too far.

but there should be information campaigns etc.

That's been done, without success. People eat more bullshit food than ever. And the advertising budget of the junk food companies is orders of magnitude greater than that of the healthy eating campaigns.

Then why not introduce health warnings in a similar style to those on tobacco packaging?

I seldom eat junk food, but when I do, I do it because I'm in a hurry. I can't imagine eating such food on a regular basis.

So? What do your personal habits prove?

Absolutely nothing. I forgot what it was.

Did it even occur to you that someone might question your method of phrasing your conclusions in the form of a priori statements, without a shred of reasoning behind them?

Has it occurred to you (no, it hasn't) that many opinions can't be properly rationalized? Your fucking opinion isn't worth more than mine.

You seem to be saying that all these propositions of yours are self-evident.

You asked for the opinions of people. I'd be glad to rationalize it more for you, but that was my opinion.

Let's put this in the most stark possible way: obesity is killing ten times more people every year than murder. Therefore, it is completely absurd to say that this is not a problem the government should concern itself with.

Of course it's a fucking problem, but I don't think that the government should make decisions for people through direct taxes.

[K. A. Pital]

Who is going to decide what's healthy or not?

Actually, there are State Health Commissions and Food Inspection Commissions which are staffed with medical professionals. I think they have some clues about what is healthy and what is not. At least they know their chemistry. The clueless consumer does not.

The government should inform (see below), but more bureaucracy and taxes based on peoples' preferences for food and which is going to strike hard against people who have limited income? That's going too far.

Make healthier foods cheaper - this will increase the health of a nation - and at the same time make un-healthy foods more expensive - isn't that the main idea behind the tax?

Of course it's a fucking problem, but I don't think that the government should make decisions for people through direct taxes.

The government makes such decisions every day. Alcohol and tobacco excises? "Of course alcohol and tobacco kill people, but..." do you oppose the alcohol and tobacco excises?

[Mange]

Who is going to decide what's healthy or not?

Actually, there are State Health Commissions and Food Inspection Commissions which are staffed with medical professionals. I think they have some clues about what is healthy and what is not. At least they know their chemistry. The clueless consumer does not.

Ah, so your position is that people are dumb idiots who doesn't understand that eating certain kinds of foods will make you fat and that the government must tell them what to eat? Well, I certainly think that the public is a little bit more informed than that?

The government should inform (see below), but more bureaucracy and taxes based on peoples' preferences for food and which is going to strike hard against people who have limited income? That's going too far.

Make healthier foods cheaper - this will increase the health of a nation - and at the same time make un-healthy foods more expensive - isn't that the main idea behind the tax?

And what mechanism do we have which should make healthier foods cheaper? I seem to recall something called "the market", but I'm sure I must be wrong...

Of course it's a fucking problem, but I don't think that the government should make decisions for people through direct taxes.

The government makes such decisions every day. Alcohol and tobacco excises? "Of course alcohol and tobacco kill people, but..." do you oppose the alcohol and tobacco excises?

Stas, did you fucking read my post? And what's up with the strawman?

[K. A. Pital]

Ah, so your position is that people are dumb idiots who doesn't understand that eating certain kinds of foods will make you fat and that the government must tell them what to eat?

To put it shortly, this is not "my position", this is a fact.

And what mechanism do we have which should make healthier foods cheaper?

You have taxes on one hand. What do you have on the other hand of economic policy? Subsidies.

Stas, did you fucking read my post? And what's up with the strawman?

Yes, I did, and it's not a strawman. The US government heavily taxes products like alcohol and tobacco. Which are damaging people's health. Junk foods, bad chemicals are also damaging health greatly. A tax would increase their price and make them less favourable for the buyer.

[wolveraptor]

-I'm just being an optimist here and griping about large problems I guess, but on my list of priorities a tax on junk food is not even close to preventing things like the current Iraq war. For the cost of funding that war alone (nevermind preventing all the damage done) we could have solved numorous world problems. In any event, I'm off topic now so....

Ah, the irony of posting in a thread to say the topic isn't important...

-Are you so sure that there would be that big of an increase in bureaucracy/cost? The US tax code is already massively complex and these taxes could be applied to the corporations that facilitate such activities (who already have professionals do their taxes). In addition, I think you may underestimate the number of serious injuries that result from these activities. Most of the people that I know who do engage in these activities regularly have had more than one injury that was as serious or worse than a broken bone.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it here. Besides, for the type of person that generally participates in said activities, a broken bone is less dire than, say, hypertension.

