Ethics of a punitive junk food surtax

[Pick]

I'm thinking more of families that cannot provide breast milk for whatever reason (if the family consists only of men or of women unable to offer lactation.) In that event, there is a sensible reason for formula and no substitute products I am aware of. However, this could potentially be used to pressure formula companies into making healthier products were some types of infant formula thusly taxed.

[Lord Poe]

Hey, after we tax the "fat-asses" and magically make obesity go away, can we tax the gays for perpetuating (via their lifestyle) the AIDS epidemic through high-risk sexual practices? That virus is a pretty big drain on public facilities, isn't it?

Extra tax on fast food doesn't make sense to me, and here's why. I'm currently doing the Weight Watcher thing again. My gal has lost 67 pounds since September, while my weight loss/gain looks like a Richter-scale reading. (I did lose 2.2 pounds this past week, though.) The thing is we are still allowed on this diet, to go to Jack In The Box, McDonalds, etc. and order a burger. The big difference beteen us is a level of commitment. She has it in spades, while I'm lacking in that area.

Let me illustrate why its ok to eat at such places in moderation. The WW diet is bascically this: 50 calories = one "point". Rosie can have 28 "points" of food per day, while I can have 44. This is based on our height and current weight. Now for instance, a Jumbo Jack at Jack In The Box is 15 "points". Sure, I can almost eat three of them, and stay within my daily point allotment. But for those same amount of points, I could have three footlong Subway Club sandwiches (without the cheese and mayo).

Again, this is a very basic illustration, and its certainly not a good idea to have three Jumbo Jacks every day (due to their high fat content). The problem doesn't come from food, but behavior and moderation, or lack thereof. One could gain weight on Granola bars if you polished off a box or two of them per day.

[wolveraptor]

The thing is, no one eats that many subs in a day, because the food has real content. However, fast foods, like Chinese food, is full of oils and grease, don't keep us feeling full for as long as unfried meats and vegetables. It's the same basic idea behind the Atkins diet. 1 lbs of carbs is easier to wolf down than a pound of meat. A pound of meat is considered fucking huge.

[Darth Wong]

Hey, after we tax the "fat-asses" and magically make obesity go away, can we tax the gays for perpetuating (via their lifestyle) the AIDS epidemic through high-risk sexual practices? That's virus is a pretty big drain on public facilities, isn't it?

Nobody said anything about taxing fat-asses. I was talking about taxing junk food, which benefit precisely no one. Including fat-asses.

Extra tax on fast food doesn't make sense to me, and here's why. I'm currently doing the Weight Watcher thing again. My gal has lost 67 pounds since September, while my weight loss/gain looks like a Richter-scale reading. (I did lose 2.2 pounds this past week, though.) The thing is we are still allowed on this diet, to go to Jack In The Box, McDonalds, etc. and order a burger. The big difference beteen us is a level of commitment. She has it in spades, while I'm lacking in that area.

So? How does this change the fact that junk food is garbage, it's harming the country, and something should be done about it? Your argument that it won't magically make obesity disappear is nothing more than a black/white fallacy. Even if it only reduced the problem by some percentage, it would be worth it.

Let me illustrate why its ok to eat at such places in moderation. The WW diet is bacically this: 50 calories = one "point". Rosie can have 28 "points" of food per day, while I can have 44. This is based on our height and current weight. Now for instance, a Jumbo Jack at Jack In The Box is 15 "points". Sure, I can almost eat three of them, and stay within my daily point allotment. But for those same amount of points, I could have three footlong Subway Club sandwiches (without the cheese and mayo).

If you're eating junk food only occasionally and only in moderation, then the tax on it won't cost you much, will it? And really, your WW program doesn't refute the fact that the food is garbage; it is a pragmatic system for helping people who would have a severe problem going cold turkey from such foods. And as long as you're talking about discipline and commitment, a sharply elevated cost of junk food would help with that, wouldn't it?

Again, this is a very basic illustration, and its certainly not a good idea to have three Jumbo Jacks every day (due to their high fat content). The problem doesn't come from food, but behavior and moderation, or lack thereof. One could gain weight on Granola bars if you polished off a box or two of them per day.

I don't understand why you think that someone who eats junk food only "in moderation" would suffer some great financial burden from this tax.

[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.

Yeah, it's not as if a single penny of your tax dollars presently goes to anyone but yourself, right?

