An “Obesity Tax?” Empire State Slides Further into Satire

Actually, what it really is is a tax on the poor. Who eats and drinks unhealthy foods disproportionately? The poor.

That said, a big reason the poor consumer this garbage is the Federal subsidies placed on corn and sugar. Maybe this will offset those subsidies and make these products less attractive. Or maybe it will do nothing.

Like cigarette taxes, this is a revenue enhancer, not a social engineering device.

What's more, it's a politically palatable one that all ideological anti-taxers use to skate around the obvious need for higher taxes.

If you think this is bad, what do you think would happen if those that desire socialized medicine get their way?

The trend towards forcing people to live according to one set of pre-defined life rules is accelerating, weirdly enough more from Progressives than from Conservatives. How long until there are meat taxes, candy taxes, potato chip taxes, BMI taxes, etc.

At least there won't be wine taxes (except maybe on Merlot).

And Elrod - while you are correct in your point, this could backfire, at least to a certain extent.

One of the reasons of high consumption of 'junk food' among the poor is not just lack of self-discipline; it is that eating healthy, as a whole, costs more, both in time and and money. High-carb and high-fat foods are cheaper overall to manufacture and dispense.

Raise the costs too high, and people will do what they always do - change their habits. Of course, in this case, as healthy eating will still be more expense, there wil be a constant flight to the next generation of lower cost, but lower healthfulness, class of foods.

Yes, it's true. New York liberalism shows both greed as well as stupidity, still.

At least they haven't gone beyond mandatory helmets for motorcyclists, which most of us don't find excessive, to the excess of banning motorcycling, as some "health" activists (the cousins of the guns-as-a-"health"-issue crowd) might consider if they were to run medicine. (You thought federal highway funds and the sinister puppet strings attached to that money is bad, just wait for strings to come with health funding and health care provision. It's just there begging to be exploited.)

"Federal subsidies placed on corn and sugar. Maybe this will offset those subsidies"

Two wrongs don't make a right. Simply end the subsidies on corn and sugar (and on tobacco, for that matter, as well as on every other crop).

"Better to just pass an across the board income tax hike and see if the voters will tolerate it when you next stand for election. Or, perhaps, exhibit the leadership required to whip the state legislature into some semblance of fiscal responsibility."

Spending control is apostasy, sacrilege, an Outrage!

On the other hand, if high fructose corn syrup is really a major cause of our diabetes epidemic, as well as the costs associated with obesity, there may be some sense in certain "sin taxes" if the proceeds are devoted to the costs of the associated "sin". I'm not really weighing in on Paterson's idea, but it's not as idiotic as it sounds.

BTW, AR, tap water costs infinitely less than Coke, so the "healthy food is more expensive" line doesn't really hold, uh, water.

Now, as for "socialized medicine," which is such a convenient and disingenuous way to smear universal health care, we do have a health care problem. Insurance-company mediated health care is expensive and ineffective. We pay more for less than any other industrialized country. "Single payer" systems could cut out the 35% insurance company overhead (including profit), or rather, cut it down, because single payer systems need no marketing or sales budgets, don't include obscene CEO and other executive salaries and cost far less by eliminating the "claims avoidance" departments that make up a whopping percentage of insurance company labor costs.

As for "socialized" it's a lie. Just as Medicare and Social Security checks are cut and sent by private companies (in fact, it's Lockheed Martin, on whose board sits one Lynne Cheney), much of the "single payer" administration would likely be subcontracted.

Medicare doesn't hire or supervise doctors, so they do not become government employees. Medicare does create and rate the conditions treated and publishes guides for what's covered, so you could claim that as government meddling in health care. Oh, except it's the exact guide insurance companies use. Why pay to create something already created by the government with tax dollars?

DLS, I concur about eliminating the subsidies. But along with those, let's axe the protectionist tariffs on trade in those ingredients. We have a 100% tariff on imported sugar, making it twice as expensive as the world market price. Same with cotton, plus we subsidize the $5.9 billion cotton industry with $4.5 billion in subsidies. Main recipient? Texas.

Eliminate the subsidies _and_ the tariffs. Absolutely.

And while the dippy government in New York is competing with GM for mismanagement, yes, I'm aware that another dysfunctional organization is none other than the GOP, so I have that covered, too.

"How long until there are meat taxes, candy taxes, potato chip taxes, BMI taxes, etc."

Well, trans fats are already banned in New York City, aren't they, and yes, there would eventually be a fat tax (not limited to trans fats) because they could be purported to be "cost recovery" instruments, the same kind of motive for sin-taxes-for-real-sins that is considered on this thread for things like high fructose corn syrup, sugar, etc.

(At least the low-carb fad is gone. Otherwise there'd be a carbohydrate tax, a fat tax, and too much protein can _sometimes_ be harmful and it's also energy-wasteful in the case of meat, so yes, a tax on protein, which would fall heavily on meat. But corn and beans or other ethnic dishes would be given PC-driven exemptions, naturally.)

"At least there won't be wine taxes (except maybe on Merlot)."

From what I've seen, now it's Pinot Grigio. It's the [Sutter Home] White Zinfandel of the late 2000s.

But on alcohol, cost recovery taxes are likely sometime in the future as part of the New Regime. If not in the next four years, in later years. Likely higher than just cost recovery level, naturally.

GD -

re: the cost of eating healthy, I said 'as a whole' not 'in all cases'. So if you believe that one example, or even a few, proves ALL healthy food is cheaper, then you are being a fool, and ignoring reality.

