Some of you may or may not know that Denmark has introduced a tax on foods which contain more than 2.3% saturated fat in them. Recently my (Conservative) PM David Cameron spoke of introducing a similar measure to prevent an obesity crisis, citing America as a negative example of why we need to do this. Thus it's been in the press a fair amount recently.
People seem generally supportive of this proposal in the UK, and although our obesity epidemic isn't as bad as America's, we do have a hell of a lot of unhealthily fat people here. I don't mind adding that I am supportive of this issue. I believe people need to learn to see the bigger picture instead of just saying ''oh gosh, I just lost a piece of cake/freedom, this means the government is tyrannical and needs to be removed from power''.
But given the amount of Americans here on AG I'd be interested in hearing the other side of the fence, and to hear from some Danes would also be great, but anyone can of course chip in.
I think it's a terrible idea! Sin taxes don't work, it's that easy. And who are you (or the government) to say that I shouldn't eat food with a high fat percentage? It won't hurt anybody.
I think it's a terrible idea! Sin taxes don't work, it's that easy.
Well it depends on what you are talking about. In terms of modifying behaviour it doesn't often work, as that requires a change in culture which takes generations. Take cigarrettes for example, during WW2 almost 80% of male adults smoked. Now due to sustained government intervention across the board internationally, levels are down to about 20% in developed countries. Heavy taxation was a huge part of this.
However back to my initial point, whether or not behavioural changes occur instantly is irrelevant if the short term economic externalities caused by things like smoking and drinking are recouped/negated. For example the tax on ciggies in the UK brings in about £20bn annually, whilst NHS costs of looking after smokers per year is about £7bn. With regards to alcohol the extra tax on it helps the government to fund the extra policing/healthcare required to dealk with badly behaved drunks. Since corporations are out only to profit as much as possible without thought for the consequences on society government stepping in to try and balance this can only be a good thing.
And who are you (or the government) to say that I shouldn't eat food with a high fat percentage? It won't hurt anybody.
It's not just what the government wants, it's about what forms a better society. Less people having to use the healthcare system which they may or may not have enough money for means less people not capable of working. Which leads to a better society overall. Again back to my point about the bigger picture. Why do you object to government intervention so strongly to the point where you would rather see an obesity epidemic worsen, thereby having negative effects on possibly you and the people around you, rather than just letting the government get involved and try to solve the issue?
So was the lack of information for the side effects. Kids used to play with lead toys and mercury. Schools were also lined with asbestos. The fact that those don't show up in society anymore had nothing to do with taxes.
I sorta agree with Firefly. Making fast food expensive will encourage people to eat less of it. This is whats best for the general health of americans. It's like if everyone started smoking. And I mean everyone. Kids, adults. And then 25% of people where in danger of possibly getting lung cancer. Only less of an extreme of course.
You can't raise prices on fast food anymore because fastfood buisnesses like McDonalds have the best lawyers money can buy. They will raise trouble until they can control the prices again. The way too prevent obiesity is to eliminate the "threat" or not allow it to get near anyone. It is too late for the latter and no one will support the former so America is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Really it comes down to the choices people make, but some people suck at making good choices and that is what got the US to where it is now.
Next lets implement the "No exercising tax", the "Sugar tax", the "Laziness tax", the "Not brushing your teeth tax" and just tax everything else we don't like, why not?
Sure, obesity is a problem. But how will this help? This is also effecting everyone else, the people who can eat a cheeseburger if they want to. Why should I have to pay a tax for that biscuits and gravy, when I am average wait and probably going to work it off in the next few hours? Why should I pay a tax on that Twinkie I have as a snack? I worked a lot in the summer, and as it turns out you can't get healthy food very fast, and not fifty miles from your house. Why should I have to pay $15 for a meal, when I am not going to become obese any time soon?
And then there is the fact that you can't just tax something that you don't like. Lets say I don't like people spending more than three hours on the computer every day. Spending that much time on a computer can lead to health problems, and it can be considered an epidemic by itself. Wouldn't it be a bad thing to tax computers in order to attempt to lessen their use?
Next lets implement the "No exercising tax", the "Sugar tax", the "Laziness tax", the "Not brushing your teeth tax" and just tax everything else we don't like, why not? Sure, obesity is a problem. But how will this help? This is also effecting everyone else, the people who can eat a cheeseburger if they want to. Why should I have to pay a tax for that biscuits and gravy, when I am average wait and probably going to work it off in the next few hours? Why should I pay a tax on that Twinkie I have as a snack? I worked a lot in the summer, and as it turns out you can't get healthy food very fast, and not fifty miles from your house. Why should I have to pay $15 for a meal, when I am not going to become obese any time soon? And then there is the fact that you can't just tax something that you don't like. Lets say I don't like people spending more than three hours on the computer every day. Spending that much time on a computer can lead to health problems, and it can be considered an epidemic by itself. Wouldn't it be a bad thing to tax computers in order to attempt to lessen their use?
I didn't think about it this way. I feel you're right. That this tax goes for everyone, but it wasn't made to be for everyone.
