Taxes, surcharges and freedom.

[Rosbjerg]

In Denmark our new social democrat government just introduced a "fat tax" to combat the rise in unhealthy food and obesity. Now obesity is not as big a problem here as elsewhere, but we (i.e the government) are fearing American and English standards, no offence guys.

 

Given the recent discussion on choice, freedom and democracy, I was wondering how you guys would feel about this being implemented in your countries? Some argue that it's good, some that it actually only really hurts the poor and some that it's an affront to the ideas of liberty and freedom. I must admit that I haven't really made up my mind about it yet (which is why I'm hoping for a good discussion).

[Humodour]

For a start, trans fats should be banned in every country.

 

Does this tax apply to saturated or unsaturated fats? I would hope (and I am guessing) that it is only saturated fats, because otherwise it is not a very science-based policy.

 

Some people here have argued that a tax on cigarettes only hurts the poor, too (because the poor have the highest smoking rates - probably tied to their level of education). Yet smoking rates ARE falling over time (in concert with other measures, so it's hard to directly identify taxation of cigarettes as the cause, but you could check smoking rates in the years directly after jumps in the cig tax). Short-term pain for the poor if it leads to long-term health improvements is worth it.

 

Personally before something like this were implemented here, I would prefer a ban on junkfood advertising during children's television hours. Childhood is the age when dietary patterns are formed for life, and that's especially true for the adipose tissue.

 

There is much more to unhealthy food than just a high fat content, though. That needs to be kept in mind. High salt, high sugar, lack of vitamins and minerals, lack of fibre, high amounts of additives.

[Malcador]

Well if they did it here, it'd be nothing more than a revenue grab meant to sucker people into thinking the government actually is concerned with the desired consequence.

[Orogun01]

For a second there I tried to argue against this point but then I realize that I'm already arguing for it on another thread

 

Any word on the fat tax actually working or do retailer raised their prices?

[Gorth]

I was hoping for a corporate fat cat tax. Damn.

 

The reasoning behind the tax was sort of "logical". Danes live shorter lives than other similar countries and the main cause of death seems to be related to high cholesterol numbers and cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes (caused by overweight). They could of course also make gymnastics and physical exercise compulsory, like in the military. Since they have something akin to a communist government now, it wouldn't be a far stretch of the imagination having Chinese style peoples exercise programmes

[Walsingham]

My God. When did Krez become such a raving health fascist?

 

Leave. Me. The. Funt. Alone.

 

They're my bloody arteries. Back off.

[Hurlshort]

Well I don't consider a 'fat tax' to be super fascist. The fact is these ingredients are super cheap, so tacking on a higher tax will just bring them a little closer to the prices of the healthy alternatives. But I see this as a fairly complex issue, as was stated, the science needs to be front and center here. They can't just target McDonalds and call it a day.

 

I also question how effective this will be against obesity. If healthy food and unhealthy food are in the same price range, will people really make the healthy choice? After living and cooking for my in-laws for a couple years, I question that. I cook and eat healthy for less than eating at fast food every night, it just takes a bit more effort and time to do so.

[Gorth]

it just takes a bit more effort and time to do so.

I think you are on to something important there

[Zoraptor]

For a start, trans fats should be banned in every country.

 

Yeah, ban all animal fats, steak, mince, milk, butter, the lot. Everyone can get over it by popping some newly legalised tabs.

[Morgoth]

People should just take more personal responsibility when choosing food instead of allowing the government to intervene.

 

But hey.

[Volourn]

Freedom. A thing of the past. This is soemthing a dictatorship does - telling others how to live thir lives based on whether they approve it or not. Disgusting.

 

Smoking + Fattening food (lol, I wish) > Wannabe Dictators

[Guard Dog]

I'm not a big fan of "Sin Taxes" because taxes are supposed to be a means of funding government, not altering economic/personal activity. As a means of creating revenue sin taxes are a poor choice because the more you tax something, the less you have of it. For example, increase the tax on beer and people by less beer. If you wanted to make money on beer you just screwed the pooch, if you wanted fewer people to drink beer, mission accomplished. So yes using taxes as a tool for behaviour modification is a little bit of an infringement of freedom but not a severe one because you have not prevented people from buying beer if they want it.

 

Now Krezzie's solution banning something all together is a whole horse of another color. That is a blatant infringement of freedom and something that should be opposed. The government is not your mother, it can not tell you what you have to eat. Like Morgoth said, you put the information out there, make everyone aware your target "sin" (be it alchohol, trans-fat, tobacco, etc) is bad for you and here is why then let people make the choices they make.

 

Besides, I don't know about the rest of the world but in the US sin taxes are very easy to avoid. If Tennessee imposed a 50% tax on booze or something like that I'll just drive accross the river to Arkansas and buy it there.

 

Anyone who has ever cleaned out a grease trap at a fast food joint will never eat fast food again. Trust me on that one.

[Junai]

We got "sin taxes" aplenty in Norway. Meat, alcohol.

 

That's why bus companies now arrange "greasy-cheesy tours" to Sweden.

A cheap trip across the boarder, hoard as much bacon and booze as you can carry,

then cross your fingers and pray the customs/boarder patrol won't stop you on your way home.

 

Danes can go shopping in Germany.

 

 

J.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Junai

[Walsingham]

All a sin tax does is make sin something for rich folks.

 

I personally object to treating the poor as if they are children. I have experience of both rich and poor and it's the rich who most often need their noses wiping!

 

Increasingly I am of the opinion that 'health' is the new religion. Sin and virtue measured in high fibre cereal bars...

[Gorth]

Danes can go shopping in Germany.

The Circle of Beer

 

From my favourite web comic >_

[Humodour]

For a start, trans fats should be banned in every country.

