Tax the fat

Tingkai · June 11, 2003, 05:02

ASSOCIATED PRESS

ALBANY, N.Y. — A proposal to tax junk food, video games and television commercials to pay for an obesity prevention program faces stiff opposition from politicians and business groups.

Chances of the proposal passing before legislators go home for the summer June 19 looked slim after a spokesman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno said he would not support the tax.

The one per cent tax hike floated by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz would apply to junk food, video games and television commercials, which Ortiz blames on New York's growing obesity problem. Ortiz, a Brooklyn Democrat, did not rule out proposing tax increases on other things that he believed contribute to obesity.

Some health experts contend people who regularly consume soft drinks and fast food and those who constantly watch TV and play video games instead of exercising are at risk of becoming severely overweight.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968705899037

Givne the cost that obesity creates for society, this might be a good idea.

Firelad · June 11, 2003, 05:05

Yes, good idea. But who decides what to tax? Corruption.......

August Borms · June 11, 2003, 05:06

They should tax fat people, not fat.

yavoon · June 11, 2003, 05:27

holy retarded batman. u know instead of telling ppl u think something is wrong. we really should just tax it. there should be a murder tax. we dont like ppl driving big cars, lets tax gas. we dont like ppl smoking lets tax cigarettes. if u get too carried away the xtians are just gna pass a gay tax. and then yall will have been bit in ur own ass.

MrWhereItsAt · June 11, 2003, 05:53

What?

Spiffor · June 11, 2003, 06:51

Actually, what yavoon decries is a good idea (well, murder tax should go along with a real punishment too, of course).

In the case of tobacco, studies have shown the consumption really lowers when taxes rise. Most European cars are much more fuel-efficient than North-American cars because taxes make the prices of fuel extremely high here. Taxes do work, and taxes do allow to pay in order to clean the mess.

Taxing the fat is a good idea

Skanky Burns · June 11, 2003, 06:55

But taxing video games?!? That is just wrong.

Urban Ranger · June 11, 2003, 06:55

It's called an economic incentive

Proteus_MST · June 11, 2003, 07:09

Sounds like a good idea (at least with respect to Junkfood and Softdrinks

).

But what about chocolate bars like Snickers or Mars?
Are they included within the Fast Food?
If not they should included too, because they could often also be responsible for obesity
(In germany we had a judge who consumed Chocolate Bars and Softdrinks en masse, instead of regular meals. In the end he was really fat and was suffering from Diabetes mellitus.
So he tried to sue the Coca Cola Company and Masterfood, who produce Snickers and Mars, for not warning the consumers, that the regular consumption of their products could cause obesity and Diabetes. Of course his Complaint was rejected at court.

)

Dr. Nick · June 11, 2003, 07:12

Obesity means that the fat person will cause the government a higher health expenditure. So they should directly tax fat people (fat by choice, rather than by nature).

Urban Ranger · June 11, 2003, 07:21

Sometimes obesity is caused by genetics - so this approach is correct. Tax the fat ladden foods.

Kaak · June 11, 2003, 13:36

Quote:

we dont like ppl driving big cars, lets tax gas. we dont like ppl smoking lets tax cigarettes

ummm...gas already gets a hefty tax (upwards of 40 cents a gallon), and cigarettes are taxed even more....

Boris Godunov · June 11, 2003, 13:48

The American gas tax is very, very low compared to most countries, especially in Europe. I am totally in favor of taxing gas much, much more.

If the government wants to tax unhealthy foods more, I don't have an ethical problem with it, but I wonder if it won't make the price of healthy foods go up as well, which would mean the poor would be screwed at both ends.

SpencerH · June 11, 2003, 13:57

What's unhealthy food?

Japher · June 11, 2003, 14:03

Quote:

What's unhealthy food?

Anything they sell at the checkout line in Fry's

SpencerH · June 11, 2003, 14:57

Aside from foods that have been poisoned such as badly prepared fugu and improperly canned foods I cant think of any 'unhealthy' foods.

Personally, I dont want to see legislation based upon any of the 'scientific fads' including healthy and unhealthy diets.

Proteus_MST · June 11, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The American gas tax is very, very low compared to most countries, especially in Europe. I am totally in favor of taxing gas much, much more.

If the government wants to tax unhealthy foods more, I don't have an ethical problem with it, but I wonder if it won't make the price of healthy foods go up as well, which would mean the poor would be screwed at both ends.

Couldn´t it also have the opposite effect in the end,
prices of healthy food going down,
because of higher demand
(which leads to more healthy food being produced)?

Lawrence of Arabia · June 11, 2003, 16:53

Nah, you shouldnt tax fatty foods. Why tax someone on a choice which doesnt affect anyone else. If you dont want to be fat, dont eat that food. If you dont care, eat it. Dont restrict or make people pay more because you dont like it.

Spiffor · June 11, 2003, 17:02

LoA :
That only works if you consider that healthcare shouldn't exist.

yavoon · June 11, 2003, 18:11

taxing someone on a choice is absurd. if ur so upset that they are draining ur tax money cuz they ate steak then make them pay for their own heart bypass or let them suffer. the socialism in this thread is scary. we need some good ol libertarian cooking.

