Why not tax trans fats?

"Imposing taxes on things we want people to use less of is the most economically sound, liberty-friendly way of affecting human behavior. Yet we in the United States seem mostly allergic to this approach. Why is that?"

because Americans are stupid, and subject to political demogoguery on taxation, silly. I mean, how many times have you seen a political ad that says "Candidate X raised taxes a zillion times" without regard to the nature of the tax increases in question, the need for an increased revenue stream because of economic conditions, or that the taxes were dedicated to specific (and publicly approved) purposes.

Because we prefer to be free-- and that includes the freedom to be self-destructive if we so desire. To limit trans-fat consumption means that you are banned outright or discouraged economically from scourging your own artieries...as is your right. You need not be required to support the public weal by remaining healthy.

What an incredibly stupid idea. Liberty friendly?? And just what all-seeing, all-knowing body is going to decide what is bad for me and I should pay extra for? YOU? You are truly scary.

To CC and Greg: My point is that all-seeing, all-knowing bodies are already making such decisions (as in Montgomery County) and that it would make far more sense and be far less draconian to implement them via taxes. And given that the poor health of individuals does cost the rest of us in the form of higher taxes, insurance premiums, etc., what exactly is unfair or anti-liberty about hiking the price of things shown to cause that poor health?

As for you, Paul, anti-tax sentiment is surely part of it. But I also think a lot of people believe that enacting regulations is somehow a tougher, more effective way of dealing with problems than tweaking the tax code. And in a lot of cases they're dead wrong.

"As for you, Paul, anti-tax sentiment is surely part of it. But I also think a lot of people believe that enacting regulations is somehow a tougher, more effective way of dealing with problems than tweaking the tax code. And in a lot of cases they're dead wrong."

I agree. My answer, however, was in response to the question of why people were "allergic" to the tax-based approach -- a preference for regulation over taxation is not an "allergic" reaction to taxation.

As for regulation vs taxation as the "toughest, most effective way of dealing with problems", while I'm sure that there are instances where there are bad regulation policies that are less effective than good taxation policies would be, that is more an issue of poorly contrived regulations.

Personally, I'm generally opposed to the "taxation" approach because it represents a form of economic discrimination -- while poor people's options/behavior would be impacted by something like a tax on trans fat, the wealthier you are the less of an impact such a tax would have on your options/behavior. Raising the price of McDonald's french fries by 10 cents makes a difference to lower income Americans, raising the price of a prix fix dinner that includes a side of pomme frittes at Le Bec Fin in Philadelphia by a dime wouldn't make a difference to anyone.

Ummm...the government *already* decides what's good for us and what's bad for us. Oxycontin = good, Heroin = bad, even though they're essentially the same thing. Even helmet laws could be considered as impinging on your right to risk serious head injuries on a motorcycle because the rest of us don't want to pay for your medical bills.

I like the idea of taxing trans fat foods except for one thing:

One of the biggest problems with healthy eating is the cost of doing so. Poor people in this country are, in fact, the most obese and unhealthy in this country because all they can afford are fast food meals and related junk. Produce, on the other hand, is relatively expensive considering it takes a lot to fill you up. So, my only concern with such taxation is that it will, in effect, hit poor people the hardest by targeting those foods they can most easily afford.

One solution: Could we couple this tax on trans fats with some sort of subsidies or tax breaks on fresh and healthy foods? Doing so would double the economic incentive to eat healthy; make bad foods more expensive and healthy foods less so.

Matt

Matt - I think that's the smartest thing I've read in a long time.

How about we take it a step further and get at the problem before it starts. Education is the key, educate on healthy eating at the beginning, stop serving all that junk in school cafeterias and get kids to be active. Is that so hard?

The healthy eating education I received in school was at best, ok. But then I got in line in the lunch room and the choices I had were pizza, french fries and mystery meat. Like so much else we learn in school, it wasn't re-enforced once we stepped into the world. And how about a longer lunch period? 45 minutes is not enough time to get in line, order, pay, eat and finish up that last minute reading. I'd go so far as to say an hour break isn't long enough even for adults in the work force. Some countries take 2 hours at lunch. Shut things down and take their time eating, relaxing, and rejuvenating. Then eat a smaller dinner.

Some times yes, laws need to be made to protect the community as a whole. But let's remember here that you give the law makers and inch and they run with it. Let's make sure we make smart decisions when it comes to asking some one else to step in and make sure we don't hurt ourselves. Where will this road lead us? Is it the right fix for the right problem? Institutions, society as a whole is like a spider web, you tug on one string and the other parts are affected in ways that couldn't have been predicted. When taking into consideration such a large issue as health, we need to look at the whole picture and implement whole change. Don't just tug on one string.

Is this still America, land of the free, home of the brave? Or are we slowly degenerating into a Marxist paradise where the government decides how individuals should live their lives and then uses any means necessary to force people to comply? Companies that sell potentially harmful products, such as foods containing trans fats, should be required to display warning labels so consumers can make their own informed decisions. Anything more onerous gives too much power to the government and takes away too much freedom and responsibility from the individual. If you actually trust some politician or government flunky to make highly personal decisions that in your best interest, then you truly deserve every misfoturne that will inevitably result.

"Imposing taxes on things we want people to use less of is the most economically sound, liberty-friendly way of affecting human behavior. Yet we in the United States seem mostly allergic to this approach. Why is that?"

Because they usually don't do anything to offset the taxes we are already paying, so we have a net tax increase; and once a tax is in place, it is virtually impossible to eliminate.

We already have an incredibly overcomplicated system of taxation already. We don't need to add to the problem.

"And given that the poor health of individuals does cost the rest of us in the form of higher taxes, insurance premiums, etc., what exactly is unfair or anti-liberty about hiking the price of things shown to cause that poor health?"

It's certainly anti-liberty. If someone wants to be self-destructive-- by fast or slow methods, it infringes on their liberty to prevent them.
The only way to claim that this is an infringement on the rest of the population is to assume that the rest of us _must_ take care of the person after the consequences become apparent.
At heart, the question may be this-- should the individual be free to act in ways that aren't optimally economically beneficial to himself and society?

How on Earth can someone use the phrases "we want people to" and "affecting human behavior" in conjunction with the concept "liberty-friendly"? Not to mention, these bans are based more on hysteria than scientific fact. Here's a 'liberty-friendly' idea - let's keep the government agencies out of food and health decisions as much as possible. Bans like this are not even economically sound, as most folks mention the supposed health-care/insurance savings, but not the cost of increased governmental bureaucracy and enforcement of new legislation, nor the potential increases in overall food costs to businesses and consumers.

Real estate
 
Lawyer
- attorney
  Ask a
Lawyer Online Now Free lawyer
 umbrella
company incorporating   
 engineer 

Jobs 
 Building
materials company

 
Petroleum Company 
 Real
estate  
 Lawyer
- attorney  
car
hire  
 العاب اكشن
soft

برامج
جديدة
 
Real estate
 
Lawyer
- attorney
  Ask a
Lawyer Online Now Free lawyer
 umbrella
company incorporating   
 engineer 

Jobs 
 Building
materials company

 
Petroleum Company 
 Real
estate  
 Lawyer
- attorney  
car
hire  
 العاب اكشن
soft

برامج
جديدة
 
Real estate
 
Lawyer
- attorney
  Ask a
Lawyer Online Now Free lawyer
 umbrella
company incorporating   
 engineer 

Jobs 
 Building
materials company

 
Petroleum Company 
 Real
estate  
 Lawyer
- attorney  
car
hire  
 العاب اكشن
soft

برامج
جديدة