Update from the War on Drugs

[Orogun01]

Absolutely. Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single occasion when higer taxation curbed use.

..b-but just imagine how much money the American government would make from taxing fat.

[Gorgon]

The experts all say it's a stupid idea. We should subsidize healthy food instead. Right now it's cheaper to get full on junk food. That isn't going to change unless the fat tax gets ludicrously high, and no one wants food prices to get any higher. We are already in the top 5 in Europe in cost of living.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Gorgon

[Volourn]

" don't think I've said a single one of those things, but you're obviously enjoyng yourself. Crack on. "

 

Nobody claimed you did.

[Orogun01]

The experts all say it's a stupid idea. We should subsidize healthy food instead. Right now it's cheaper to get full on junk food. That isn't going to change unless the fat tax gets ludicrously high, and no one wants food prices to get any higher. We are already in the top 5 in Europe in cost of living.

Even if we subsidize healthy food, driving down the prices that's no guarantee that it will sell. You will see an immediate rise but in the end you spend taxes on a project with low return as opposed to taxing fat and forcing fast food restaurants.

 

Plus I will pay you if you get one of those Big Mac fatasses to eat a carrot.

[Humodour]

Absolutely. Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single occasion when higer taxation curbed use.

 

Well you're about to see whether or not a fat tax works, because in a couple of years Denmark will have solid figures to show you. That's part of how evidence-based policy works. Try things, then a few years later, evaluate their performance. It beats banging to the drum of some blind ideal like "TAXATION IS ALWAYS BAD, AVOID ANY POLICY THAT INVOLVES TAX!!!11"

[Malcador]

Well, assuming nothing else at all affects people's intakes of fattening foods.

[Nepenthe]

Absolutely. Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single occasion when higer taxation curbed use.

 

Well you're about to see whether or not a fat tax works, because in a couple of years Denmark will have solid figures to show you. That's part of how evidence-based policy works. Try things, then a few years later, evaluate their performance. It beats banging to the drum of some blind ideal like "TAXATION IS ALWAYS BAD, AVOID ANY POLICY THAT INVOLVES TAX!!!11"

Of course, the problem with using it for taxation is that taxes, once implemented, are notoriously hard to get rid of.

[Walsingham]

Absolutely. Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single occasion when higer taxation curbed use.

 

Well you're about to see whether or not a fat tax works, because in a couple of years Denmark will have solid figures to show you. That's part of how evidence-based policy works. Try things, then a few years later, evaluate their performance. It beats banging to the drum of some blind ideal like "TAXATION IS ALWAYS BAD, AVOID ANY POLICY THAT INVOLVES TAX!!!11"

 

There is such a thing as thinking policy through before applying it.

 

1. Real world 'trials' have huge costs associated with them in terms of little things like people's lives and businesses.

2. Real world 'trials' by their nature don't tell us what makes them succeed or fail. We may try something and fails due to freak circumstances, or succeed in the same way.

[Gorth]

Absolutely. Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single occasion when higer taxation curbed use.

 

Well you're about to see whether or not a fat tax works, because in a couple of years Denmark will have solid figures to show you. That's part of how evidence-based policy works. Try things, then a few years later, evaluate their performance. It beats banging to the drum of some blind ideal like "TAXATION IS ALWAYS BAD, AVOID ANY POLICY THAT INVOLVES TAX!!!11"

 

There is such a thing as thinking policy through before applying it.

 

1. Real world 'trials' have huge costs associated with them in terms of little things like people's lives and businesses.

2. Real world 'trials' by their nature don't tell us what makes them succeed or fail. We may try something and fails due to freak circumstances, or succeed in the same way.

Build more vaults

 

Seriously though, how else are you going to know for sure if not trying it out? >_

[Humodour]

Absolutely. Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single occasion when higer taxation curbed use.

 

Well you're about to see whether or not a fat tax works, because in a couple of years Denmark will have solid figures to show you. That's part of how evidence-based policy works. Try things, then a few years later, evaluate their performance. It beats banging to the drum of some blind ideal like "TAXATION IS ALWAYS BAD, AVOID ANY POLICY THAT INVOLVES TAX!!!11"

 

There is such a thing as thinking policy through before applying it.

 

1. Real world 'trials' have huge costs associated with them in terms of little things like people's lives and businesses.

 

And their results are watched by a huge audience - all the governments of the world. Successful government policies in one country rapidly spread round the globe until they become the norm.

 

And I'm pretty sure that these guys did think this policy through before implementing it? What gives you the feeling that they did not?

[Gfted1]

Absolutely. Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single occasion when higer taxation curbed use.

 

Well you're about to see whether or not a fat tax works, because in a couple of years Denmark will have solid figures to show you. That's part of how evidence-based policy works. Try things, then a few years later, evaluate their performance. It beats banging to the drum of some blind ideal like "TAXATION IS ALWAYS BAD, AVOID ANY POLICY THAT INVOLVES TAX!!!11"

 

Yes, because this is the first time that a sin tax has ever been applied. >_

[Humodour]

Absolutely. Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single occasion when higer taxation curbed use.

 

Well you're about to see whether or not a fat tax works, because in a couple of years Denmark will have solid figures to show you. That's part of how evidence-based policy works. Try things, then a few years later, evaluate their performance. It beats banging to the drum of some blind ideal like "TAXATION IS ALWAYS BAD, AVOID ANY POLICY THAT INVOLVES TAX!!!11"

 

Yes, because this is the first time that a sin tax has ever been applied. Oh wait, no its not. Perhaps we can look back over a few hundred years to see how its worked out.

 

Do so. I would like some examples of where it has been applied and hasn't worked to reduce consumption.

