Taxing unhealthy products

[grasping the after wind]

The introduction of a sugar tax in Berkley has led to a significant reduction in soft drink sales
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows

In my country (Norway) the tax system specifically targets products that are either unhealthy for the individual (alcohol, tobacco, sugar) or for the environment (CO2 emissions, etc.). The more 'unhealthy' something is - the more it is taxed. This way of thinking has much support in Norway. Although people often think those taxes are too high - they still support the idea that it is better to tax something unhealthy (tobacco) rather than something healthy (vegetables).

However, I assume this is not very popular in the US. How do people feel about such "unhealthy-taxes"?

We tax tobbacco alcohol etc. But not Co2 emissions.I would be curious to know how much the government charges for the Co2 you emit when you breathe?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Bananas have vitamins, minerals, and fiber, the milky way bar is just empty calories.

That nutritionist said bananas are just as much empty calories because the fiber minerals and vitamins in a banana are so miniscule as to be irrelevant. Now i don't claim to know if he has a point or not but certainly though when it comes to the problem of a person becoming obese if the calories are the same the harm done is the same. Additionally, I have heard that there may be certain mental health benefits to chocolate consumption but we were talking about obesity being the issue so any other factors that may make a food good for one is beside the point if the effect upon obesity is equally harmful.

 

[faroukfarouk]

If you commit an act that harms society, then society has a right to impose upon you - In this case your obesity imposes harm on society - lets be very clear here - Obesity is a major burden on society and is growing alarmingly. Worse it imposes harm to your children who statistically will also be obese.

So if you harm me [society] I have every right to impose upon you - in this case to make you pay through taxes. If you cant fix your own obesity problem yet expect me to year after year to subsidize your poor lifestyle choices, then I need to be compensated by way of you paying your way through taxes. {not you personally of course}

So I wonder where it all ends? what if some commissar for supposed mental wellbeing makes an ex cathedra statement and decides that reading the Bible is supposedly bad for my health?

 

[Tull]

So I wonder where it all ends?

It doesn't end because the lust for control and power never ends and if some can't do it themselves then they enjoy seeing it done.

 

[Zoii]

So I wonder where it all ends? what if some commissar for supposed mental wellbeing makes an ex cathedra statement and decides that reading the Bible is supposedly bad for my health?

@ Tull If people could do it themselves we wouldn't be seeing in the USA over 70% of adults over 20 are overweight or obese, and 25% of children. That figure increases every year. So the problem is NOT a nanny state, but that the population isnt able to manage the problem themselves. They need some regulatory help before the whole nation sinks to an even more unhealthy level and drowns in diabetes.

 

[Zoii]

I think to even begin to tax foods using your argument( an argument I find unconvincing but for the sake of argument let us say we will accept it) you would need to show how an individual person's obesity harms society and that the obesity is mainly caused by the particular foods you would tax. I attended a nutrition lecture once and the nutritionist insisted that Bananas were a worse food than Milky Way Bars as according to him the Banana has more sugar and more calories than the Milky Way Bar. That being the case, once you have proven that an individual person's obesity harms society( you ought to also have some sort of clear definition of what constitutes the society being harmed by this individual's obesity) then who is it that should be authorized to decide which foods are causing this harmful obesity. Should the nutritionist that I heard lecture be the final authority? Should a politician that receives funding From the Banana Council be the authority? Perhaps one that receives funding form the Mars Candy Company? Should some group of bureaucrats be so empowered with perhaps some of them considering some future position with a company whose foods were somehow coincidentally not considered harmful by the group or whose competitors were named harmful? Should we rely on the group of scientists that concluded that eggs were bad for us as they are too high in cholesterol? Maybe you want the job so you can weed out all the foods you have a personal animus for?

Thats easy enough to do - I could recommend sites like the World Health Organization but Im sure you can google too if you choose.

But to answer your questions - the whole push is to make fresh foods cheap and sugar foods expensive. I cant help that you spoke to some weirdo nutritionist, but fruit = healthy...chocolate = NOT healthy. Its not hard.

Hasnt it bothered you that a 2 litre bottle of Cola can be cheaper than a 2 litre bottle of water?

