Just tax the fatties! (Taxation, our saviour)

desperaterobots

The West Australian Newspaper, Front Page wrote:

Tax junk food 'to combat obesity'

A leading Perth health researcher has called for a 15 percent junk food tax, saying it would help beat the obesity epidemic by making fattening foods too expensive for many people.

Curtin University professor of health policy Mike Daube said that while a 10 per cent tax would net the Federal Government $1 billion a year -- 20 times the amoun the Government spends on all forms of health promotion -- a 15 per cent tax would generate $1.5 billion which could be spent on health care.

A 15 per cent tax would push the price of a McDonalds Big Mac Meal from $5.45 to $6.27, while a KFC Lunch Box would jump from $8.45 to $9.70.

Curtin's professor of research in cancer control Peter Howat supported the move, saying something drastic needed to be done to curb escalating obesity rates or Australia would be in a wrose situation in 10 years.

Professor Daube said it was time for health authorities to get serious about combating obesity and hit the junk food industry where it hurt.

He said a junk food tax would make fresh foods such as fruit and vegetables a more attractive option.

"If rhetoric alone as the answer, the obesity problem would have been solved many times over," he said. "This is the acid test. Are we serious about doing something or do we just keep tinkering at the fringes?"

Professor Daube said it wasn't rocket science to work out which products should be subject to the junk food tax. It would be based on levels of fat, trans fat, sugar and salt.

A spokesman for McDonald's said the company had made significant changes to many of its menu items, including the use of trans fat-free cooking oil and low-sugar buns. By the end of this month it would offer a low-fat, low-sodium Happy Meal which would the fat of half a cheese and Vegemite sandwich.

He said that a so-called fat tax would affect the food industry across the board, including businesses such as the local fish and chip shop. Rather than a tax, he hoped measures introduced by McDonald's would encourage other businesses to follow suit.

Summary: Professor Smartypants insists the federal government tax foods that are too salty, fatty, or sweet. Also, our main newspaper is fucking shitty.

My immediate reaction is What!. I like my god damn cheeseburgers, and I'm skeptical that the funds generated by the tax would end up funding the new fatty ward at the fatty hospital for fatties.

More personally, my brother happens to be morbidly obese AND on welfare, and any increase in junk food costs is either going to positively benefit his health (eating less shit) or adversely affect his wallet (less cash to spend on things other than his food addiction). So I can see a potential benefit and loss in his case.

But should the state be responsible for the waistlines of its citizenry? I don't think my brother deserves to be punished for being such a lard arse, but I don't enjoy the fact he's going to be a burden on the health system as he ages. Do the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol somehow make drinking lemonade and pot more appealing? Do they deter anyone from making any changes in their habits, rather than making them resent the governments who are pulling more cash from their pockets at lunch time? I'm not sure a dollar or so extra for a Big Mac meal is going to deter anyone.

Discuss!

DarkPrimus

And so the sin taxes reach a new low?

Drunk_caterpillar

desperaterobots wrote:

But should the state be responsible for the waistlines of its citizenry?

It's not the state's responsibility to keep people thin, but health care systems that are being stressed by obesity need funding. This could be one way to fund it.

Me? I don't like it because I'm an athlete and I need fast food sometimes when I'm in a rush at university. As if I need one more tax.

Casual Eddy

The poverty stricken are more likely to be obese than the rich and middle class. This tax would hit them hardest since they often turn to junk food out of convienence and relative cheapness. Doesn't seem like a good idea to tax the poor.

DarkPrimus

Casual Eddy wrote:

The poverty stricken are more likely to be obese than the rich and middle class. This tax would hit them hardest since they often turn to junk food out of convienence and relative cheapness. Doesn't seem like a good idea to tax the poor.

Also, the poor are more likely to eat at cheap places like McDonald's than those with more money- and more often, too.

Feral

Is it the government's reponsibility to subsidize the corn syrup and hamburger industries?

real_pochacco

Though, I don't know. How closely connected are junk foods and cigs? Because I can really get behind sin taxes for cigs, even if they do overimpact the poor, because, well, people need to fucking quit. If you don't want to quit, that's fine, but you'll have to pay out the ass for it.