Well, they are at least getting something done and doing their job of "rotecting us", but let me get to my point. Now I dunno any standards that Denmark is to (supposed to) live up, but America's is all about "the land of the free". What would be the better ethical choice? Limit our once carefree eating rights and taxing them to promote health, or allowing us to eat whatever the hell we please, even if they were unsavory in terms of healthy? Our Government, the United States, better be studying Rule Utilitarianism pretty dang hard. Who's to say the tax is going to limit the amount of people buying awesome food? Will that not hinder and concentrate their economy?
Another thing to consider is that it's usually the poor who eats the cheap junk that makes one fat because they can't afford the better foods. So by adding such a tax only makes it harder for the poor to eat.
Well it depends on what you are talking about. In terms of modifying behaviour it doesn't often work, as that requires a change in culture which takes generations. Take cigarrettes for example, during WW2 almost 80% of male adults smoked. Now due to sustained government intervention across the board internationally, levels are down to about 20% in developed countries. Heavy taxation was a huge part of this.
Well, no. Less people smoke today than they did in the past because we are more aware of the dangers of smoking. It's not because of taxation. Taxation may have caused people to buy less cigarettes, but those who continue to smoke regularly are only being harmed.
However back to my initial point, whether or not behavioural changes occur instantly is irrelevant if the short term economic externalities caused by things like smoking and drinking are recouped/negated. For example the tax on ciggies in the UK brings in about ã20bn annually, whilst NHS costs of looking after smokers per year is about ã7bn. With regards to alcohol the extra tax on it helps the government to fund the extra policing/healthcare required to dealk with badly behaved drunks. Since corporations are out only to profit as much as possible without thought for the consequences on society government stepping in to try and balance this can only be a good thing.
The problem here is the morality behind the taxation as well as the assumption that taxes are used responsibly. I won't go into detail about how wasteful the government is. However, the morality issue here is that the people are being taxed for making "oor" decisions. Should the government be allowed to decide which decisions are poor? What about alcohol? We justify the taxation of alcohol with the idea that alcohol causes problems, but what about people who drink responsibly? Is it fair to tax a person who is responsible? Should the government be allowed to punish legal actions?
The issue I have with sin tax is that we could apply a sin tax to video games and I'm sure we would find an increase in tax revenue in which we can claim the taxation of video games justified. I'm sure we could apply the tax to porn too if we really wanted to.
It's not just what the government wants, it's about what forms a better society.
Shouldn't it be up to the people to decide what is best for society rather than an elite few? Of course, what's best for the society is debatable. Do we focus on prolonging everyone's life? Do we focus on letting everyone do whatever makes them happy, despite the health issues? The beauty of allowing people to decide is that everyone controls their own destiny (for the most part).
Less people having to use the healthcare system which they may or may not have enough money for means less people not capable of working. Which leads to a better society overall.
I believe it is ALWAYS wrong to take another person's money. If everyone is so concerned about raising money for healthcare, then those concerned should donate money themselves, or find ways of making money to help pay for the sick.
If we spent less time saying "we need taxation to help the sick" and focused more on actually donating money, or holding fundraisers, then we could find ways to cover people's healthcare without resorting to coercive tax collecting. Of course, health care is expensive, so obviously we would also have to look into why healthcare is so expensive in the first place, and it's not just because businesses are greedy and want to profit. Healthcare is expensive because medicine goes through such expensive testing that it's only profitable if sold at a high price. It's also expensive when so many doctors prescribe medicine to people who don't need it (most notably people who take medication for depression).
Again back to my point about the bigger picture. Why do you object to government intervention so strongly to the point where you would rather see an obesity epidemic worsen, thereby having negative effects on possibly you and the people around you, rather than just letting the government get involved and try to solve the issue?
You are presenting us a false dilemma. Who says the only solution has to be government intervention?
As humanity advances, we should try to rely less on the government.
Eating is not a choice, it is not a sin and definitely its not like smoking. A fat tax is only going to punish the poor and unhealthy eaters even more, they still get the alleged health problems and they have to spend more, to eat the food, they enjoy. Plus, more money spent on "harmful" food means less money available to do something healthy. Let's see what an obese person gains from a fat tax: 1) All the same obese 2) Not doing something he enjoys 3) Poorer
But what does the government gain: 1) help close the budget gap they created. Its a win.
In my opinion the way to change one's behavior is through education and awareness, definitely not taxes. And positive incentives, for example they could provide a discount to some healthy restaurant or something. They should make exercising and buying healthy foods become cheaper (and fun).
But if the government really wants to tax someone, they can always tax the manufacturers of the allegedly "harmful" products. They are the "bad" guys, not the victims, the obese persons.
@FireFly: 314d1, Freakenstein and Noname pretty much said what I'm thinking about this, so I'm not gonna respond to you again (especially since I'm in a hurry). Maybe when I'm coming back on Monday.
But if the government really wants to tax someone, they can always tax the manufacturers of the allegedly "harmful" products. They are the "bad" guys, not the victims, the obese persons.
The manufacturers still want to make the same amount of profit so we will still have to pay more. It's the same thing IMO.