And is society harmed? - this isnt even a debate...IT IS - it very much is and if you werent aware of that I encourage you to google.

 

[Tull]

Society is harmed by many things and if we go after one then we should go after all otherwise the claims of concern for well being of society are based on something other than any concern for society....control,power and tyranny perhaps.

 

[Zoii]

Society is harmed by many things and if we go after one then we should go after all otherwise the claims of concern for well being of society are based on something other than any concern for society....control,power and tyranny perhaps.

I'll use your logic to illustrate why it isnt an acceptable response. You legislate against the use of cocaine because you acknowledge the impact it has on the individual and society is very high. You dont then say well fine we legislate for this so we have to legislate for every little impact on society . You consider carefully what are the high risks to society and identify what and how you can modify or control risk.

Now fine if your country believes that obesity isnt a problem and therefore you have no need to control the risk. But if your country eg USA Mexico UK Australia (the top obese nations) has obesity above 60% then you have a society problem and nothing you are doing at the moment is working - and the level of the risk very very high ie in terms of cost to the nation and deaths and life-style impact it is way way higher than terrorism and yet you have plenty of laws around terrorism. To not act against obesity is just putting your head in the sand.

 

[Desk trauma]

To not act against obesity is just putting your head in the sand.

Actually it's standing on the principle that a persons health is their business and it's not right for the state to compel them to live a certain way.

 

[Zoii]

Actually it's standing on the principle that a persons health is their business and it's not right for the state to compel them to live a certain way.

A person's health IS everyone's business. You make the employer pay because of your increased injury and sickness rates and decreased productivity. You incur an added cost for pretty much every service and society is required to subsidize the obese person. Why should I have to pay for the poor choices of someone else.

So two choices..those causing a market promoting obesity and gaining massive profits from obesity are taxed (eg sugar tax and a removal of tax exemptions for things like advertising)
.... or obese people pay their way and dont expect those not obese to subsidize them eg...plane tickets based on weight... insurance based on BMI (what should I pay the same health insurance premium for someone who is obese...in effect Im paying more because of the obese persons over-use of health care)....... everything - even a movie ticket (chairs eventually break but especially those who have morbidly obese people sitting in them...that cost is factored into the price of a ticket).

You cant have it both ways...you want society to pay for the obese persons extremely bad habits but then shirk at society saying "pay or change your ways".

 

[TheNorwegian]

We tax tobbacco alcohol etc. But not Co2 emissions.I would be curious to know how much the government charges for the Co2 you emit when you breathe?

Nothing obviously
However gasoline is taxed because of its emissions. This is one of the reasons why electrical cars are so common in Norway (since there is no CO2 on hydroelectric power)

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The introduction of a sugar tax in Berkley has led to a significant reduction in soft drink sales
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows

In my country (Norway) the tax system specifically targets products that are either unhealthy for the individual (alcohol, tobacco, sugar) or for the environment (CO2 emissions, etc.). The more 'unhealthy' something is - the more it is taxed. This way of thinking has much support in Norway. Although people often think those taxes are too high - they still support the idea that it is better to tax something unhealthy (tobacco) rather than something healthy (vegetables).

However, I assume this is not very popular in the US. How do people feel about such "unhealthy-taxes"?

Thanks for the posting the article. I go to college in the Bay Area, and the tax has been discussed locally both casually and in the news, but I hadn't been aware that Mexico also had a sugar tax (that lead to a fall in consumption for the second year running) until I clicked on your link. The article about that tax is linked on the left sidebar.

These were the main takeaways to me from the article about Berkeley's sugar tax:

The American Heart Association praised study and the sugar tax.

Its CEO, Nancy Brown said: “This study adds to the compelling evidence that simply cannot be ignored. The residents of Berkeley, who voted for a sugary drink tax in their community, are now seeing the benefits of significantly reduced consumption of sugary drinks, significantly increased consumption of water and consumers are switching to healthier drinks.

&

One year after the introduction of the tax, their paper in the journal Plos Medicine shows that sales of sugary drinks in Berkeley fell by 9.6%, while sales in surrounding areas with no tax rose by 6.9%.