TroubledTom

DarkPrimus wrote:

Casual Eddy wrote:

The poverty stricken are more likely to be obese than the rich and middle class. This tax would hit them hardest since they often turn to junk food out of convienence and relative cheapness. Doesn't seem like a good idea to tax the poor.

Also, the poor are more likely to eat at cheap places like McDonald's than those with more money- and more often, too.

Yeah, this might work better in places where our junk food is considered a delicacy. For the U.S. it might be a better idea to give tax breaks to manufacturers of healthy food.

Casual Eddy

TroubledTom wrote:

DarkPrimus wrote:

Casual Eddy wrote:

The poverty stricken are more likely to be obese than the rich and middle class. This tax would hit them hardest since they often turn to junk food out of convienence and relative cheapness. Doesn't seem like a good idea to tax the poor.

Also, the poor are more likely to eat at cheap places like McDonald's than those with more money- and more often, too.

Yeah, this might work better in places where our junk food is considered a delicacy. For the U.S. it might be a better idea to give tax breaks to manufacturers of healthy food.

:^:

That sounds like a much better idea, especially in school cafeterias.

desperaterobots

real_pochacco wrote:

Though, I don't know. How closely connected are junk foods and cigs? Because I can really get behind sin taxes for cigs, even if they do overimpact the poor, because, well, people need to fucking quit. If you don't want to quit, that's fine, but you'll have to pay out the ass for it.

That depends on the motivation behind the tax I suppose. Is the smoko tax supposed to be a disincentive to smoke, or to offset the costs to the health system? If so, the tax on junk food would be the same.

khain

DarkPrimus wrote:

Casual Eddy wrote:

The poverty stricken are more likely to be obese than the rich and middle class. This tax would hit them hardest since they often turn to junk food out of convienence and relative cheapness. Doesn't seem like a good idea to tax the poor.

Also, the poor are more likely to eat at cheap places like McDonald's than those with more money- and more often, too.

This seems weird to me. Its a lot cheaper to go to the grocery store and buy food and then make it compared to eating out pretty much anywhere. I would think the poor who are already strapped for cash would pursue this and it would be pretty much the middle class eating fast food..

real_pochacco wrote:

Though, I don't know. How closely connected are junk foods and cigs? Because I can really get behind sin taxes for cigs, even if they do overimpact the poor, because, well, people need to fucking quit. If you don't want to quit, that's fine, but you'll have to pay out the ass for it.

I think your reason for the tax is terrible. We shouldn't put a tax on items we feel are bad or that we want people to quit. At the very most we should put a tax on them if the tax is going to directly fund any healthcare costs associated with the problem.

mcc

khain wrote:

DarkPrimus wrote:

Casual Eddy wrote:

The poverty stricken are more likely to be obese than the rich and middle class. This tax would hit them hardest since they often turn to junk food out of convienence and relative cheapness. Doesn't seem like a good idea to tax the poor.

Also, the poor are more likely to eat at cheap places like McDonald's than those with more money- and more often, too.

This seems weird to me. Its a lot cheaper to go to the grocery store and buy food and then make it compared to eating out pretty much anywhere. I would think the poor who are already strapped for cash would pursue this and it would be pretty much the middle class eating fast food..

I think perhaps part of the problem here is that if you're working multiple part time jobs to make ends meet, you really are not going to have the spare time or energy to do a lot of cooking.

Less

If you shop at food4less or some similar chain you can get cheaper food than you can at a fast food place. If one was so inclined, they could probably eat microwave dinners (and similarly convenient foods) and get slightly more nutrition then they would at a fast food joint while spending slightly less money then they would at a fast food joint.

My only amendment to this idea is to just poor the money into the national debt for a few years rather than some sort of government funded health initiative.

mcc

Less wrote:

If you shop at food4less or some similar chain you can get cheaper food than you can at a fast food place. If one was so inclined, they could probably eat microwave dinners (and similarly convenient foods) and get slightly more nutrition then they would at a fast food joint while spending slightly less money then they would at a fast food joint.

