Why Dont They Have A Tax On Processed Foods?

[joytron]

if the reason the tax on alchohol/cigarettes is because it is unhealthy, why dont they have a tax on unhealthy food instead of subsidizing it? a good portion of the money for health care we are "giving up" is going to children with diabetes so instead of just throwing more money at an epidemic, why not actual help reverse the problem. In a world where synthetic foods are cheaper per calorie than whole foods, how can we expect people, especially the lower class, make decisions that are based on their health rather than their checkbooks. They give subsidies large businesses at the expense of the nation's health and then expect us to foot the bill.

[Dr. B]

They do tax processed foods. I'm oversimplifying, but go buy a head of lettuce and a quarter pounder on two separate occasions (both conveniently found at wal-mart) and you'll notice prepared food/processed food comes with a tax.

[ZWAN]

I was thinking the same thing the other week
but I don't think taxing would solve the problem, I would say the problem lies with the convenience of processed foods/fast food. If you go back 50 years the fast food/snack industries were nothing like they are today. People have gotten to used to not having to do anything but go to the store and buy a bag of chips to fill their hunger. Its almost a related issue, as the the inexpensiveness of these products led it grow to what it is today.

[tinyj316]

Why not tax peanuts, shellfish, dairy products, wheat products, fatty meats and meat products, since there are people who are either allergic to them and we spend money on health care for them, or because they clog arteries when consumed in large quantities? Don't the growers know they're a tax burden on those who can't help it?!?

Why not tax cars (other than sales tax), since they injure and/or kill countless 1000's of people each year and the tax payers have to foot the bill for the healthcare for those who can't afford it, and they're getting bailout money!

Why not tax oxygen consumption, since there are airborne diseases and carcinogens that kill people every day?

While I myself am overweight, and fall prey to fast food every once in a while, there is no need to tax it more than its already being taxed. If we keep taxing things for the fact that they're bad for you, or contribute to deaths every year, we might as well move to nationalized health care.

This is what natural selection is all about... those people who have genes that predispose them do being obese, diabetic, deaf, mute, blind, epileptic, stupid, cognitively challenged, physically deformed/disabled, etc., were meant to be weeded out of the gene pool. As cruel and barbaric as that may sound... the whole point of procreation is to create a smarter, better, faster, stronger, more resilient offspring. If they can't make a healthier offspring, then that line should be "voting itself out of the gene pool"

[judgeposer]

I was thinking the same thing the other week
but I don't think taxing would solve the problem, I would say the problem lies with the convenience of processed foods/fast food. If you go back 50 years the fast food/snack industries were nothing like they are today. People have gotten to used to not having to do anything but go to the store and buy a bag of chips to fill their hunger. Its almost a related issue, as the the inexpensiveness of these products led it grow to what it is today.

Why not tax peanuts, shellfish, dairy products, wheat products, fatty meats and meat products, since there are people who are either allergic to them and we spend money on health care for them, or because they clog arteries when consumed in large quantities? Don't the growers know they're a tax burden on those who can't help it?!?

Why not tax cars (other than sales tax), since they injure and/or kill countless 1000's of people each year and the tax payers have to foot the bill for the healthcare for those who can't afford it, and they're getting bailout money!

Why not tax oxygen consumption, since there are airborne diseases and carcinogens that kill people every day?

While I myself am overweight, and fall prey to fast food every once in a while, there is no need to tax it more than its already being taxed. If we keep taxing things for the fact that they're bad for you, or contribute to deaths every year, we might as well move to nationalized health care.

This is what natural selection is all about... those people who have genes that predispose them do being obese, diabetic, deaf, mute, blind, epileptic, stupid, cognitively challenged, physically deformed/disabled, etc., were meant to be weeded out of the gene pool. As cruel and barbaric as that may sound... the whole point of procreation is to create a smarter, better, faster, stronger, more resilient offspring. If they can't make a healthier offspring, then that line should be "voting itself out of the gene pool"

Inasmuch as we might hear (at least from government or the media) that such sin taxes result from our moral impulse to make it harder for people to partake in vice or otherwise unhealthy behavior, I think we have a more reasonable explanation for why government taxes such things as tobacco, alcohol, etc., say, over other health-damaging products, like fast food. The demand for tobacco, for instance, is if not plainly, then relatively inelastic. That means that it is a good that remains in steady demand regardless of price, or put another way, the demand for a good is inelastic when the supply and demand of that good doesn't depend on that good's price. When the good's price changes causes a large change in the demand, the good is elastic - or simply responsive to price changes. The inverse is also true: if a change in the product's price does not produce a large, but rather a small or no change in the product's demand, the product is inelastic.

I think government taxes tobacco because it will produce guaranteed revenues (and because the good is something we consider unhealthy), whereas a tax on some other unhealthy goods (e.g. fast food, etc.) might not produce significant revenues if the market presents reasonable alternatives.

[ilikemyusername]

they want you to eat more processed foods so you get sick and tae thier meds. theyre all in it together, no tax = lower cost, think about it.

[Sonthert]

If I were to make the proposition that labor laws have made the United States' unemployment problem worse due to jobs being sent to other countries that have more lenient labor laws, we could consider several solutions.

1. Increase tariffs on products from foreign countries to artificially add to the cost of foreign labor-produced goods. Of course, the foreign countries could increase their tariffs and neutralize the effects, reducing American goods sales in foreign countries and hurting Americans.

2. Lower taxes on hiring American workers. This will retain more workers and more jobs and maybe even attract jobs back to the United States.

Consider Raising taxes on tobacco products or increasing money spent on anti-tobacco education.

The War on Drugs?
Prohibition?

Making laws preventing or discouraging people from doing something, whether its using taxes or interdictions creates crime, criminals, increases costs of government, eliminates jobs and restricts people's ability to choose (synonymous with being free). Making laws that encourage people to do the opposite of the particular action that's unwanted don't generally have those side effects. Why is it the knee-jerk reaction in the U.S. to make a law prohibiting nowadays?

Why not create a system that gives farmers who grow food for direct or natural consumption a subsidy (based on the percentage of what goes for healthy consumption and what goes for processing)...it would have the effect of discouraging processed foods/fast foods, etc., it wouldn't reduce the number of jobs, force people to do something they don't want to do like those taxes would.

Abstinence education is always less effective than sex education, whenever the two are in parallel with each other. So, even when it comes down to the difference between giving people facts and giving them information not to do something, the neutral, approach always works better. How many people started smoking cigarettes because they were told they shouldn't smoke them?

I would offer the suggestion that are movement towards a babysitter culture, passing laws stopping people from doing things is stifling the economy.