This wasn't a tyrannical imposition; residents of Berkeley voted for this tax, and it's had demonstrable efficacy and been praised by reputable health experts.

 

[Tull]

I'll use your logic to illustrate why it isnt an acceptable response. You legislate against the use of cocaine because you acknowledge the impact it has on the individual and society is very high. You dont then say well fine we legislate for this so we have to legislate for every little impact on society . You consider carefully what are the high risks to society and identify what and how you can modify or control risk.

No that is not my logic or my point,my point is that people love to control people,they like to control what other people do and have their vices left alone regardless of the harm done to society,sexual perversion and the destruction of the family is ok but a Big Mac is not,corruption is ok but the Twinkie has to go,godless hedonism is just fine but cigarettes are the Devil's own.

There is no genuine concern for society just a desire for power and control and in many cases money.

 

[Armoured]

The introduction of a sugar tax in Berkley has led to a significant reduction in soft drink sales
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows

In my country (Norway) the tax system specifically targets products that are either unhealthy for the individual (alcohol, tobacco, sugar) or for the environment (CO2 emissions, etc.). The more 'unhealthy' something is - the more it is taxed. This way of thinking has much support in Norway. Although people often think those taxes are too high - they still support the idea that it is better to tax something unhealthy (tobacco) rather than something healthy (vegetables).

However, I assume this is not very popular in the US. How do people feel about such "unhealthy-taxes"?

I see the logic of "tax unhealthy goods", but my concern is that it becomes a defacto tax on being poor, given that healthier options are generally far more expensive. Both issues need to be addressed simultaneously.

 

[grasping the after wind]

@ Tull If people could do it themselves we wouldn't be seeing in the USA over 70% of adults over 20 are overweight or obese, and 25% of children. That figure increases every year. So the problem is NOT a nanny state, but that the population isnt able to manage the problem themselves. They need some regulatory help before the whole nation sinks to an even more unhealthy level and drowns in diabetes.

I am aware that correlation is not proof of causation but since there is a correlation between the growth of the nanny state and the increase in obesity just summarily dismissing any possible link is somewhat unreasonable.

As for people being unable to do what one o r one's government wants them to do, perhaps the reason is not inability but unwillingness? Others may actually have decided that what one thinks they ought to do carries less weight in their mind than what they themselves think they want themselves to do. Some people seem to be under the impression that those that have the same ideas about what constitutes an unhealthy food as they do have the right to impose their will upon others that do not share those ideas by using the aggressive coercive force of government. I would think that rather than becoming dictatorial and using the coercive force of government through taxation( which IMO for the government is probably the ends and claiming to be concerned with health the means to achieve that ends) when unable to convince others by proclaiming one's absolute correctness or by emotional appeal, one might try to use reasonable argument ( which is not in any way telling people to consult the proclamations and emotional appeals of those that are like minded to oneself like the UN or Google) to convince them by proof positive that the position one is tal= king is not only reasonable but has been well thought out rather than simply taken on faith from an authority figure. After all, one person's authority figure may not be as esteemed by someone else and not be deemed worthy of that sort of trusting naivety. . If one cannot make the case oneself then one's proclamations have no credibility and are in no way convincing.

 

[keith99]

Is there an athletes exemption from the sugar tax?

I swam competitively for over a decade. On meet days swimmers were big consumers of pure sugar, dextrose being a preferred option. Why? Because a meet would run all day with having less then 2 hours between event being the norm. One could not consume regular food, it would sit in your stomach like a rock. The shortest time between events for me was about 10 minutes, for a teammate about 1 minute. Both in our college conference championship meet. 200 Butterfly followed by 200 backstroke. Consolation finals for me, he won the conference in the fly and just move over one lane for the consolation finals in the backstroke. One refuels with pure energy.

I also bicycled at a decent recreational level. As in the typical weekend ride would be about 60-70 miles. I did 4 double centuries, 2 of them back to back. Guess what the water bottles were often a high calorie high sugar mix. Should sports drinks get an exemption?

For that matter should the standard IV from medical TV be taxed? Guess what D5W stands for (hint check this post for words starting with 'D').