Given what's in a lot of those microwave dinners, is that really going to save you from the tax?

Professor Daube said it wasn't rocket science to work out which products should be subject to the junk food tax. It would be based on levels of fat, trans fat, sugar and salt.

Janson

khain wrote:

DarkPrimus wrote:

Casual Eddy wrote:

The poverty stricken are more likely to be obese than the rich and middle class. This tax would hit them hardest since they often turn to junk food out of convienence and relative cheapness. Doesn't seem like a good idea to tax the poor.

Also, the poor are more likely to eat at cheap places like McDonald's than those with more money- and more often, too.

This seems weird to me. Its a lot cheaper to go to the grocery store and buy food and then make it compared to eating out pretty much anywhere. I would think the poor who are already strapped for cash would pursue this and it would be pretty much the middle class eating fast food..

You'd think so...but most people's personal experiences, anecdotal evidence and, I believe (but don't have sources for) surveys/research suggest otherwise.

As mcc says, one reason is that people working long hours or people with large families often find it more convenient to buy ready-made meals, and what with special deals and seemingly low prices, most people don't stop to work out the cost of fast foods vs. buying large packets of rice/pasta/vegetables and making their own meals.

Another reason is image. People with money/time to spare like to demonstrate that they can cook good meals and buy the freshest ingredients. Supermarkets here are doing fantastically off premium-priced organic food ranges and healthy food labels. I'm not saying that people are consciously showing off, just that buying these foods can make them feel better about themselves. I know I do it quite often.

The general populace in the UK (and I'm sure in your country too) often grumble about how people on welfare/benefits/with low-paying jobs always seem to be able to afford a widescreen TV and other fancy electronic goods. Sometimes, whilst people with larger incomes are paying off mortgages, building up savings and pensions and going on exotic holidays, it can work out that people with low/no incomes can sometimes end up with more actual disposable cash. Hey, it works for students, too - how many students go out drinking and end up buying kebabs on the way home and own fancy computers and DVDs yet have next to no money for anything else? It's about priorities.

Personally, I know that the only smokers I knew growing up were people on really low incomes/benefits. Two of the heaviest smokers were friends who were single mothers in council houses. If they could afford cigarettes (which I'm sure must have cost them at least £40 a week) I'm sure other people can afford junk food.

tbloxham

Taxing the food isnt the solution, you can eat the food and feel no negative health effects provided you have a balanced diet and do plenty of exercise. Taxing the food will also tax people who arent even part of the obesity problem, unlike taxing cigarretes since smoking cigarettes is always bad for you.

The solution is to tax the obese directly. Starting this summer announce that everyone who still qualifies as obese by next summer and who is physically capable of exercise and not subject to some kind of wierd genetic condition will pay a 0.5% higher rate of income tax.

Starting the next summer everyone will be eligable for this tax, the way to get out of it is to go to your local doctor and undertake a health check (which would be paid for by the increased taxes raised by this program). Passing the check would allow you to be exempt from the tax for 5 years, at which point youd need to take the test again. If you failed the test you could retake it after 3 months had passed, and as soon as you can pass it you stop paying the tax.

The finances raised from this tax would be spent on three things

i) paying for the health costs of obesity
ii) covering the costs of the health checks
iii) Encouraging healthy food choices etc.

This way we actively reward people who are healthy,

Less

mcc wrote:

Given what's in a lot of those microwave dinners, is that really going to save you from the tax?

The ones in the green boxes are actually pretty healthy. One of my college jobs was at a super market; there are a number of healthy, cheap, convenient foods available.

DarkPrimus

I have to say, I get really angry when I'm at work and see people at the supermarket who are so fat that they have to use our powered carts to get around the store.

If you are so obese that you can't handle walking around for twenty minutes, then you have a weight problem, and no, it's not genetic.

mcc

Less wrote:

mcc wrote:

Given what's in a lot of those microwave dinners, is that really going to save you from the tax?