I'm not quite sure what your point is?

I'm bitching because I would have to dish out extra money for stupid decisions other people make. Why should I have to pay for other people's stupidity? Nobody makes anybody eat junk food. As a Canadian I feel I get taxed plenty enough already, getting taxed more because I'm surrounded by fucking idiots does not sit well with me.

[Lord Poe]

Nobody said anything about taxing fat-asses.

I beg to differ:

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.

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.

My comment was a facetious response to the above, but I'm not sure the above comments were made in the same light.

I was talking about taxing junk food, which benefit precisely no one. Including fat-asses.

I just don't see the major reason for this. This proposed tax won't stop people from eating unhealthy. They'll just move on to something else equally unhealthy that's NOT currently considered fast food. Pick up a bag of trail mix, and read the calories on the back, along with the serving size, for instance.

So? How does this change the fact that junk food is garbage, it's harming the country, and something should be done about it?

Gum is garbage, too, and so are after dinner mints. So? The food isn't harming the country, its people's actions that harming themselves, thus putting a drain on public facilities.

Your argument that it won't magically make obesity disappear is nothing more than a black/white fallacy. Even if it only reduced the problem by some percentage, it would be worth it.

But in turn, your proposed tax is nothing more than symbolic and useless. As I said, someone who has an eating disorder can gain weight on healthy food. This nominal tax you keep saying won't harm anyone financially is useless in that regard. It doesn't make fast food so expensive it can't be bought by the masses, and it won't change someone's attitude about overeating.

If you're eating junk food only occasionally and only in moderation, then the tax on it won't cost you much, will it?

Ok, what's the point of the tax, then? It won't stop people from buying the food, if its a small tax as you propose. It won't change anyone's mind. Sowhat's its purpose other than making you feellike you've made a symbolic gesture to society to take care of itself?

And really, your WW program doesn't refute the fact that the food is garbage; it is a pragmatic system for helping people who would have a severe problem going cold turkey from such foods. And as long as you're talking about discipline and commitment, a sharply elevated cost of junk food would help with that, wouldn't it?

Honestly, no. This, I can speak from experience. Look at smoking taxes, that doesn't stop smokers. If you tax the hell out of donuts, the obese aren't going tobegin munching celery sticks. Attitudes and discipline need to be changed and encouraged.

I don't understand why you think that someone who eats junk food only "in moderation" would suffer some great financial burden from this tax.

I didn't. I said the tax makes no sense.

[Darth Wong]

My comment was a facetious response to the above, but I'm not sure the above comments were made in the same light.

They seemed pretty facetious to me.

I just don't see the major reason for this. This proposed tax won't stop people from eating unhealthy. They'll just move on to something else equally unhealthy that's NOT currently considered fast food. Pick up a bag of trail mix, and read the calories on the back, along with the serving size, for instance.

Do you honestly believe there's no difference in terms of health between one kind of food and another? A country full of nutritionists would beg to differ.

Gum is garbage, too, and so are after dinner mints. So? The food isn't harming the country, its people's actions that harming themselves, thus putting a drain on public facilities.

So? I'm being pragmatic. It would be fairly easy to implement a junk food tax, even if it would be less effective than a more draconian system (which would probably also be considered tyrannical by more people than just the hardcore libertarians).

But in turn, your proposed tax is nothing more than symbolic and useless. As I said, someone who has an eating disorder can gain weight on healthy food.

Not as easily as he will on junk food. I don't know what kind of sunbeams Weight Watchers has been blowing up your ass, but it just ain't true that every kind of food is equally destructive. Even if you assume that people have no self-control and eat until they're full, they're better off doing it with vegetables and rice than saturated fats and soda.

This nominal tax you keep saying won't harm anyone financially is useless in that regard. It doesn't make fast food so expensive it can't be bought by the masses, and it won't change someone's attitude about overeating.

And how do you know that?

If you're eating junk food only occasionally and only in moderation, then the tax on it won't cost you much, will it?

Ok, what's the point of the tax, then? It won't stop people from buying the food, if its a small tax as you propose.

I don't think you followed the logic of my argument. It would not be a great financial burden if you eat junk food in moderation, because you won't be buying a lot of junk food. If you buy a lot of junk food, it would certainly add up. I never said the tax should be so small that it's painless. Quite the contrary; I would want the tax to be "punitive", which implies that it's actually pretty heavy. Personally, I think that most junk foods should be at least double their present cost.