 

[grasping the after wind]

Nothing obviously
However gasoline is taxed because of its emissions. This is one of the reasons why electrical cars are so common in Norway (since there is no CO2 on hydroelectric power)

Why is it obvious? You emit C02 why should the government not tax that. It would be a very lucrative tax. Is it because you believe that the tax revenue is not the government's primary interest in levying such taxes? If so what do you think the primary interest of the government is in the levying of taxes? Gasoline is taxed here as well but the usual excuse for the tax is that the revenue is needed to finance road construction etc. not curbing CO2 emissions. Because the public does not universally view the government as either wise or mainly benevolent ( Polls tell us the public is extremely skeptical of anything the government says.With good reason from past experience. ) the politicians in government cannot be secure in their positions without first convincing us that what they want to do is necessary and useful in accomplishing rationally achievable goals. The consequences of not doing that are loss of power as with the consequences of the passage of Obamacare. Something the public in general did not ask for and did not approve of even before it was understood that the government had been less than candid about what it was , leading to the Democratic Party going from total and incontestable control of the Federal government, prior to its passing, to becoming fairly much irrelevant in the Federal government in the course of eight short years. There is no reason that something similar( not exactly the same as they have not the same incontestability as the Democrats had eight years ago) could not happen to the Republican Party in as swift a way should they institute unpopular measures. So if the government were to pass a gasoline tax that significantly harmed the lifestyles of its citizens while the citizens were not convinced that such a tax did anything to actually curb CO2 emissions in a significant way( which is most likely the case as personal transportation in the US has become so ingrained as to make gasoline use a commodity with inelastic demand.), those passing such a measure would be in danger of being unemployed fairly quickly. .

Is all electric power in Norway generated by hydro? In the US much of the electricity comes from coal powered plants which means that electric cars may well cause close to , just as much, or more CO2 and pollutants to be emitted into the atmosphere than gasoline powered cars. Plus they are comparatively expensive and have certain disadvantages for the traveler that are much more noticeable in a large country with a very mobile population. I actually live close to one of the more famous hydroelectric plants( I believe it may well have been the site of the first major plant in the US, though I could be mistaken.) .

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Guess what the water bottles were often a high calorie high sugar mix. Should sports drinks get an exemption?

For that matter should the standard IV from medical TV be taxed? Guess what D5W stands for (hint check this post for words starting with 'D').

Very long story, but there is a better way. (not ever taught, it seems)...
what is very bad for people is supported, and what is good and healing is perverted in the society so people do not often hear about it, or learn the truth.

 

[keith99]

An interesting tidbit from the link:

One year after the introduction of the tax, their paper in the journal Plos Medicine shows that sales of sugary drinks in Berkeley fell by 9.6%, while sales in surrounding areas with no tax rose by 6.9%.

The question now becomes is the 10% reduction really more a case of not reducing but moving sales or is it that the bay area is an area of rising sales as evidenced by surrounding communities so the 10% is an understatement?

I think looking at areas surrounding the surrounding areas would give a pretty good indication.

 

[TheNorwegian]

Why is it obvious? You emit C02 why should the government not tax that. It would be a very lucrative tax. Is it because you believe that the tax revenue is not the government's primary interest in levying such taxes? .

Breathing is a basic human 'habit' and nothing can be done to stop it (short of killing people). Emission from cars and other sources can be reduced if necessary. A tax on such emissions will make the price of the commodity more expensive and lead to a relatively higher demand for non-emission alternatives. This actually works, as can be seen by the development of lower emission engines over the last decades, and more recently by the switch to electrical cars

Is all electric power in Norway generated by hydro? In the US much of the electricity comes from coal powered plants which means that electric cars may well cause close to , just as much, or more CO2 and pollutants to be emitted into the atmosphere than gasoline powered cars. Plus they are comparatively expensive and have certain disadvantages for the traveler that are much more noticeable in a large country with a very mobile population. I actually live close to one of the more famous hydroelectric plants( I believe it may well have been the site of the first major plant in the US, though I could be mistaken.) .

Yes, all electrical power in Norway is generated by hydro, except for a tiny fraction that is created by wind, waves and solar. There is not one coal powered plant nor any nuclear plants in Norway. Neither do we use natural gas for heating or electricity