The ones in the green boxes are actually pretty healthy. One of my college jobs was at a super market; there are a number of cheap convenient foods available.

The green ink is just healthier, I guess?

I eat these "banquet" tv dinners every single day because i can eat them at work and they're all I can afford right now. I'm about 90% certain they are slowly killing me. They're in red boxes, so I guess I'm screwed.

Kaenneth

It really is cheaper nowdays to survive on junk food than on healthy food.

I'll stick by the blanket rule, that increased government interferance is generally worse than better.

For example, I recall my state was considering taxing candy.

But then the local Wheat farmers argued, that Cookies should not be taxed, as they contain wheat.

But, some candy, such as Kit-Kat's and Twix contain cookies... should they be taxed or not?

what about when I buy an assortment box of candy, which contains some kit kats, some peanut butter cups, and some plain chocolate? what if I lived in a state with Peanut farms instead of Wheat farms? what if the Wheat in kit-kat's is not grown in my state? What if the bill has a signing statement that 'This administration interprets this bill to not include jelly beans as candy' (sorry)

What if (more likely) what is accepted as dietary 'fact' this decade will be completely changed in a few years? Are you getting your daily allowance of zombie repellant?

Less

mcc wrote:

The green ink is just healthier, I guess?

I eat these "banquet" tv dinners every single day because i can eat them at work and they're all I can afford right now. I'm about 90% certain they are slowly killing me. They're in red boxes, so I guess I'm screwed.

I think they're called Healthy Harvest or Healthy Choice. Not really that hard to pick out. And I wasn't just talking about microwave dinners, God forbid someone pick up a piece of fruit or make themselves a sandwich.

mcc

Kaenneth wrote:

What if (more likely) what is accepted as dietary 'fact' this decade will be completely changed in a few years? Are you getting your daily allowance of zombie repellant?

I think there's only so much things could change.

Incidentally, I feel compelled to link this for no reason.

desperaterobots

mcc wrote:

Kaenneth wrote:

What if (more likely) what is accepted as dietary 'fact' this decade will be completely changed in a few years? Are you getting your daily allowance of zombie repellant?

I think there's only so much things could change.

Incidentally, I feel compelled to link this for no reason.

Holy shits!

I'm interested to know what's contributed to this huge rise in fattydom. Computers? Let's just tax computers.

mcc

desperaterobots wrote:

mcc wrote:

Kaenneth wrote:

What if (more likely) what is accepted as dietary 'fact' this decade will be completely changed in a few years? Are you getting your daily allowance of zombie repellant?

I think there's only so much things could change.

Incidentally, I feel compelled to link this for no reason.

Holy shits!

I'm interested to know what's contributed to this huge rise in fattydom. Computers? Let's just tax computers.

The problems start in 1985. 1985 was also the year Whitney Houston's debut album was released. Draw your own conclusions.

Gorak

tbloxham wrote:

The solution is to tax the obese directly. Starting this summer announce that everyone who still qualifies as obese by next summer and who is physically capable of exercise and not subject to some kind of wierd genetic condition will pay a 0.5% higher rate of income tax.

Couldn't this be tied into some kind of Carbon Credits emissions trading scheme as well since fatties require more energy to move around.

mcc

Gorak wrote:

tbloxham wrote:

The solution is to tax the obese directly. Starting this summer announce that everyone who still qualifies as obese by next summer and who is physically capable of exercise and not subject to some kind of wierd genetic condition will pay a 0.5% higher rate of income tax.

Couldn't this be tied into some kind of Carbon Credits emissions trading scheme as well since fatties require more energy to move around.

Brilliant.

itylus

Kaenneth wrote:

It really is cheaper nowdays to survive on junk food than on healthy food.

I'll stick by the blanket rule, that increased government interferance is generally worse than better.

For example, I recall my state was considering taxing candy.

But then the local Wheat farmers argued, that Cookies should not be taxed, as they contain wheat.