Who is going to decide what's healthy or not? Leave it up to people to decide for themselves what to eat and suffer the consequences.

This thread is only considering the hypothetical existence of such a tax, not its actual implementation. To discuss the latter would be to stray onto the subject of lobbying and politics. Ideally, an independent body of nutritionists would do it.

The government should inform (see below), but more bureaucracy and taxes based on peoples' preferences for food and which is going to strike hard against people who have limited income? That's going too far.

You haven't read the thread, have you? It's been shown that junk food really isn't the least expensive option for the indigent. For example: water is free, yet soda is almost universally preferred by the poor and rich alike, at least in America. Also, those sugary and chocolatey cereals with the obnoxious mascots are hardly cheaper than things like Cheerios and kashi. It wouldn't take a promotion to pay for that minor lifestyle change. Indeed, eating things like cereal for breakfast rather than driving by Mcdonald's for McDonald's Mcnew McGriddle with McEggs for Mclow-low Mcprices is actually cheaper, especially when gas is taken into account. Besides, the plan included subsidizing healthy foods to make them more affordable.

Of course it's a fucking problem, but I don't think that the government should make decisions for people through direct taxes.

But why? On this board, you're supposed to fucking explain yourself.

[Nova Andromeda]

-I'm just being an optimist here and griping about large problems I guess, but on my list of priorities a tax on junk food is not even close to preventing things like the current Iraq war. For the cost of funding that war alone (nevermind preventing all the damage done) we could have solved numorous world problems. In any event, I'm off topic now so....

Ah, the irony of posting in a thread to say the topic isn't important...

-Another idiot that has reading comprehension problems. I was obviously admitting that that particular train of thought had wandered off topic and moved on. In addition, I never said the topic wasn't important. I said it wasn't nearly as important to me as something else that I was griping about....

-Are you so sure that there would be that big of an increase in bureaucracy/cost? The US tax code is already massively complex and these taxes could be applied to the corporations that facilitate such activities (who already have professionals do their taxes). In addition, I think you may underestimate the number of serious injuries that result from these activities. Most of the people that I know who do engage in these activities regularly have had more than one injury that was as serious or worse than a broken bone.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it here. Besides, for the type of person that generally participates in said activities, a broken bone is less dire than, say, hypertension.

-Unless a number of you have significantly different observations about injuries resulting from riskier activities like mountain climbing and skiing then I still have a valid point. I'm not simply saying that one guy I once knew broke his finger while skiing while simultaneously ignoring everyone else I know about. I'm saying that everyone I can think of that engages in these activities on a regular basis has suffered a major injury as a direct result of it. Furthuremore, a major study detailing all significant medical expenditures should be done before deciding where put the governments money anyhow and what the gov. should get involved in. This is assming this hasn't been done already that is.

[Mange]

Who is going to decide what's healthy or not? Leave it up to people to decide for themselves what to eat and suffer the consequences.

This thread is only considering the hypothetical existence of such a tax, not its actual implementation. To discuss the latter would be to stray onto the subject of lobbying and politics. Ideally, an independent body of nutritionists would do it.

Yes, I'd agree on that.

The government should inform (see below), but more bureaucracy and taxes based on peoples' preferences for food and which is going to strike hard against people who have limited income? That's going too far.

You haven't read the thread, have you? It's been shown that junk food really isn't the least expensive option for the indigent. For example: water is free, yet soda is almost universally preferred by the poor and rich alike, at least in America. Also, those sugary and chocolatey cereals with the obnoxious mascots are hardly cheaper than things like Cheerios and kashi.

Agreed.

It wouldn't take a promotion to pay for that minor lifestyle change. Indeed, eating things like cereal for breakfast rather than driving by Mcdonald's for McDonald's Mcnew McGriddle with McEggs for Mclow-low Mcprices is actually cheaper, especially when gas is taken into account.

Agreed.

Besides, the plan included subsidizing healthy foods to make them more affordable.

But why should the government through paternalistic means do that? Why not let independent organizations and corporations advocate better food (which you've already suggested)?

Of course it's a fucking problem, but I don't think that the government should make decisions for people through direct taxes.

But why? On this board, you're supposed to fucking explain yourself.

I'll expand on that. As I've already touched upon, on the one hand, I don't think it's desirable that the government through paternalistic means should impose dietary restrictions through taxes. On the other hand one must consider that the food isn't the only factor, there are other factors as well, people don't fucking exercise enough. People will get fat regardless of what fucking food they eat if they don't move their asses. Do you think that just because of extra taxes on junk food that people will change their lifestyles? That they'll go "YIPPIE, now I'll throw the burger in the bin, eat salad and start running a few miles everyday"?