BustaMike · June 11, 2003, 18:35

Something like this would piss me off to no end. I eat tons of junk food (and other food in general), drink tons of soda, play a decent amount of video games, and am in great shape. I'm an athletic (borderline skinny) 6'5'' and 193 lbs.

If something like this passed, I would be paying my money to fat people who are too lazy to get up and go excercise on their own so they need public help to do it.

Holy retarded batman!

Thankfully, I'm sure it has no chance of passing there or anywhere else.

Sava · June 11, 2003, 18:45

what a dumbass idea....

The Templar · June 11, 2003, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Nah, you shouldnt tax fatty foods. Why tax someone on a choice which doesnt affect anyone else. If you dont want to be fat, dont eat that food. If you dont care, eat it. Dont restrict or make people pay more because you dont like it.

Cute. Another libertarian that doesn't understand externalities. That is, two people engaging in an activity that imposes costs borne by a third party. Some examples

(1) Smoking in bars: imposes risks on patrons and especially employees. And don't give me that "find another job" bullshit - you can't expose people to carcenogens in the workplace without proper safeguards.

(2) Driving Cars: gives kids in urban areas asthma. Exposes me to particulate matter. Increases global warming. Drivers should have to pay a fee to represent these costs that they impose on everyone else.

(3) Fat People: huffing puffing wheezing bastards who need two seats on an airplane and three on the subway. They get heart attacks and then we get to pay in the form of higher insurance premiums - even in the private sector - so don't give me any nonsense about socialism.

The worst, of course, is some obese bastard sucking down Micky D's or, god forbid, White Castle, smoking a cigar, and while driving through the city with a faulty emissions control system.

By all means, make the burger eaters cover their eternalities!

Skanky Burns · June 11, 2003, 19:02

As long as computer games aren't included, I also support this.

yavoon · June 11, 2003, 19:03

because costs for society exist is no reason to tax them templar. that is still a socialist value. which all stems from ur need to provide universal everything then u feel wronged by all these ppl not living the proper communist way so u decide to tax them in order to recoup some of that wrong.

Kidicious · June 11, 2003, 19:08

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
because costs for society exist is no reason to tax them templar. that is still a socialist value. which all stems from ur need to provide universal everything then u feel wronged by all these ppl not living the proper communist way so u decide to tax them in order to recoup some of that wrong.

No. He's using the neo-classical theory of public finance. The individual or firm that creates the cost should pay the tax.

yavoon · June 11, 2003, 19:12

no. because u r broadly taxing an entire portion of the population in order to recoup costs that only statistically originate from it. if I eat 5 steaks in my life then die of old age in a barn in mississipi I will have paid taxes towards the gov't for something that I recouped no value from. this is extreme only for clarity u could obviously elaborate this into many other examples. but the fact remains u r not targetting the cost specifically u r only broadly slapping ppl in order to recoup some of the damage.

BustaMike · June 11, 2003, 19:12

I would support this if it were ONLY the fat people that were paying for it. I'll be damned if I have to pay because someone doesn't have enough self control not to eat that 4th cheeseburger.

The Templar · June 11, 2003, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
because costs for society exist is no reason to tax them templar. that is still a socialist value. which all stems from ur need to provide universal everything then u feel wronged by all these ppl not living the proper communist way so u decide to tax them in order to recoup some of that wrong.

Externalities have nothing to do with socialism communism in this context. To the contrary, externalities are the very things that cause markets to fail.

Consider: If obese people and fit people are in the same PPO (a private health plan), then the obese people will drive premiums and costs up for the healthy people. In other words, the fit will subsidize the fat. The fit will likely seek (in the absence of regulation to the contrary) to join a plan that excludes the fat thereby driving down their costs. This means either the PPOs will charge unaffordably high rates to insure fat people or the market will not offer plans for fat people because there is no profit to be made off of obese people. So you will have demand for a product - PPOs for the fat - but no supply (either priced out of range or non-existant). Thereby, you have a market failure.

Now what happens when the market fails? Well, either fat people drop like flies (the libertarian solution), or more likely, government intervention. Given that (1) most people retain too much empathy to be that cold-heartedly libertarian, and (2) fat people vote - expect some sort of government solution.

Government intervention to either directly provide insurance or regs that prevent discriminating against fat people. In either case, the cost of being fat is again born by the fit. The transaction between White Castle and the fat person imposes a cost on individuals in the form of subsidizing the increased healthcare needs of the fat. That's money out of your pocket. I thought libertarians hated it when others took THEIR so-called money.

Kidicious · June 11, 2003, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
no. because u r broadly taxing an entire portion of the population in order to recoup costs that only statistically originate from it. if I eat 5 steaks in my life then die of old age in a barn in mississipi I will have paid taxes towards the gov't for something that I recouped no value from. this is extreme only for clarity u could obviously elaborate this into many other examples. but the fact remains u r not targetting the cost specifically u r only broadly slapping ppl in order to recoup some of the damage.

I look at it as total social costs vs the total social benefits of the steak. Steak makes people fat so there should be higher tax on it.