|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: G&M: Why the obesity epidemic justifies a fat tax |
 |
|
| Quote: |
ANTHONY WESTELL
Special to Globe and Mail Update
April 11, 2007 at 1:36 AM EDT
We ban the sale of cigarettes to children and tax heavily to discourage smoking by adults. Tobacco companies are forbidden to advertise. Why? Because we know smoking may cause cancer and other ailments. We have similar policies discouraging the use of alcohol.
The new health problem rapidly becoming an epidemic is obesity, particularly among children. We know colas and other sugary drinks are significant contributors to obesity. They are not as dangerous to health as smoking and drinking, so we probably couldn't justify banning their sale to children, but there is certainly a case for taxing them to raise prices and reduce consumption.
In fact, a case can be made for using taxes to discourage consumption of all prepared foods heavily laced with sugars and fats. Requiring food processors to tell consumers, in tiny print, what's in the can or package may encourage some to look for less dangerous food. Putting gruesome pictures on containers illustrating the dangers to health of eating the contents � as we mandate such pictures on cigarette packs � might discourage a few more. But adding taxes to double the price of unhealthy foods would certainly make shoppers think again.
A farfetched idea? Not really. We don't allow the sale of products known to be poisonous, so why not discourage consumption of products which we now know will be dangerous to health when eaten to excess over time? Many will say it smacks of nanny-state interference in decisions that should be a private responsibility. They may have a point when adults are involved, but children exposed to endless advertising and the conditioning of pop culture are in no position to take responsibility for their own decisions.
Anyway, we use tax policy to influence all sorts of private decisions to produce what we consider to be socially desirable results. The progressive income tax itself is intended to bear more heavily on the rich than the poor. There are, for a few examples, tax incentives for buying a first home, for retirement saving, for the higher education of one's children, for investing in Canadian companies. Taxes on corporations are manipulated to obtain all sorts of economic ends thought to be good for the country.
If more Canadians become more obese and fall ill as a result, there will be a rising burden on the health services, which are already stretched thin. Revenues from taxes on unhealthy foods would at least ease that problem.
Anthony Westell is a retired journalist striving to keep his weight in check. |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070411.wcomment0411/BNStory/National/home |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
So is the OP for or against this kind of tax?
I'm not sure whether or not the OP is using this argument as a reductio ad absurdum, because taxing people based on this structure doesn't seem to me very libertarian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
So is the OP for or against this kind of tax?
I'm not sure whether or not the OP is using this argument as a reductio ad absurdum, because taxing people based on this structure doesn't seem to me very libertarian. |
The OP's political stance aside, a tax payer funded health care system, especially one without a parallel private system, is about as far from libertarian ideals as you can get. Under such a public system, "fat taxes" can be justified. If your bad health choices are costing all of us, then one might argue such taxes are reasonable.
The child smoking analogy in the article is a bad one as laws designed to protect children can't be extended to adults. We can't say "we ban exposing children to porn therefore we can extend it to adults."
Cigarettes , also, are not food. Any food can be abused to the point where one becomes a burden on the health care system.
But at the end of the day, under a public health care system and a system where we happily vote for politicians who use taxes to affect public behavior and don't vote them out of office, this is yet another step up the slope. It's for Canadians voters to decide how intrusive they would find such a tax and if they display no majority care for personal liberty then they get what they deserve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
So is the OP for or against this kind of tax?
I'm not sure whether or not the OP is using this argument as a reductio ad absurdum, because taxing people based on this structure doesn't seem to me very libertarian. |
I'm neither.
In general, I think that taxing spending is better policy than taxing incomes but narrowing it down to individual weight is a bad idea. I'm not even slightly concerned about the so-called "obesity epidemic" when we are living longer lives than at any other point in history.
More to the point, I posted this because it drives home my #1 reason for disliking socialism: The personal becomes political. If health costs are to be paid by all in a single payer system, then the actions of the individuals become political. What I eat affects the hive, and they will stop me from costing them more money. The freeway to serfdom continues.
A few years back it was kind of a libertarian joke, this idea of taxing fat people. We all knew it was just around the corner.
The real question is what is next? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I tend to agree with you...if you tax soda, cookies and chips because they are bad why not tax beef and pork. People over eat all kinds of things, so as you said it's a slippery slope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would also advocate a tax rebate for exercise. Gym membership or pool tickets could be offset againt tax. Same for exercise bikes and home gyms. Also: running shoes and skiiing holidays in the beautiful Swill alps!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