But, some candy, such as Kit-Kat's and Twix contain cookies... should they be taxed or not?

what about when I buy an assortment box of candy, which contains some kit kats, some peanut butter cups, and some plain chocolate? what if I lived in a state with Peanut farms instead of Wheat farms? what if the Wheat in kit-kat's is not grown in my state? What if the bill has a signing statement that 'This administration interprets this bill to not include jelly beans as candy' (sorry)

What if (more likely) what is accepted as dietary 'fact' this decade will be completely changed in a few years? Are you getting your daily allowance of zombie repellant?

Rather than exemptions for things with wheat in them or whatever, just have a tax on things which contain above a certain % of salt, sugar, and fat. Of course there are all kinds of ways in which special interest groups can mess these things up, but the idea should be to work out if it's possible to have a good system.


My view: as I've said before, I believe in Pigouvian taxation. If consuming a good has externalities which are not paid for by the producer or consumer, then not having a tax on that good is effectively a subsidy for harmful behaviour.

fireside

DarkPrimus wrote:

I have to say, I get really angry when I'm at work and see people at the supermarket who are so fat that they have to use our powered carts to get around the store.

If you are so obese that you can't handle walking around for twenty minutes, then you have a weight problem, and no, it's not genetic.

It's also making you fatter. You damn fatties, walk around some, maybe you'll lose some weight. Or maybe not, since you think a balanced diet consists of an entire package of Oreos.

desperaterobots

itylus wrote:

Kaenneth wrote:

It really is cheaper nowdays to survive on junk food than on healthy food.

I'll stick by the blanket rule, that increased government interferance is generally worse than better.

For example, I recall my state was considering taxing candy.

But then the local Wheat farmers argued, that Cookies should not be taxed, as they contain wheat.

But, some candy, such as Kit-Kat's and Twix contain cookies... should they be taxed or not?

what about when I buy an assortment box of candy, which contains some kit kats, some peanut butter cups, and some plain chocolate? what if I lived in a state with Peanut farms instead of Wheat farms? what if the Wheat in kit-kat's is not grown in my state? What if the bill has a signing statement that 'This administration interprets this bill to not include jelly beans as candy' (sorry)

What if (more likely) what is accepted as dietary 'fact' this decade will be completely changed in a few years? Are you getting your daily allowance of zombie repellant?

Rather than exemptions for things with wheat in them or whatever, just have a tax on things which contain above a certain % of salt, sugar, and fat. Of course there are all kinds of ways in which special interest groups can mess these things up, but the idea should be to work out if it's possible to have a good system.


My view: as I've said before, I believe in Pigouvian taxation. If consuming a good has externalities which are not paid for by the producer or consumer, then not having a tax on that good is effectively a subsidy for harmful behaviour.

What about really good cheese? Would that be taxed? I doubt it's contributing to the fatty epidemic to any great degree. Except amongst, I don't know, the coveted aristocrat and opera singer market. But if fat and salt percentage matter, maybe low fat/low salt cheese would experience a boom. CHALKY GOODNESS FOR ALL!

I think what bothers me most about the article is the idea that THIS IS THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO TO PROVE WE ARE SERIOUS ACID TEST YES. Why not give tax breaks to fatties who lose weight?

tbloxham

mcc wrote:

Gorak wrote:

tbloxham wrote:

The solution is to tax the obese directly. Starting this summer announce that everyone who still qualifies as obese by next summer and who is physically capable of exercise and not subject to some kind of wierd genetic condition will pay a 0.5% higher rate of income tax.

Couldn't this be tied into some kind of Carbon Credits emissions trading scheme as well since fatties require more energy to move around.

Brilliant.

You will have already paid your carbon tax on the food, since I believe in the EU food is already subject to emmissions trading.

Torgo

desperaterobots wrote:

I think what bothers me most about the article is the idea that THIS IS THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO TO PROVE WE ARE SERIOUS ACID TEST YES. Why not give tax breaks to fatties who lose weight?