Honestly, no. This, I can speak from experience. Look at smoking taxes, that doesn't stop smokers.

Actually, it does. Smoking rates decrease when cigarette taxes increase, and even the cigarette companies know it.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research ... f/0146.pdf

If you tax the hell out of donuts, the obese aren't going tobegin munching celery sticks. Attitudes and discipline need to be changed and encouraged.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that junk food demand is immune to the effects of taxation? You tried to equate it to smoking, which actually weakens your case.

[Vyraeth]

Ok, what's the point of the tax, then? It won't stop people from buying the food, if its a small tax as you propose. It won't change anyone's mind. Sowhat's its purpose other than making you feellike you've made a symbolic gesture to society to take care of itself?

Do you have any evidence for your claim that junk food demand is immune to the effects of taxation? You tried to equate it to smoking, which actually weakens your case.

Why not use the money from such a tax for public health care (even the United States has medical assistance programs), because that way, even if it doesn't deter the hardcore junk food eaters from buying it en masse, at least there will be more funding available for when they require health care from obesity-related health problems down the road (assuming in the case of the United States that they qualify for medical assistance in the first place, of course)?

[Lord Poe]

They seemed pretty facetious to me.

I'd like to think so. In Bubble Boy's case, I doubt it.

I just don't see the major reason for this. This proposed tax won't stop people from eating unhealthy. They'll just move on to something else equally unhealthy that's NOT currently considered fast food. Pick up a bag of trail mix, and read the calories on the back, along with the serving size, for instance.

Do you honestly believe there's no difference in terms of health between one kind of food and another? A country full of nutritionists would beg to differ.[/quote]

You're twisting the hell out of what I said in order to attack it. I never said there's no difference in healthy and unhealthy food. I said even healthy food can be abused in unhealthy ways. A fucking salad can approach Big Mac levels of unhealthiness if you slather creamy ranch style dressings on it.

So? I'm being pragmatic. It would be fairly easy to implement a junk food tax, even if it would be less effective than a more draconian system (which would probably also be considered tyrannical by more people than just the hardcore libertarians).

Ok, but I still don't see it accomplishing anything.

Not as easily as he will on junk food. I don't know what kind of sunbeams Weight Watchers has been blowing up your ass, but it just ain't true that every kind of food is equally destructive.

Once again, that's not what I said. What I did say, is that healthy foods can be abused as well by someone who gains enjoyment out of eating in an unhealthy manner.

Even if you assume that people have no self-control and eat until they're full, they're better off doing it with vegetables and rice than saturated fats and soda.

But that's just it; they're not going to automatically turn to veggies and tofu because you've taxed the Six Dollar Burger.

This nominal tax you keep saying won't harm anyone financially is useless in that regard. It doesn't make fast food so expensive it can't be bought by the masses, and it won't change someone's attitude about overeating.

And how do you know that?[/quote]

Because I'm one of those people.

I don't think you followed the logic of my argument. It would not be a great financial burden if you eat junk food in moderation, because you won't be buying a lot of junk food. If you buy a lot of junk food, it would certainly add up. I never said the tax should be so small that it's painless. Quite the contrary; I would want the tax to be "punitive", which implies that it's actually pretty heavy. Personally, I think that most junk foods should be at least double their present cost.

Ok, and personally, I don't see how this tax is going to change an unheatly eater's habits.

Actually, it does. Smoking rates decrease when cigarette taxes increase, and even the cigarette companies know it.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research ... f/0146.pdf

If you tax the hell out of donuts, the obese aren't going tobegin munching celery sticks. Attitudes and discipline need to be changed and encouraged.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that junk food demand is immune to the effects of taxation?

How can Ihave evidence for that if this tax doesn't exist yet?

You tried to equate it to smoking, which actually weakens your case.

I wonder if those studies take into account the generic brand cigarettes that liquor store owners tear into and sell at the counter for 10 cents a cigarette, for those smokers that get tired of paying for Marlboro Reds?

[Elessar]

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.

Yeah, it's not as if a single penny of your tax dollars presently goes to anyone but yourself, right?

I'm not quite sure what your point is?

I'm bitching because I would have to dish out extra money for stupid decisions other people make. Why should I have to pay for other people's stupidity? Nobody makes anybody eat junk food. As a Canadian I feel I get taxed plenty enough already, getting taxed more because I'm surrounded by fucking idiots does not sit well with me.