[K. A. Pital]

Why not let independent organizations and corporations advocate better food (which you've already suggested)?

Corporations are not "independent", neither do their goals correspond with the goals this program has in mind. The corporations exactly create shit food to lower their costs. A tax on shitty food would increase the cost of making shitty food and possibly even make the corporations abandon the practice of making it.

However, left to their own devices, they would push for junk food and massively advocate eating junk food to consumers - which is what they're doing now.

Do you think that just because of extra taxes on junk food that people will change their lifestyles? That they'll go "YIPPIE, now I'll throw the burger in the bin, eat salad and start running a few miles everyday"?

Eating salad without running miles instead of simply eating a burger is already an improvement.

The second measure here would be a government-sponsored mass sport movement, increasing the popularity of sports (as opposed to the "popularity of sportstars") and involving the population into various sports activities - opening more sport clubs, making school sports better, et cetera.

However, if we leave the situation "to the market" as some suggest, neither measure #1 nor measure #2 will come in effect, and the problem is simply left without a solution. I think it's not hard to understand that leaving a problem without a solution is _not_ a solution.

[Mange]

Why not let independent organizations and corporations advocate better food (which you've already suggested)?

Corporations are not "independent",

Really? In what sense? I thought the vast majority of the corporations were entities that don't belong to the government, but that's really not the point. I separated independent organizations and corporations by an "and".

neither do their goals correspond with the goals this program has in mind. The corporations exactly create shit food to lower their costs. A tax on shitty food would increase the cost of making shitty food and possibly even make the corporations abandon the practice of making it.

If I wants to take a fucking burger once and awhile and otherwise lives a healthy lifestyle, I don't want the fucking government to tax me more just because I bought that burger. Get it? I'm not a libertarian, but this is taking it to the extreme. If anyone must be taxed and if it leads to higher prices (ie an indirect tax), then tax the shit out of McDonald's and other fast food companies. If that leads to higher prices, then so be it, I'd support that, but keep that fucking tax out of my grocery store. I don't know about the U.S. or Russia, but here we have a 12 % sales tax on food. If anything needs to be subsidized, use some of that sales tax and subsidize whatever food deemed healthy.

However, left to their own devices, they would push for junk food and massively advocate eating junk food to consumers - which is what they're doing now.

Of course, they're companies. What do you expect?

Do you think that just because of extra taxes on junk food that people will change their lifestyles? That they'll go "YIPPIE, now I'll throw the burger in the bin, eat salad and start running a few miles everyday"?

Eating salad without running miles instead of simply eating a burger is already an improvement.

But do you honestly believe in such a scenario? That just because of an extra tax that people will eat more healthy and less food overall? Let me tell you what I think: I think that there'll be a hell of a lot of whining, but eventually people will get used to that extra tax and still eat the same food as before and nothing (or very little) would be gained.

The second measure here would be a government-sponsored mass sport movement, increasing the popularity of sports (as opposed to the "popularity of sportstars") and involving the population into various sports activities - opening more sport clubs, making school sports better, et cetera.

Oh, there have already been such government schemes in various countries... We have Kraft durch Freude and Komsomol etc. What they have in common is that they were dictatorships. It lies in the best interest of the sports organizations to appeal to (especially) young people for funding etc. and here most already receive funding from the government.

However, if we leave the situation "to the market" as some suggest, neither measure #1 nor measure #2 will come in effect, and the problem is simply left without a solution. I think it's not hard to understand that leaving a problem without a solution is _not_ a solution.

And as I've explained, I don't believe in that simplistic idealistic notion that a tax would dramatically alter the lifestyle of people.

[mr friendly guy]

I occasionally eat junk food and like most people I wouldn't particularly want to be taxed more. However its not just about me, its about health issues and the cost on health care. If we can decrease excess consumption of junk food, so much the better. If not, at least they money could be funded back into health care when these people present with heart attacks, type II diabetes and related complications, desperately needing medications and bariatric surgery.

So in a nutshell, I don't have a problem with it in principle. Its just a matter of how to implement it.

[Covenant]

Think about it this way, if you eat junkfood every once and a while, but eat healthy food fairly often, you're likely to save more money on subsidized other foods than you are to lose on the junkfood tax.

So for anyone that's only a light snacker, they should consider this a tax break overall.

[mr friendly guy]

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.

Its Galvatron mate.

But don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

[K. A. Pital]

If I wants to take a fucking burger once and awhile and otherwise lives a healthy lifestyle, I don't want the fucking government to tax me more just because I bought that burger. Get it?