Lisa: I'll stop buying Malibu Stacey clothing.

Bart: And I'll take up smoking and give that up.

Homer: Good for you, son. Giving up smoking is one of the hardest things you'll ever have to do. Have a dollar. [gives a dollar bill to Bart]

Lisa: But he didn't do anything!

Homer: Didn't he, Lisa? Didn't he?

Meiz

The only difference I see in cigarettes vs fast food is the fact that kids can go out and buy a Big Mac without id. I think it's a novel idea, I just hope that the money they generate goes towards educating and bettering the health of the general population.

I'd also kill for a healthy fast-food store as I'm guilty of that sinful pleasure. Sitting in a chair for a career doesn't help that cause either.

Gorak

tbloxham wrote:

mcc wrote:

Gorak wrote:

tbloxham wrote:

The solution is to tax the obese directly. Starting this summer announce that everyone who still qualifies as obese by next summer and who is physically capable of exercise and not subject to some kind of wierd genetic condition will pay a 0.5% higher rate of income tax.

Couldn't this be tied into some kind of Carbon Credits emissions trading scheme as well since fatties require more energy to move around.

Brilliant.

You will have already paid your carbon tax on the food, since I believe in the EU food is already subject to emmissions trading.

But with my plan you could link it with mass transport costs as well. When you buy a train ticket you stand on a pressure sensitive pad that adds a surcharge to the ticket depending on how much you exceed the national average weight or areduction if you're below it.

The added bonus here is that it could also catch those lanky bastards that take up all of the leg room. Not only do I save money on my train fares, but I get more space to boot.

tbloxham

Gorak wrote:

tbloxham wrote:

mcc wrote:

Gorak wrote:

tbloxham wrote:

The solution is to tax the obese directly. Starting this summer announce that everyone who still qualifies as obese by next summer and who is physically capable of exercise and not subject to some kind of wierd genetic condition will pay a 0.5% higher rate of income tax.

Couldn't this be tied into some kind of Carbon Credits emissions trading scheme as well since fatties require more energy to move around.

Brilliant.

You will have already paid your carbon tax on the food, since I believe in the EU food is already subject to emmissions trading.

But with my plan you could link it with mass transport costs as well. When you buy a train ticket you stand on a pressure sensitive pad that adds a surcharge to the ticket depending on how much you exceed the national average weight or areduction if you're below it.

The added bonus here is that it could also catch those lanky bastards that take up all of the leg room. Not only do I save money on my train fares, but I get more space to boot.

Devious.

Irond Will

I think I've become more favorable in general to paternalistic legislation when it comes to good or poor economic decisions, and this spills over in part to health. If MacDonalds had a financial incentive to provide healthful food to consumers at a reasonable cost, we'd have a healthier populace in general. I mean - this goes beyond MacDonalds, and I acknowledge that there's a balance here, but in and of itself, it doesn't seem abhorrant to me that the government would take some initiative in creating legislation that will have a positive effect on the health of its citizens and reduce the social costs associated with this.

Oboro

Start a multi-pronged campaign to promote sexual intercourse and also to prove overweight people provide a jolly-good experience in bed.

I mean, isn't sex supposed to be great exercise? Let's all just have sex.

That is tongue-in-cheek, by the way.

Has it been mentioned anywhere where the money from this hypothetical tax would go? I'd sort of like to know that before I dismiss it entirely as a "feel-good" sin tax.

werehippy

I'm not sure why this is causing any kind of a ruckus, since it's the most fundamentally simple economic incentive possible. You make a bad behavior less appealing by making it cost more, with the added bonus that it generates significant revenue that can be used to fight the side effects of the bad behavior (and if you don't think there has and will continue to be enormous healthcare costs associated with rising obesity, you just aren't familiar with the situation).

The fact that the poor are those most likely to be obese and most likely to be deterred by this tax isn't a reason to object, it's the best reason to embrace the tax. You WANT the people most likely to change their behavior based on your actions to be the segment of the population most in need of that change. And not only will this benefit the people, bit with a huge population used to fast food and a market for healthy fast food, it'd be extremely unusual to not see either a company come in and start providing health take-out alternatives, or for the current chains to not retool their menus.