As a fellow Canadian, I was actually firmly on the side of the 'annoyed' since the occassional bit of junk food I buy would be more costly. But pointing out that our tax dollars are already being wasted is actually quite illuminating.

Stop for a moment and remember that you pay a shitload of taxes. Remember that much of that doesn't go to your benefit. DW is saying that by taxing junk food, a large portion of our overloaded health care system could find relief. That means more of our tax dollars -- the ones you already pay -- will go towards you.

You'll be paying more for junk food at the register, yes, but that's only a very superficial assessment. You will likely gain from this system set in place.

[Singular Intellect]

I'm bitching because I would have to dish out extra money for stupid decisions other people make. Why should I have to pay for other people's stupidity? Nobody makes anybody eat junk food. As a Canadian I feel I get taxed plenty enough already, getting taxed more because I'm surrounded by fucking idiots does not sit well with me.

As a fellow Canadian, I was actually firmly on the side of the 'annoyed' since the occassional bit of junk food I buy would be more costly. But pointing out that our tax dollars are already being wasted is actually quite illuminating.

You admit our tax dollars are being wasted and then suggest we need to pay more?

Stop for a moment and remember that you pay a shitload of taxes. Remember that much of that doesn't go to your benefit.

To which I attribute it to greedy and stupid government management. Part of why I don't like the additional tax idea. In theory it might sound like a good idea, in practice I have zero expectations other than everyone just giving more money to the government.

DW is saying that by taxing junk food, a large portion of our overloaded health care system could find relief. That means more of our tax dollars -- the ones you already pay -- will go towards you.

In what way? To me, it's just another excuse to tax the shit out of people so the government gets more of the people's money.

You'll be paying more for junk food at the register, yes, but that's only a very superficial assessment. You will likely gain from this system set in place.

What gains?

My primary concern is the thinking behind this system of attacking problems, in this case obesity. Additional taxes aren't going to change the way people eat or take care of themselves, it's just going to dig deeper into everyone's pockets so the government can stupidly spent more of our money. If the money were going into, say, educational systems designed to help and teach people how to eat healthy and maintain that lifestyle, I wouldn't be as opposed.

To me, this attempt at fixing the problem is like bailing water out of a boat instead of patching the hole.

[K. A. Pital]

My primary concern is the thinking behind this system of attacking problems, in this case obesity. Additional taxes aren't going to change the way people eat or take care of themselves...

Do excises on alcohol change the consumption rates of alcohol? If they do, why do you think a large tax on food would not have a similar effect? Please elaborate.

This idea that customers don't care if it costs more or less, but will stick to junk food anyway isn't well-substantiated - at least some customers are price-elastic, that is, with changes in price they might review their menu. Those who are not will pay for the unhealthy habit. Just like people pay for their drinking habits via high excises on alcohol.

[Spin Echo]

My primary concern is the thinking behind this system of attacking problems, in this case obesity. Additional taxes aren't going to change the way people eat or take care of themselves...

Do excises on alcohol change the consumption rates of alcohol? If they do, why do you think a large tax on food would not have a similar effect? Please elaborate.

This idea that customers don't care if it costs more or less, but will stick to junk food anyway isn't well-substantiated - at least some customers are price-elastic, that is, with changes in price they might review their menu. Those who are not will pay for the unhealthy habit. Just like people pay for their drinking habits via high excises on alcohol.

Tja. There was a study about a year ago that showed that increase in alcohol price led to people drinking cheaper brands of alcohol and more of it.

I could easily see a similar type situation happening with junk food. Instead of buying the 5 dollar a bag of Dorito's, they buy the 2.50 dollar name brand nacho chips and eat more because it's cheaper.

[His Divine Shadow]

Okay, lets try it with a 10-year sunset clause to begin with (I think all laws should have a maximum life-span so a myriad of laws do not build up over time and create clutter) and see what the effects are in 10 years. If things look promising, renew for another 10 years.

I'm naturally sceptical of suggestions like these because I do not want to increase the size of system (I look at the system like a win95 computer, keep it small and lean, do not install to many programs, format and reinstall regularly), but considering the state of so many obese people and the drain they are causing (more than alcohol and tobacco combined IIRC), now if it only hurt themselves then it's just Darwin in action. This isn't the case though, it costs everyone alot of money and resources.