The burger is anyway a very minor part of your expenses. Does it matter if it costs more because of it's health-damaging properties?

If anyone must be taxed and if it leads to higher prices (ie an indirect tax), then tax the shit out of McDonald's and other fast food companies.

Well, we propose to tax the producers! Who'd else you tax for that? Of course it will lead to higher prices, which would mean that part of the tax would be paid by the consumer of this products.

If anything needs to be subsidized, use some of that sales tax and subsidize whatever food deemed healthy.

Sure, good idea.

But do you honestly believe in such a scenario? That just because of an extra tax that people will eat more healthy and less food overall?

Okay, here's the deal: you don't need to "believe" or whatnot. Before such measures are implemented, there's always a statistical study which is ran to determin the probable effects. You do this study to find out how price-sensitive the consumers are. Then work out the details of your taxation system.

Oh, there have already been such government schemes in various countries...

Are you saying they were bad?

We have Kraft durch Freude and Komsomol etc. ... What they have in common is that they were dictatorships.

Komsomol isn't a sport organization, it's the youth wing of a communist party . And anyway, were they bad? They improved the health of the nation. And similar programs existed not only in "dictatorships", there are local mass sport initiatives in cities of today's Germany, for example. Such things are _good_ and bring forth good results. The idea that democracies cannot run such programs is ridiculous.

[Mange]

If I wants to take a fucking burger once and awhile and otherwise lives a healthy lifestyle, I don't want the fucking government to tax me more just because I bought that burger. Get it?

The burger is anyway a very minor part of your expenses. Does it matter if it costs more because of it's health-damaging properties?

It's the principle, not the cost.

If anyone must be taxed and if it leads to higher prices (ie an indirect tax), then tax the shit out of McDonald's and other fast food companies.

Well, we propose to tax the producers! Who'd else you tax for that? Of course it will lead to higher prices, which would mean that part of the tax would be paid by the consumer of this products.

Alright, conceded then. Perhaps the distance isn't too big. My reservation was, as I laid out in the first post, against a direct tax, not an indirect tax. Sure, why not.

But do you honestly believe in such a scenario? That just because of an extra tax that people will eat more healthy and less food overall?

Okay, here's the deal: you don't need to "believe" or whatnot. Before such measures are implemented, there's always a statistical study which is ran to determin the probable effects. You do this study to find out how price-sensitive the consumers are. Then work out the details of your taxation system.

I'm perfectly aware of that.

Oh, there have already been such government schemes in various countries...

Are you saying they were bad?

No, not inherently bad, but I don't support such kinds of organizations. Sure, I have nothing against financial support from the government.

We have Kraft durch Freude and Komsomol etc. ... What they have in common is that they were dictatorships.

Komsomol isn't a sport organization, it's the youth wing of a communist party .

I know, I had Zenit etc. on the tip of my tongue, but I posted it to get the point across.

And anyway, were they bad? They improved the health of the nation. And similar programs existed not only in "dictatorships", there are local mass sport initiatives in cities of today's Germany, for example.

Yes, they're arranged together with non-governmental sport associations.

[Darth Wong]

If I wants to take a fucking burger once and awhile and otherwise lives a healthy lifestyle, I don't want the fucking government to tax me more just because I bought that burger. Get it?

The burger is anyway a very minor part of your expenses. Does it matter if it costs more because of it's health-damaging properties?

It's the principle, not the cost.

Please describe this ethical "principle" in detail, and explain how it relates to your ethical philosophy in general. Assuming you have one.

[Mange]

The burger is anyway a very minor part of your expenses. Does it matter if it costs more because of it's health-damaging properties?

It's the principle, not the cost.

Please describe this ethical "principle" in detail, and explain how it relates to your ethical philosophy in general. Assuming you have one.

Ah, so I'm a completely unethical person because I don't support a direct tax on burgers? It's an ideological and not an ethical principle. Anyway, I've already agreed and conceded that the producers (such as McDonald's, Burger King etc.) could be taxed more.

[Wyrm]

But why should the government through paternalistic means do that? Why not let independent organizations and corporations advocate better food (which you've already suggested)?

We tried that solution already: We let the prepared food companies have their way. The junk food bonanza and the current obesity trend was the result.

Where the independent companies will not regulate themselves, the government must do it for them.

Anyway, I've already agreed and conceded that the producers (such as McDonald's, Burger King etc.) could be taxed more.