Now Krezzie's solution banning something all together is a whole horse of another color. That is a blatant infringement of freedom and something that should be opposed. The government is not your mother, it can not tell you what you have to eat. Like Morgoth said, you put the information out there, make everyone aware your target "sin" (be it alchohol, trans-fat, tobacco, etc) is bad for you and here is why then let people make the choices they make.

 

Don't confuse trans-fats with the naturally produced fats (saturated or not) - it's ignorant.

 

Trans-fats are the worst type of fats. They aren't required in any food and are orders of magnitude worse than saturated fats. They are not natural fats and are produced by only partially hydrogenating oil (saturating double bonds into single bonds), resulting in the hydrogen atoms in the cis orientation at some double bonds flipping to the trans orientation (going from next to each to opposite each other). This change in the shape of the molecule makes them far less tolerable to the human body, and they mess with organs all over the body in significant ways (brain, heart, liver, etc).

 

This is analogous to how heavy metals cause damage to the body. They don't cause immediate damage and are harmless in small mounts, but they never leave the body because the body can't process them. The reason for that is the body never needed to process them before we had tools and technology because it did not encounter them... and thus nature never evolved enzymes for humans which matched the shapes of heavy metal (or trans fat) molecules. So, they accumulate there every year, eventually causing permanent damage.

 

As to your "infringement of freedom crap" - the government already bans things from food - oh no! They definitely should on the same list of things to ban from food as abortifacients, carcinogens, teratogens and heavy metals. Why? Because there is a difference between protecting freedoms and letting toxic crap (as explained above) on the markets.

[Hurlshort]

Keep in mind, these taxes don't necessarily need to be exorbitant, like 50%. If you are trying to generate revenue to cover health care costs or a subsidization program for cheaper health food and more education, you can keep it fairly low.

[Malcador]

Well, it'd have to be noticeable, you don't want them just ignoring the lash.

[Oblarg]

The problem with legislation based on nutrition is that the majority of modern nutrition is, simply put, bull****. There are a few things which we know are demonstrably bad for you for which we understand the biochemistry, and then there's a whole lot of shoddy guesswork based on poorly-conducted correlative studies which isn't really worth anything at all.

[Hurlshort]

The problem with legislation based on nutrition is that the majority of modern nutrition is, simply put, bull****. There are a few things which we know are demonstrably bad for you for which we understand the biochemistry, and then there's a whole lot of shoddy guesswork based on poorly-conducted correlative studies which isn't really worth anything at all.

 

Yeah, that's my concern to. The science really needs to be front and center. Everything can make you fat, just because they sell it at a health food store doesn't mean it's great to gorge on.

[213374U]

I say tax away. All those bypasses aren't going to pay themselves.

 

 

For a start, trans fats should be banned in every country.

 

Yeah, ban all animal fats, steak, mince, milk, butter, the lot. Everyone can get over it by popping some newly legalised tabs.

 

Edited October 4, 2011 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

Keep in mind, these taxes don't necessarily need to be exorbitant, like 50%. If you are trying to generate revenue to cover health care costs or a subsidization program for cheaper health food and more education, you can keep it fairly low.

 

Fair point, but really a low tax is just an additional business tax. A high tax will put businesses out of business.

 

The real reason people eat unhealthily is because they like the taste. But in actual fact 'healthy' is a product of much more than just what I stuff in my pie-hole.

 

So far as I'm concerned this is just an attempt to exploit the demonisation of food as 'evil' in order to scour people for taxable revenue. It's badly conceived, and will hit poor people disproportionately.

 

I'm not remotely against improving nutrition. But I would guess that it's got far more to do with the culture and lifestyle we support. Long days, not many people cook at home, people don't eat as families. That sort of thing.

[Volourn]

"Anyone who has ever cleaned out a grease trap at a fast food joint will never eat fast food again. Trust me on that one."

 

Lie.

 

 

 

"I have experience of both rich and poor and it's the rich who most often need their noses wiping!"

 

Another falsehood.

 

It's beyond silly how people feel the need to insult the rich to make the poor feel better because they are poor. That's ridiculous.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Volourn

[213374U]

So far as I'm concerned this is just an attempt to exploit the demonisation of food as 'evil' in order to scour people for taxable revenue. It's badly conceived, and will hit poor people disproportionately.

I'm way too tired to give it much thought, but this is just a facet of the bigger problem that is food prices in general, and how those prices are manipulated artificially for profit (futures exchanges) or political purposes (wheat prices and the fall of good ol' USSR).

 

But there IS also a real problem with the availability and sustainability of certain food sources -I'm thinking fisheries in particular- which means low supply and, consequently, a rise in prices.

 

So, can we really have everyone eating healthy, or is it just wishful thinking, in light of current and expected population growth?

 

 

But I would guess that it's got far more to do with the culture and lifestyle we support. Long days, not many people cook at home, people don't eat as families. That sort of thing.

All those iCraps aren't going to pay themselves. Edited October 4, 2011 by 213374U

[Maria Caliban]

In Denmark our new social democrat government just introduced a "fat tax" to combat the rise in unhealthy food and obesity. Now obesity is not as big a problem here as elsewhere, but we (i.e the government) are fearing American and English standards, no offence guys.

 

Given the recent discussion on choice, freedom and democracy, I was wondering how you guys would feel about this being implemented in your countries? Some argue that it's good, some that it actually only really hurts the poor and some that it's an affront to the ideas of liberty and freedom. I must admit that I haven't really made up my mind about it yet (which is why I'm hoping for a good discussion).

If the revenue generated by the 'fat tax' was ear marked for healthy breakfast and lunches at public schools, I'd go for it.

 

The thing is that you have a generally healthy populous. America has a markedly unhealthy populous and this wouldn't make a dent in obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases in the States.