I am in part somewhat pessimistic given that in countries like Sweden and Finland a high alcohol tax has thouroughly failed to affect consumption for the oh 30 last years or so. And then after we lowered the alcohol tax in Finland we had a boost followed by a drop in 2006 anyway despite the lower prices. So price doesn't seem affect consumption of alcohol over here except in the short term when everything appears cheap compared to before and people buy because of the psychological short-term effect. Frankly all it has done is give us $5-10 dollar pints in the pub.

But maybe the case with alcohol doesn't follow with food, and maybe if the income didn't go to swelling the governments coffers and instead made other food cheaper as has been postulated, then maybe we can get a positive effect. As said, put a 10-year sunset clause and lets try it. If it doesn't work we're not going to be stuck with it for long at any rate.

[Darth Wong]

I'd like to think so. In Bubble Boy's case, I doubt it.

You can't pay too much attention to some kid who lives in a bubble.

Do you honestly believe there's no difference in terms of health between one kind of food and another? A country full of nutritionists would beg to differ.

You're twisting the hell out of what I said in order to attack it. I never said there's no difference in healthy and unhealthy food.

No, but you said that if we taxed junk food, people would find a way to eat something "equally unhealthy", which certainly makes it look as if you're saying there would be no difference at all.

I said even healthy food can be abused in unhealthy ways. A fucking salad can approach Big Mac levels of unhealthiness if you slather creamy ranch style dressings on it.

And who said that creamy ranch-style dressings wouldn't be taxed as a junk food? Anything with a very high fat content would fall under that category for obvious reasons.

Once again, that's not what I said. What I did say, is that healthy foods can be abused as well by someone who gains enjoyment out of eating in an unhealthy manner.

So? They will not be "equally unhealthy". If you want to backpedal away from that assertion fine, but you did make it, and there was nothing wrong with my refuting it.

But that's just it; they're not going to automatically turn to veggies and tofu because you've taxed the Six Dollar Burger.

No, but they might take the side order of rice pilaf instead of the Biggie-size deep-fried onion rings, and that would be an improvement, wouldn't it? Once again, you're relying on the logic of saying that if they don't swing all the way to the other side, then it's useless.

And how do you know that?

Because I'm one of those people.

That's the exact same kind of argument I've always heard from smokers who attack any attempt at government disincentive by saying that it won't change their personal habits. But lo and behold, the government puts the disincentive in place, and it does change peoples' personal habits.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that junk food demand is immune to the effects of taxation?

How can Ihave evidence for that if this tax doesn't exist yet?

So your prediction that it would have zero effect (despite cigarette taxes having an historical effect) has no evidence, you're admitting this, and you're trying to paint it as some kind of victory?

You tried to equate it to smoking, which actually weakens your case.

I wonder if those studies take into account the generic brand cigarettes that liquor store owners tear into and sell at the counter for 10 cents a cigarette, for those smokers that get tired of paying for Marlboro Reds?

How would that affect the conclusions? Even if this is happening, then it only means that even a poorly enforced cigarette tax has a positive effect, which only weakens your argument further. Face it; you tried to use cigarettes as an analogy and it backfired on you.

I have to ask: why do you oppose this? If you only eat junk food in moderation as you say, then it won't do you much financial harm. Can I guarantee that it will work? No. But let's not be unreasonable about this: if we never tried to solve any problem unless we were 100% certain that our first solution would work perfectly, we would never accomplish a damned thing in this world. We have some pretty good evidence to suggest that it would work, so why isn't that good enough?

[Lord Poe]

No, but you said that if we taxed junk food, people would find a way to eat something "equally unhealthy", which certainly makes it look as if you're saying there would be no difference at all.

Again, my stance is taxing junk food will do little to curb unhealthy behavior.

And who said that creamy ranch-style dressings wouldn't be taxed as a junk food? Anything with a very high fat content would fall under that category for obvious reasons.

That's an extremely broad tax, then!

So? They will not be "equally unhealthy". If you want to backpedal away from that assertion fine, but you did make it, and there was nothing wrong with my refuting it.

Right. I keep forgetting to sprinkle qualifiers into posts of this nature to fall back on.

No, but they might take the side order of rice pilaf instead of the Biggie-size deep-fried onion rings, and that would be an improvement, wouldn't it? Once again, you're relying on the logic of saying that if they don't swing all the way to the other side, then it's useless.