As for high-fructose corn syrup possibly being a leading cause of diabetes, and I agree there is mounting evidence, then a 'sin tax' on it is the height of hypocrisy. It should be banned under those circumstances as a harmful agent. And no, I am not joking,

AR, interesting. I'd love for us to get back to using sugar if we want it sweet. Most places in the world, Coke is sweetened with sugar.

Point taken on 'as a whole' but truly 'as a whole,' making food from unsophisticated fresh ingredients is almost always cheaper than processed foods. True, it would cost more to eat lunch at a health food store than Mickey D's but a homemade lunch is cheaper than both.

Not to keep it going, but i truly believe what I said about poor nutrition foods being cheaper, as a whole, than healthy alternatives.

For a home lunch, which is cheaper, a sandwich made with white bread, cheap processed ham slices and imitation American cheese slices, or on a good multi-grain bread, deli meat, and a deli cheese? Or even a PBJ with white bread, JIF and store brand jelly vs. a good bread, natural (real) PB, and preserves?

I could go on and on, but that makes the point. I am also not blind to the poor eating habits that are epidemic in the poor, and that are not related to cost but convenience and preference.

But there is something fundamentally wrong with a food chain that has the poorest members of a country being, again as a whole, the most obese, and the wealthier the leaner (with the obvious exception of those on the verge of starvation, of which there is very, very little of in the US).

This cannot be explained away as simple laziness by the majority of the poor, or by marketing alone. Shitty food has always been cheaper, but it didn't used to make people obese. Only the (relatively) rich, and of that group those lacking in discipline, ever had to worry about being fat. It was impossible for the poor to be fat, until recently.

i was looking at dorian's post on the white house menu, and weighing it with my former welfare mother eyes. It's hugely extravagent in out of season fruit and vegetables, and in protein. Especially protein. Animal Protein is the most difficult and expensive part to find in quality when one is poor. We mothers who used to have food stamps know that if we bought protein, quality protein, there was little money left for anything else. WIT Program gave us once a month if we could take a series of buses down to a very seamy part of town with our kids in tow, one large can of canned chicken shreds, a large block of velveeta cheese, and a large box of powdered milk. That helped a lot, truly. THe chicken was snouts and tails and such, and the cheese processed and the milk too, but it was protein that growing children's bodies recognized.

THere are many reasons why people who are poor shop at 7-11 instead of a grocery store, for instance... the 7-11 is dashing distance from the apartment. To get to the grocery, you have to dress all the kids, figure out the bus schedule, pay for all the kids and yourself to ride, and, I might add, get back to your house carrying a heavy bag and not get mugged for it in your own neighborhood... which the thugs would be watvhing for anyone who had even a little bag of anything, let alone a big one.

There are many reasons, including sugar being a fast energy release even though it drops you on your head later. If/when you work so many jobs on the q.t trying to hold body and soul and kids together, and go to school, and try to pull yourself out of the swamp, sugar is like an energy drink. Except it costs far far less than an energy drink. I'd just mention too that when I was down and out, the water that came form the pipes in the dives I rented for me and my family, you wouldnt give to an animal to drink let alone a human being. THe color and smell alone were enough to make us spend precious pennies on pills to put in water to make soup with.

The upside of all this, is that you learn to be incredibly inventive to look normal when in fact you are way below the poverty line, in part cause looking more normal makes your chances of getting a job, better. There are also a lot of sort of funny stories about romancing the produce guys at grocery stores to give us one day too old lettuce, and tomatoes mushy. I also once found a butcher at a meat market who if I asked for $1 of ground beef, would always give me a little extra and pinch my fingers when he handed me the package looking a little maybe too heated up. lol. Nonetheless, I think they were all in some part angels, who were kind to a stranger. I dont know if people really realize what it is like to be given food freely and graciously without making people feel poor. Even though they are.

dr.e

We've already gone past the point where the government is the one that pays for much of the ramifications of people who end up being ridiculously unhealthy, especially in the last few months of life. It makes perfect sense to tax the things that result in people getting there... although an even better idea would be to tax it even more than proposed, but then put some of that extra money into making especially heathy foods even cheaper. Then we'd get a situation where the worst foods would be more expensive, okay foods would cost the same and very healthy foods would be cheaper.

I feel for the woman above who had to live on government assistance... when I was in college there were times I literally lived on rice and spices and water for a few days. Its not fun. This one more reason why we should help people in that situation by making some of the less healthy things too expensive for them to fit in their budgets, but make some of the healthier things easier to fit into their budget... like quality protein in eggs, chicken breast and lean beef for instance.

Given the fact that the general poor health of Americans is a huge drain on our country in many ways, I'm not opposed to the government attempting to encourage good health by means of taxing unhealthy foods. I agree that in general the government should stay out of lifestyle issues that only affect the person who makes the decision, but many libertarian-minded people fail to realize that there are often indirect consequences to society from the choices we make. Just because they are indirect does not make them imaginary. I'm not in favor of freedom if your dumb choices cost me money. That is not true freedom, since true freedom also implies total personal responsibility.

But, with that said, this particular proposal doesn't sound right to me because of two things:

1) It seems to just single out some easy targets. The difficult part of trying to use tax policy to encourage good health choices is that it's easy to over-emphasize easy targets (soft drinks, smoking) and neglect the harder targets, which might be even more important. How do you tax lack of exercise, for example?

2) I'm a believer in user-taxes rather than general taxes whenever possible (ie. gas taxes should go to fixing roads or developing alternative fuels, but not to the general fund). In this case, I would not be in favor of it since it sounds like they are taxing soft drinks to fill a budget short-fall. I would be more willing to support the tax if the revenue went toward health-related initiatives.