Food taxes and rules
 

I've been seeing some discussions coming up as to what measures to take about unhealthy food. The United States has been getting a lot of it, and more recently NYC made headlines when the Mayor decided to ban sugary drinks exceeding 16 oz, which brought up debate over what role the government should have in that and whether individuals should have this choice left up to them. There were some proposals by some groups to have taxes assessed based on a food's fat or sugar content (more recently, Denmark cancelled its "fat tax" and cancelled plans for a "sugar tax").

In the US and I'm sure everywhere else weight is becoming a topic of concern in the current and next generations, what do you think about measures like the above to try and discourage consumption of unhealthy foods through taxes or banning certain items?

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

I don't believe it's the government's business to live anyone's life for them. And I don't believe they'd live it in what they perceived to be your best interests anyway if given that power.

If you've got a national health service you just prioritise treatment in terms of expected returns: Fat people generally have more health problems and shorter lives than normal people. So, there's less to be gained in spending the same amount of money on them. So, they go to the bottom of the priority pile, along with drug addicts and the like.

If you don't have a national health service I don't see that it much matters - they've got to pay for their own fat arse.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Yeah, Denmark today accounced that they will remove the fat tax they've had for year. It pretty much had no effect on what people eat, and was criticized for making food more expensive and endangering Danish food industry jobs.

We've also had higher taxes for candy and limonade too, but I don't think it has had much of an effect. Just makes kids use more of their parents' money. And heh, they started selling some candies as cookies to avoid the tax.

There's already a problem with food price in many countries and that kind of regulation makes it only worse. It's okay to try to remove trans fats for example, but being overweight comes down to dumb parents.

I don't support a nanny state.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Really, the only thing they should be doing is making the food companies put out nutrition labels and let people decide for themselves.

It's kind of like the president of Carl's Jr. said, "We have plenty of healthy foods, people just don't order them."

And I'm by no means saying fuck health foods, I'm just saying don't use negative reinforcement when it comes to getting them to eat it or be healthy in general, because they will only resist if they weren't health nuts before.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Food shouldn't be taxed in that manner, but the fatties should be, there's no excuse to weighing 115kg, but there is an excuse to eating cheap food.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

If a government provides you free medical services, then yes, it does also get some authority over what you eat because it would affect your health and then proceed to greater health services expenses.

If it doesn't provide you free medical services [or cheap medical insurance] then it doesn't have any right to pull taxes on your food just due to its health effects.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

In the United States? No. Nations with nationalized healthcare? Probably a case could be made. However, I think the same case could be made in the United States for the health insurance companies to offer incentives for better eating habits like they do for smoking cessation. I'd be okay with something like that if we actually had choice in our "private" health system.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

None.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Funny how the Danes cancelled the fat tax after it turned out that it led to higher food prices. They didn't think that one through.

It is a good idea to motivate people not to poison themselves. I don't think a food tax is a good way to do it, though. It would be better to give normal-weighted people better insurance rates.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Don't they already? O.o

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Here? Not directly, some insurance companies have programs where you can get money back for certain activities, but those programs differ and they are usually designed so that you compensate for the costs of courses. Not sure how it is handled in the US.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

I feel bad for the people who are waiting in the ER with sports related injuries. I don't feel bad for the fatties who get carted in having a heart attack. I would love to see this, but it would cause a storm of legal troubles for hospitals.

In the US there is not a discount for being a normal weight. We offer discounts for not smoking, and those with pre-existing conditions have to pay more for their medical insurance if they can get coverage. As far as I know when more of the new health care law is implemented companies will not be able to deny people coverage for any reason, but I do not know about costs for those with pre-existing conditions.

I know some companies offer fitness centers for employees and require them to be tobacco free via a drug test for tobacco. Those companies are the exception rather than the rule.

Currently, my state imposes a sales tax on all prepared foods, but no tax on un-prepared foods. Buying a hamburger meal from McDonalds or the sit down deli in a grocery store will hit you with a 6% sales tax. Frozen hamburgers and fries don't get hit with the same sales tax.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Related to the topic, but not directly about it, its funny how the smokers pay twice for their smoke. First, they pay a sales tax on their cigs and then pay higher insurance costs than non-smokers.

Back to topic. In most countries, there is a government insurance policy available for civilians in the fields of life/death [they pay your descendants when you die] and health [they pay your hospitals visits and drug costs]. In a country where the government does not have any such public-friendly insurance policy available, it would indeed be the public's own matter to eat what they choose. But in a state where the government offers you cheaper insurance policies, they have two options available:

1= Get greater insurance fees from overweight people.

2= Push a tax on fatty foods. This would in turn increase the prices of those foods, with the end result that the overweight people would pay you the tax for their hazardous activities. The government spends that surplus tax money on the more frequent health expenses of overweight people.

The downside of the latter option is that those people who aren't overweight and use fatty foods and those who are overweight and do not take the insurance policy will have to pay the extra tax without burdening the government money. These two groups would suffer the side effects, but the minorities always suffer in a democratic government.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Well, I have to disagree. Aren't many sports-related injuries sort of your fault anyway? Like boxers get brain damage, football players mess up their knees, ice-hockey is very injury prone game, skateboarders end up with broken balls and so on.

This would also apply to insurancies. Sports players are more prone to injuries. So I wouldn't blame them, getting fat is dumb but for children it's often the parents that allow that.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

It was cancelled because it led to higher prices on everything. Unfortunately, our government is run by dullards who have no idea how to think beyond their own nose. Placing taxes on fat and sugar is going to hit foods that aren't harmful, but not healthy either. Neutral foods. Placing taxes on the food itself would be the best way to go. 20-30% taxes on white bread, processed meat, cream, biscuits, etc would go much further, especially if they use the taxes to subsidise vegetables and unprocessed red meat. But will that happen? No, because we gotta keep the market unchanged. :rolleyes:

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Sad that we need the govt to convince us what we can and can't eat.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Not really. If you give people the choice between a fast road or a slow road, they'll take the fast road, even if the slow road is more scenic. People eat to prevent themselves from starving, and it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many foods with problems. Not to mention our brain isn't exactly a friend to us in this matter, since it'll point us in the wrong directions sometimes.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

I don't see why the government needs to though?

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

The tax got scrapped because it didn't make people buy healthier foods. People just travelled to the German border shops to buy the same unhealthy crap - only cheaper and thus endangering the Danish retail market and food industry without the added benefit of improved public health.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

I'm honestly amazed that people were that organised. In a total gob-smacked sense.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

How high were the taxes if it was economical to do that?!

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

Never underestimate the power of hungry people looking for their cakes in large numbers.

Re: Food taxes and rules
 

People will do that due to the EU. Finns go buy the tobacco product snus from Sweden because it's banned elsewhere, and cheap booze in massive numbers from Estonia because we have a higher alcohol tax.

And even if Russia isn't in the EU, you can get cheap and illegal tobacco from Russian dealers. Just don't buy booze from them or you'll get blind.

But usually a change in regulation will mess up the market prices. Just like when the Euro was introduced, food price acted weird and eventually rose. Lowering or rising the value added tax will also usually end up rising food price relatively regardless whether it was lowered or risen.