Really, a well applied sin tax is win/win on every level.

Irond Will

Oboro wrote:

Has it been mentioned anywhere where the money from this hypothetical tax would go? I'd sort of like to know that before I dismiss it entirely as a "feel-good" sin tax.

It doesn't really matter. All taxes really end up going to the same place.

ElJeffe

Kaenneth wrote:

It really is cheaper nowdays to survive on junk food than on healthy food.

No, it really isn't. At all. The very cheapest things you can find are vegetables in the produce section, rice, beans, potatoes, and things like that. If you want meat, chicken can be found for about $3/lb if you hunt for good sales, and a pound of chicken is enough for two days worth of meat. Generic cereal is a couple bucks a box, and milk is fairly cheap.

It's only cheaper to survive on junk food if you're too fucking lazy to cook your own meals. Today, my food intake will consist of a bowl of cereal (maybe 50 cents, and that's estimating high), a peanut butter sandwich (another 50 cents), some yogurt (55 cents), an apple (75 cents), and for dinner, probably a grilled porkchop ($1.50), some broccoli (previously frozen, so about 40 cents; it'd be cheaper if I got fresh), and some red potatoes sauted in a little olive oil with some salt and basil (maybe 50 cents total). Fairly healthy, and the cost of an entire day's worth of food is under $5, and it's not like I'm subsisting on rice and water.

Eating well is extremely affordable.

That said, fuck this tax. Then again, fuck government-funded health care, so there you go.

stuckpixel

What needs to happen, is exactly what another posted said here. Healthy fast-food.

Lets face it, a rather LARGE portion of the problem is because of fast food. I don't think the answer is necessarily to tax the establishments already in place, but perhaps the answer would be to provide incentives to companies to become a completely healthy choice.

There's plenty of food that isn't awful for you that's relatively cheap and quick to make. The problem is no one is doing that because they can make an extra 5 cents profit per burger/taco/burrito/pile of crap if they make it with the shitty stuff.

Provide enough of an incentive and people will flock to doing things the healthy way.

Irond Will

ElJeffe wrote:

Kaenneth wrote:

It really is cheaper nowdays to survive on junk food than on healthy food.

No, it really isn't. At all. The very cheapest things you can find are vegetables in the produce section, rice, beans, potatoes, and things like that. If you want meat, chicken can be found for about $3/lb if you hunt for good sales, and a pound of chicken is enough for two days worth of meat. Generic cereal is a couple bucks a box, and milk is fairly cheap.

It's only cheaper to survive on junk food if you're too fucking lazy to cook your own meals. Today, my food intake will consist of a bowl of cereal (maybe 50 cents, and that's estimating high), a peanut butter sandwich (another 50 cents), some yogurt (55 cents), an apple (75 cents), and for dinner, probably a grilled porkchop ($1.50), some broccoli (previously frozen, so about 40 cents; it'd be cheaper if I got fresh), and some red potatoes sauted in a little olive oil with some salt and basil (maybe 50 cents total). Fairly healthy, and the cost of an entire day's worth of food is under $5, and it's not like I'm subsisting on rice and water.

Eating well is extremely affordable.

That said, fuck this tax. Then again, fuck government-funded health care, so there you go.

Calculate the cost of your meals with your hourly labor cost added in. I mean, it's not exactly accurate because you couldn't necessarily be otherwise using that time to make money, and you could view the time spent as recreation, but it's a reasonable consideration.

Also, even assuming there were no governmental regulation or investment in health care, your insurance is heavily heavily effected by people making terrible health decisions - probably at a greater cost to you than the effect to your taxes earmarked for medicare, especially if you factor in overstressed health providers.

Also, public health problems affect the economy as a whole - early death, disability and illness decline the tax base and make your share more expensive.

All this, of course, is a way of saying that economic individualist absolutism simply misses the mark by a lot in our society, and probably in every society.