But in recent years, health officials have turned to the tariff system to curb public consumption of fat, sugar, salt and more. With the obesity epidemic now claiming 34% of U.S. adults, legislators are proposing taxes on the added sugar in products like sodas and the salt in snack foods like potato chips in the hopes that higher costs will change people’s eating habits and improve their health. The latest study suggests that taxing salty foods could indeed reduce deaths from heart disease by 2% to 3% in developing countries, where rates of heart conditions are starting to climb.
At least that’s the theory. But while these sin taxes may fuel funds to fight obesity, they may not necessarily have the desired effect on our eating habits. Other studies hint that it may take as much as a 10% increase in the cost of foods like soda, candy or cake to lower consumption by only 1%. And even if a salt tax helped people avoid buying chips, for example, they might make up for the sodium deficit with extra helping from the saltshaker at the table. That explains why sin taxes have traditionally worked better for the tax taker than the sinner!
The price of sugar is already higher, than the average global price, because of import restrictions.
People will still consume the same amounts, unless the price becomes grossly out of context with use of said product.
The only thing this will do is drive the average price of food up, for no real good reason.
I have little faith in govt programs to tax stuff and change consumer behavior.
Meanwhile, 12 months later:
Several Major Food Manufacturers in the U.S. Declare Bankruptcy Over "Sin Tax" Legislation: 100k jobs lost
Yes, a dumb idea. Not only will it not improve peoples heath, as mentioned it will cause further financial strain on most people, and companies.
You want to save money via more heathy people, then set limits on what the government will take care of... smokers, obesity related illnesses, all on you, your own dime, because they were your choices.
While glossing through the 5/7/2012 volume of TIME magazine, I read about the notion of taxing both sugar and salt.
TIME magazine's website doesn't seem to let you link directly to the article in question without paying first. That said, I found the article within a seperate site discussing it:
Sin Taxes: Will marking up junk food make us healthier? | Shane Weight Loss Camps & Resorts
Personally, I think it might be a good idea. It might have somewhat of a positive effect in general. Obviously with 34% of adults in the U.S. struggling with the obesity epidemic, there must be new measures taken. The question though is to what degree. My view is that we should tax such things like soda and candy upwards of 20-30%. Sure, it may seem draconian, but this needs to stop. As we consumers feed on the garbage that's stocked in our stores, in turn said corporations feed on us, making profit. I think, no, I know they deliberately try to addict us; addiction is great for business. Why wouldn't the corporation of, say, Mountain Dew want us to become addicted to it? It's all about the money.
That's a bit aside the point. Such foods that can be easily addicted to and cause damage to your body should be taxed; not just 10%, but beyond. How many people know of kids and teenagers who were addicted to soda and candy, now suffering with cavities, without dental insurance? How many people do you know that, since childhood, became addicted to bad food? Instead of commercials advertising veggies to young children, you were bombarded with advertisements for Candy Pops and Pop-Tarts.
If a 10-30% tax increase in these foods has a positive overall effect on the country, then damn it, that's good. Take it further until it places a sizeable dent in this obesity epidemic.
Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?
It'll make obese people poorer, meaning they won't be able to afford quality healthcare, and they'll die sooner. Why do you want fat people to die wake?
Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?
Or "Several Major Food Manufacturers Switch Focus from Salt and Sugar to Health Food: 100k jobs gained for research and development."Meanwhile, 12 months later:
Several Major Food Manufacturers in the U.S. Declare Bankruptcy Over "Sin Tax" Legislation: 100k jobs lost
Would you please show exactly how it won't improve peoples health? The TIME article mentions that it was effective to a degree in developing nations; there may be some positive effect in America, and it may be aquired through an 11-30% increase in taxation. If this can save people from their own stupidity, then so be it; I'm tired of seeing babies so fat that they look like they're going to explode, or seeing these behemoths in motorized carts at Wal-Mart. People get addicted to this junk food, and it tears at the heart to see them slowly kill themselves.
You can not force people to eat what you (or anyone) considers 'heathy'. It is not the governments job in any way shape or form. What the hell kind of government are you looking for that tells it's people what it can and can not eat? What other parts of individuals lives do you want government to take over in?
Tears at your heart? Why? They did it to themselves.
God forbid someone has empathy for people who make bad choices. Oh, the humanity!Tears at your heart? Why? They did it to themselves.
Forcing someone to eat something and taxing a product are two very different things.
Forcing someone to eat something and taxing a product are two very different things.
God forbid someone has empathy for people who make bad choices. Oh, the humanity!
In the case you are pushing for, no they are not. You are suggesting raising taxes so the 'unhealthy' food is beyond the means of people, thus they can no longer eat it, and as such must eat the affordable 'heathly' food.
Not really. One is explicit force and one is implicit force.
no, sin taxes on salt and sugar won't make people fit.
This is such a ridiculous comment.If you want to feel bad for them, then use up your energy on such a stupid thing. They are in that stupid chair in walmart because of their own actions (more often than not)... maybe rather than shedding internal tears, if you actually cared for them and their bad choices you'd approach them and offer to teach them about eating healthy, you'd offer to pay for a gym membership and work out with them. No, that's all too hard and requires actual effort above and beyond having bleeding heart 'feelings' for them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?