And you're continuing to put faith in a tax that will magically make people think they should eat healthier. Only a diet and dedication to said diet will do that.

That's the exact same kind of argument I've always heard from smokers who attack any attempt at government disincentive by saying that it won't change their personal habits.

Then how else am I going to "know that" if I don't relate personal experience into this?

But lo and behold, the government puts the disincentive in place, and it does change peoples' personal habits.

OK, so you're saying that this little tax will change a tiny amount of minds, like the smoking tax does. I still don't see what broad effect this tax will have, saving the country from itself. If the smoking tax had such a dramatic effect, the tobacco companies would have been out of business years ago.

So your prediction that it would have zero effect (despite cigarette taxes having an historical effect)

You're touting any "effect" as significant, which it isn't. If you want to get into microscopic nitpicking, then yes, your food tax will have some tiny effect, somewhere. It won't fail to have an absolutely ZERO effect. Happy?

...has no evidence, you're admitting this, and you're trying to paint it as some kind of victory?

I'm not here to shout "victory" and take no prisoners. I thought we were here to discuss an idea of yours.

How would that affect the conclusions?

I'm wondering if these stats see a drop in name brand cigarettes as a victory for the smoking tax, that's all.[/quote]

Even if this is happening, then it only means that even a poorly enforced cigarette tax has a positive effect, which only weakens your argument further.

First, yes it is happening. Go to a mom and pop liquor store, and you'll eventually see the little fishbowl of generic cigarettes on the counter. I worked at a 7-11 that did this, and the smokers were buying one pack of Marlboros instead of two, while taking and handful of 10 cent cigarettes to get them through the day as well.

Second, I don't see a major positive effect. THat's been my assertion all along.

Face it; you tried to use cigarettes as an analogy and it backfired on you.

My analogy is fine. I don't see this changing people's attitudes for the better. I don't see it in smokers, and I don't expect to see it with people with eating disorders.

I have to ask: why do you oppose this?

I don't oppose this in the sense that I'm rabidly against such a thing, Mike! Why do you see every argument lately as a major battle against you? I'm stating that I don't see this tax as having a major effect on someone's eating habits.

If you only eat junk food in moderation as you say, then it won't do you much financial harm. Can I guarantee that it will work? No. But let's not be unreasonable about this: if we never tried to solve any problem unless we were 100% certain that our first solution would work perfectly, we would never accomplish a damned thing in this world. We have some pretty good evidence to suggest that it would work, so why isn't that good enough?

It's a tax that will make you feel better; that you struck a blow to unhealthy food companies, but that's virtually all that I see it doing. I don't order fries anymore because I'm on a diet, and am trying to change my habits. A tax isn't doing that. A concious effort is.

[D.Turtle]

As a bit of information concerning the tangent about tax increases affecting the behavior of people smoking.

In the last five years, here in Germany there have been progressively higher taxes on cigarettes. I found this study about the effects of it:

OBJECTIVE: To assess reactions of smokers to five waves of tobacco tax increases in Germany. DESIGN: A 10-wave cross-sectional study, with assessments before and after the tax increases. SETTING: General population of Germany. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: 10 representative samples from the general population with a total number of 27,608 people aged > or = 14 years, including 8548 smokers (31% of the total sample), were interviewed. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reflection on smoking behaviour, and smoking behaviour (quitting, reducing, switching to a cheaper brand or no change) before and after tobacco tax increases. RESULTS: Before the tax increases, one third to more than half of the smokers reflected on their smoking behaviour, 9.7-13.9% intended to quit, 23.4-34.7% intended to reduce smoking and 10.8-16.4% intended to switch to cheaper tobacco products, whereas 36.1-52.1% did not intend any change at all. After the tax increases, one fourth to more than one third reported to have reflected on their smoking behaviour, 4.0-7.9% quit smoking owing to the increase, 11.5-16.6% reduced consumption and 11.0-19.9% switched to cheaper products. Significant associations were found between the height of the price increase and the intentions and reactions of smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Price increases lead to a substantial reflection on smoking and intended and realised behaviour changes such as reduced consumption and switching to cheaper tobacco products. These effects are more pronounced the more the price rises. Therefore, taxation policy will lead to quitting and reducing smoking. However, complementary measures should also be taken to prevent smokers switching to cheaper tobacco products, which would reduce the effectiveness of taxation policy.

Emphasis mine.