 

I have an obvious immediate counter-example: a price on pollution caused by a product (e.g. carbon dioxide) is in effect in various countries around the world, and it has been effective at reducing pollution levels.

[Gfted1]

Sure. Smoking.

[Malcador]

Well, they tacked a surcharge on plastic bags here and it worked well at least at one chain (80% reduction in plastic bag use). Was popular with TO's yuppie set too. Not really a 'sin' tax but in the same vein of 'do the good thing - or you'll pay more'.

[Gfted1]

Yes, Im focusing on things people consume. Pollution reduction is not accomplished with taxation, its accomplished with better technology and awarenes of our environment. Nothing changes in your cars operation by adding .25 / gallon. Nobody is going to stop smoking/drinking/eating a burger because the government added .15 to your Big Mac value meal. Sin tax does not work as a deterrence, it works to generate revenue.

[Walsingham]

Seriously though, how else are you going to know for sure if not trying it out?

 

Sorry, Gortho. Never occurred to me that it wouldn't be clear. To explain, a lot of economists and other more human sciences utilise complex numerical models and simulations to help predict an outcome without actually implementing it in the real world. It's how everything from road networks to production lines, and emergency call centres are built. not to mention all the eocnomic forecasting national treasuries do.

[Orogun01]

Seriously though, how else are you going to know for sure if not trying it out?

 

Sorry, Gortho. Never occurred to me that it wouldn't be clear. To explain, a lot of economists and other more human sciences utilise complex numerical models and simulations to help predict an outcome without actually implementing it in the real world. It's how everything from road networks to production lines, and emergency call centres are built. not to mention all the eocnomic forecasting national treasuries do.

Of course all these models are dependent on data and how it's interpreted, so there is a margin for error. Plus the occasional "looks great on paper fails on implementation" plans, although I can churn those to lack of foresight. Which when we dealing with drugs counts for a lot since there is a great deal of human factor involved.

[Walsingham]

Seriously though, how else are you going to know for sure if not trying it out?

 

Sorry, Gortho. Never occurred to me that it wouldn't be clear. To explain, a lot of economists and other more human sciences utilise complex numerical models and simulations to help predict an outcome without actually implementing it in the real world. It's how everything from road networks to production lines, and emergency call centres are built. not to mention all the eocnomic forecasting national treasuries do.

Of course all these models are dependent on data and how it's interpreted, so there is a margin for error. Plus the occasional "looks great on paper fails on implementation" plans, although I can churn those to lack of foresight. Which when we dealing with drugs counts for a lot since there is a great deal of human factor involved.

 

All very true. But still cheaper than just bashing something into practice. The biggest advantage is in forcing people to think about third order complications. You tax x, x consumption goes down, tax goes down. That sort of thing.

 

Case in point, and I'm just winging it here ... You tax saturated fats, people stop spending money on rubbish saturated fats. Saturated fats as a group turn up in better products, more desirable products, it becomes a badge of quality, eating them becomes aspirational, more people insist on getting some every day. Overall consumption actually increases thanks to middle and upper classes changing behaviour.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Walsingham

[Orogun01]

All very true. But still cheaper than just bashing something into practice. The biggest advantage is in forcing people to think about third order complications. You tax x, x consumption goes down, tax goes down. That sort of thing.

 

Case in point, and I'm just winging it here ... You tax saturated fats, people stop spending money on rubbish saturated fats. Saturated fats as a group turn up in better products, more desirable products, it becomes a badge of quality, eating them becomes aspirational, more people insist on getting some every day. Overall consumption actually increases thanks to middle and upper classes changing behaviour.

Somehow I don't see burgers becoming Veblen goods

 

That it will still be consumed its an undeniable fact, but hopefully the high prices will curb consumption enough that retailers will have to adapt into more healthier products. Because high fat products (which are cheap to manufacture and therefore sell cheaply) become the normal goods there is an incentive to create alternatives if the tax affects the product.

 

Strangely enough a variation of this tax could also be used if drug legalization ever came through so we may go along if it works for high fat products. Although there is the chemical addiction to account for, calories are addictive but they don't create a physical dependence like drugs do.

[Gorth]

To explain, a lot of economists and other more human sciences utilise complex numerical models and simulations to help predict an outcome without actually implementing it in the real world.

Now you sound like my old macro economics teacher...

 

If you ever mention the word(s) price elasticity I'm going to scream

 

Yes, I know the models and I know their uses and lack of when it comes to the real world. Comes a time when a theory/model has to be put to the test or it remains classroom material

[Walsingham]

well, obviously they have to be put to the test. But the value of theories of any kind is not just in their paplication. They can force one to think about factors and regiment the rational process. Not to mention acting as a paradigm for book-keeping.

[Walsingham]

One of the strangest websites I've seen ever has at least one person who wants to legalise drugs and free nonviolent offenders

 

http://ifwerantheworld.com/action_platforms/2039

 

EDIT: Had a proper laugh at the guy who wants "everyone to go to Walt Disney World at least once" Clearly a Disney exec.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Walsingham

[Walsingham]

Story about a young woman who got herself made police chief to fight drugs.

 

Ms Valles's predecessor as chief of police, Juan Manuel Carbajal, 45, was executed as he drove through the streets of the town of Caseta. His predecessor, Mart

[213374U]

Ban hot women. NAO!

 

(or at least tax them!)

[Tale]

Story about a young woman who got herself made police chief to fight drugs.

 

Ms Valles's predecessor as chief of police, Juan Manuel Carbajal, 45, was executed as he drove through the streets of the town of Caseta. His predecessor, Mart