And who do you think will be bearing the cost of this increase? The companies? Do you think they'll let their bottom line be harmed by this tax? No. They'll pass on the cost to their consumers, just like companies always do. The consumer bears the brunt of the tax, no matter who nominally pays for it.

The hope is that consumers will respond to the increased cost on junk (and subsidized good stuff) by eating healthier foods, which would spur companies to sell healthier foods. (Because the junk is no longer as profitable.)

[Mange]

Anyway, I've already agreed and conceded that the producers (such as McDonald's, Burger King etc.) could be taxed more.

And who do you think will be bearing the cost of this increase? The companies? Do you think they'll let their bottom line be harmed by this tax? No. They'll pass on the cost to their consumers, just like companies always do. The consumer bears the brunt of the tax, no matter who nominally pays for it.

The hope is that consumers will respond to the increased cost on junk (and subsidized good stuff) by eating healthier foods, which would spur companies to sell healthier foods. (Because the junk is no longer as profitable.)[/quote]
I know, and I've mentioned that as well.

[Knife]

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.

It's one part preception, two parts time.

Given how many hours the average American works taking the junk food option toward having meals makes their lives just that much easier. Quite a few Americans don't have the time to not only plan out a meal ahead of time, but to buy all the parts of that meal and cook them. Combine that with the preception that junk food is also cheaper and you can see how the junk food option (I'm including frozen meals and such in that category) is the more appealing option.

I think that sums it up fairly well. The average family (is there such a thing? ) uses the crap as a convinence on time rather than anything else. Me and the wife are failry old fashin when it comes to dinner, we prefer a meat, starch and some veggies (occasionally two or so veggies for fun) and we usually skip the desert part.

That said, when we both come home after ten hours of work, someone has to take a kid or two to various after school function or hobby, and have to take care of what ever various home project/problem that arise from time to time, the temptaion to grab some Arbys or Mcburgers is pretty strong rather than going home and spending another hours or so to prepare a meal.

Some times we resist some times we don't...A lot of people fall into this trap too, I would think. Granted, then you have people who sit on their ass all day and have the time to fix proper meals and still don't but...

[GuppyShark]

In Australia this has already been done.

When the Goods and Services Tax was introduced, fresh, healthy foods were exempted. So they're around 10% cheaper than they would otherwise be.

We just got used to the higher cost of junk food.

The situations probably aren't directly comparable - we don't have the obesity problem that North America has, and our local fast food chains have been making a big deal about their 'healthy' alternatives, which appear to have been driven more by a shift in consumer attitudes to eating than the introduction of the GST (around a decade ago now).

[Sea Skimmer]

Why not just add a punitive tax on fat people, just like we have extra taxes on heavy vehicles. The logic would be the same, fat people are big, noisy and cause extra damage to sidewalks, just like big trucks are big, noisy and cause extra road damage.

[Singular Intellect]

I have no pro or con arguements for extra taxes on junk food, but I would say that I find it extremely annoying that I'd have to pay extra money for my occasional indulgence because a bunch of fatass morons can't make themselves eat right.

[wolveraptor]

I have no pro or con arguements for extra taxes on junk food, but I would say that I find it extremely annoying that I'd have to pay extra money for my occasional indulgence because a bunch of fatass morons can't make themselves eat right.

Jesus, the proposed tax isn't going to impoverish you if you treat yourself to the occasional burger. Most likely, the tax would be low enough to discourage only continual consumption of such products.

[Stark]

The situations probably aren't directly comparable - we don't have the obesity problem that North America has, and our local fast food chains have been making a big deal about their 'healthy' alternatives, which appear to have been driven more by a shift in consumer attitudes to eating than the introduction of the GST (around a decade ago now).

Whoa nelly, we're getting there obesity wise.

Also, AU is currently putting pressure on fast food joints to reduce the hopelessly unhealthy nature of their products or face huge taxes/fines. It's not as simple as 'no fat' or 'pay for bad food', but it's direct government action against an industry that does nothing but produce cheap, staggeringly unhealthy food - and then plays innocent while the public health sector has to pay to care for hopelessly unhealthy people.

Really, you can't advertise smokes in AU, so this kind of pressure isn't surprising.

[Singular Intellect]

I have no pro or con arguements for extra taxes on junk food, but I would say that I find it extremely annoying that I'd have to pay extra money for my occasional indulgence because a bunch of fatass morons can't make themselves eat right.

Jesus, the proposed tax isn't going to impoverish you if you treat yourself to the occasional burger. Most likely, the tax would be low enough to discourage only continual consumption of such products.

That doesn't change the fact money is coming out of my pocket to pay for other people's stupidity.