From a german news website (In german):

Wurden 1999 noch 145 Milliarden Glimmstengel vernichtet, waren es 2005 nur noch knapp 96 Milliarden. Das Deutsche Krebsforschungsinstitut führt diese Entwicklung auf die Tabaksteuererhöhung zurück. Gleichzeitig werden aber immer mehr Zigaretten selbst gedreht.

Translated:"While 1999 (note: before the first tax raise) 145 Billion cigarettes were smoked, in 2005 (note: after having raised the tax each year) only about 96 Billion were smoked. The German Cancer Research Institute explains this development with the tobacco tax raises. However, at the same time more and more cigarettes are self-made (note: with bought filters and a bought tobacco, which, IIRC, are not affected or are less affected by the tax raise).

So there is a definite correlation between making smoking more expensive, and people smoking less.

Why should the reaction of people concerning junk food be different?
Especially if you couple the tax with a massive public information campaign about the dangers of living only from junk food.

[Darth Wong]

Again, my stance is taxing junk food will do little to curb unhealthy behavior.

Reducing an exacerbating factor will reduce the impact of that behaviour. We are talking about impact, aren't we?

That's an extremely broad tax, then!

Of course it is. There are a wide variety of high-fat and high-sugar foods on the market.

Right. I keep forgetting to sprinkle qualifiers into posts of this nature to fall back on.

Oh puh-lease, your whole argument is that it's pointless because it won't do anything. It would be a huge change to say it would do something but not enough to make it worthwhile in your personal judgment, so that's a lot more than a boilerplate qualifier and you know it.

And you're continuing to put faith in a tax that will magically make people think they should eat healthier. Only a diet and dedication to said diet will do that.

History shows that it works for cigarettes, so it seems reasonable that it will work for food. Your various personal beliefs about why you feel it shouldn't work are not anywhere near as compelling as historical precedent and empirical data.

Then how else am I going to "know that" if I don't relate personal experience into this?

See above. Historical precedent and empirical data outweigh your "personal experience".

OK, so you're saying that this little tax will change a tiny amount of minds, like the smoking tax does. I still don't see what broad effect this tax will have, saving the country from itself. If the smoking tax had such a dramatic effect, the tobacco companies would have been out of business years ago.

Historical precedent shows that it changes a significant number of minds.

You're touting any "effect" as significant, which it isn't. If you want to get into microscopic nitpicking, then yes, your food tax will have some tiny effect, somewhere. It won't fail to have an absolutely ZERO effect. Happy?

(sigh) from the link that you obviously didn't bother reading, here's an excerpt of an internal memo from the Philip Morris tobacco company:

"Jeffrey Harris of MIT calculated…that the 1982-83 round of price increases caused two million adults to quit smoking and prevented 600,000 teenagers from starting to smoke…We don’t need to have that happen again."

That's quite a bit more than "tiny". The argument that price has no effect on consumer buying habits is absurd on its face, and more so when you account for the fact that studies show the same phenomenon in cigarettes, and the tobacco companies know it.

I'm not here to shout "victory" and take no prisoners. I thought we were here to discuss an idea of yours.

So did I, but you seem to be dismissing the effects of taxation as "tiny" when we have numerous sources saying otherwise, and all you provide as a contradictory source is your own personal say-so. I don't mind doing a little work to back up my point, but it would be nice if you returned the favour.

How would that affect the conclusions?

I'm wondering if these stats see a drop in name brand cigarettes as a victory for the smoking tax, that's all.

Even if this is happening, then it only means that even a poorly enforced cigarette tax has a positive effect, which only weakens your argument further.

First, yes it is happening. Go to a mom and pop liquor store, and you'll eventually see the little fishbowl of generic cigarettes on the counter. I worked at a 7-11 that did this, and the smokers were buying one pack of Marlboros instead of two, while taking and handful of 10 cent cigarettes to get them through the day as well.

I think you're still not getting the point here. That does not disprove the connection between cost and consumption. All you're saying is that if a cheap alternative remains available, people will use it. How does that disprove the fact that taxes, which would affect name-brand and cheapie cigarettes equally, would discourage consumption?

Second, I don't see a major positive effect. THat's been my assertion all along.

I don't see how you can continue to insist that the effect of a punitive tax (which you keep misrepresenting as "tiny" for some reason) would necessarily be "tiny", when clear evidence has been presented that it would have a significant effect.

My analogy is fine. I don't see this changing people's attitudes for the better. I don't see it in smokers, and I don't expect to see it with people with eating disorders.

Yet again, you seem to believe you can just dismiss studies and numbers and even the internal memos of tobacco companies with your personal opinion.

[Lisa]

I skimmed through the thread and didn't see it but Canada already has a tax on junk food. It's called the GST... you pay it on chips, pop, chocolate, etc. You don't pay it on regular food unless you go to a resturant. I remember the outcry when the conservatives brought in the tax, pop was taxed but not caviar.

[K. A. Pital]

D.Turtle
Thanks for pointing out the German cigarette tax study. Was interesting. Interesting that if we have a fall in smoke rates, the overall demand fall must be far greater than the fall which is compensated by self-made cigarettes. Therefore, we can't say that our possible tax on junk food would be compensated by people "eating other junk".

[D.Turtle]

D.Turtle
Thanks for pointing out the German cigarette tax study. Was interesting. Interesting that if we have a fall in smoke rates, the overall demand fall must be far greater than the fall which is compensated by self-made cigarettes. Therefore, we can't say that our possible tax on junk food would be compensated by people "eating other junk".

Always glad to be of service.

Incidentally, I think Lord Poe is right about one thing: A punitive tax on junk food ALONE will not necessarily have the desired effect.
It has to be supported by a massive campaign supporting the use of healthy food and living a healthy lifestyle, while at the same time exposing the dangers and cost of an extremely healthy lifestyle.
This should also be supported by a massive raise in the support of public sports.
Similar to how smoking is being dealt with (warnings posted everywhere, banning public smoking, etc).

[Darth Wong]

One thing about fast-food outlets is that they typically push the junk food on you. I've seen package deals with a burger, fries, and a soda, for example, which are actually cheaper than ordering a burger and a bottle of water. The grocery-store cost of healthy eating may not be significantly greater than the junk-food lifestyle, but IMO the fast-food joints do everything in their power to make you buy their most unhealthy food.

[Elessar]

I skimmed through the thread and didn't see it but Canada already has a tax on junk food. It's called the GST... you pay it on chips, pop, chocolate, etc. You don't pay it on regular food unless you go to a resturant. I remember the outcry when the conservatives brought in the tax, pop was taxed but not caviar.

Um, no. There is a provision that states that 'necessities' don't get taxed: bread, eggs and the like. But any kind of luxury food is not exempt. It's the same as restaurant foods, where under a certain value the meal is free of GST. However, exemptions does not even come close to making GST a junk food tax.

As for the outcry, that was a result of making hidden manufacturing taxes visible to the public eye. It was mostly a lot of fuss over nothing.

[Cairber]

One thing about fast-food outlets is that they typically push the junk food on you. I've seen package deals with a burger, fries, and a soda, for example, which are actually cheaper than ordering a burger and a bottle of water. The grocery-store cost of healthy eating may not be significantly greater than the junk-food lifestyle, but IMO the fast-food joints do everything in their power to make you buy their most unhealthy food.

I think supermarkets may play into the idea that junk food is cheaper. I feel the junk is more obviously displayed; for example, soda, chips, and popcorn (that kinda food) usually have their own aisles right in the center of the store. The end caps of aisles are usually filled with junk food (sugary cereals, soda, chips, etc that are on sale). The check out lanes are lined with candy. This at least has been my experience.

[General Zod]

My primary concern is the thinking behind this system of attacking problems, in this case obesity. Additional taxes aren't going to change the way people eat or take care of themselves...

Do excises on alcohol change the consumption rates of alcohol? If they do, why do you think a large tax on food would not have a similar effect? Please elaborate.

This idea that customers don't care if it costs more or less, but will stick to junk food anyway isn't well-substantiated - at least some customers are price-elastic, that is, with changes in price they might review their menu. Those who are not will pay for the unhealthy habit. Just like people pay for their drinking habits via high excises on alcohol.

Tja. There was a study about a year ago that showed that increase in alcohol price led to people drinking cheaper brands of alcohol and more of it.

I could easily see a similar type situation happening with junk food. Instead of buying the 5 dollar a bag of Dorito's, they buy the 2.50 dollar name brand nacho chips and eat more because it's cheaper.

Of course the caveat is that junk food, unlike alcohol, is not physically addictive and usually doesn't require rehab to stop doing.